Commons Sitting of 4 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
  As amended, considered.
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Aberdeen Corporation (to be proceeded with under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act), presented by Mr. J. Stuart; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12th July and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    War Pensions
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware of the difficulty to applicants for disability pensions for total blindness caused traumatically, for disseminated sclerosis, for Parkinson's disease, for gastric and duodenal ulcers, and for tuberculosis, and other seriously disabling afflictions incurred during war service by men previously physically fit because, owing to differing medical views as to the origin of these afflictions, it is almost impossible to discharge the onus of proof; and what steps he proposes to take.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): No, Sir. Out of about 360,000 pensions for the last world war 75,000 are in payment for the disabilities mentioned by the hon. Member, and I can assure him that cases are dealt with as generously as possible.
    Mr. Hale: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that he has had from me and from other hon. Members case after case of men who joined the forces physically fit and have been discharged totally and permanently crippled by illnesses of this kind and have been told that they failed to discharge the onus upon them of establishing that the illnesses were due to war service? As there is no way of knowing this and as discharge of the onus of proof depends entirely upon the whim of individual doctors and their views, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, which is important?
    Mr. Peake: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that the position of these applicants is safeguarded by the fact that we have established the pensions appeals tribunals and that from them appeals lie to the High Court on these difficult disease questions. Within the rulings given by the High Court the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance interprets the rules as generously as it possibly can.
    Mr. Fell: Will my right hon. Friend consider this matter a little bit more? I

    743
    know of cases in which correspondence with the Ministry of Pensions has lasted for two years. There are cases about which nobody is ever satisfied, certainly the case of which I am thinking. It was quite impossible for the Ministry to satisfy me on that case, and still less the person concerned, although it tried very hard.
    Mr. Peake: Of course, I am always prepared and anxious to look into any individual case that any hon. Member cares to send me, but I believe that the arrangements we have in force are the best that it is possible to devise in the interests of the people concerned.
    Mr. Hale: Although the right hon. Gentleman says that he will look into any individual case, is it not a fact that his reply invariably is that he has no power to interfere with decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal? Is it not also the case that appeal to the High Court lies only on questions of law and not of fact? If there were an appeal on fact, the position would be different?
    Mr. Peake: On questions relating to diseases such as Parkinson's disease and disseminated sclerosis, we are bound by rulings of the High Court, which has gone very carefully into the whole aspect of this question.
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the reasons for the fall during 1954 of 2,000 in the number of supplementary allowances to war disability pensioners.
    Mr. Peake: Some 6,600 new awards of the main supplementary allowances were made during 1954, but about 5,400 allowances were terminated because of changes in the pensioners' circumstances and about 3,200 ceased owing to deaths. The ratio of the supplementary allowances in payment to the total number of disablement pensioners remained about the same.
    Mr. Simmons: Does this represent an average reduction in the amount over a period of years?
    Mr. Peake: I should have to look into that, but the hon. Member will be reassured to see that the number of new grants exceeds the number of terminations.
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many of the 12,000 war pensioners whose pensions were discontinued during 1954, have appealed, or are in process of appealing, against the decision of his Department.
    Mr. Peake: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Simmons: Does this indicate a return of the old, bad practice followed after the 1914–18 war when pensioners were sent before tribunals to have their pensions cut down? Twelve thousand pensions discontinued during 1954 seems rather a big figure.
    Mr. Peake: I am glad to say that about 2,000 of the terminations were due to the complete recovery of the individuals concerned. The remainder occurred in the ordinary course of events which means, as the hon. Members knows, that in cases where the disablement is assessed at less than 20 per cent., terminal awards are made, or, alternatively, there is a gratuity.

    National Insurance Acts
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will set up a Departmental committee to consider and report on anomalies arising out of the administration of the National Insurance Acts.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has for examining and dealing with the various anomalies in the administration of the National Insurance Acts.
    Mr. Peake: I do not know precisely what the hon. Members have in mind when they refer to "anomalies" but, as I explained in the debate on the Address on 14th June, I have referred a number of questions relating to the operation of the Acts to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for examination and advice.
    Mr. Hale: Is not the Minister aware that the anomalies to which we refer are contained in the thousands of letters he has written to hon. Members of this House, saying that he regrets that he cannot interfere in what appear to be appropriate cases because the Act or the Regulations do not give him power to

    745
    do so. Ought not this very wide range of subjects to come under consideration by the Committee?
    Mr. Peake: It is because reviews have been promised on a number of occasions that the National Insurance Advisory Committee is now looking into five very large groups of questions in connection with this scheme. The hon. Member will have an opportunity, when that review is completed, of suggesting any further points which he wants us to look into. There is very little doubt that legislation amending the scheme will follow upon the reports of the Advisory Committee.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the numbers of anomalies that have been brought to his notice on various occasions? Perhaps he remembers the last debate of about three weeks ago, when I asked him about an ineducable child for which there was no family allowance? He was sympathetic about that, and I think he was sympathetic to many others. All that my hon. Friend is asking for is a short amending Bill, of which I think the right hon. Gentleman has given a half-promise on many occasions.
    Mr. Peake: The question of handicapped children does not come under the National Insurance Scheme but under the Family Allowances Act, and legislation is promised and will be presented in due course to deal with that point.

    Old-Age Pensioners
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the high cost of living has placed large numbers of old-age pensioners below the poverty line; and what are his plans to relieve their position.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. Retirement pensions went up in April to rates higher in real value than ever before. If any pensioner is in need, he can, of course, apply to the National Assistance Board for supplementation.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that this arises from new circumstances due to the increase in the cost of living, and that it ought not to be beyond the wit even of the present Government to make some attempt to relieve these people? Can the Minister do nothing about it?
    Mr. Peake: Since the new rates of pensions and of National Assistance were recommended and put before the House in December last, the cost of living has risen by rather less than one per cent.

    National Assistance
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how far the recent increase of 4s. per week for a married couple in the supplementary allowances payable by the National Assistance Board was based upon detailed computations made by the Board and by his Department in which the special needs of pensioners only were taken into consideration; how far it was based upon the cost-of-living index; and whether he will place all relevant documents in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Peake: The Board informs me that it took into consideration all available information which seemed to have a bearing on the requirements of pensioners and other people receiving assistance. Since National Assistance started in July, 1948, the Interim Index of Retail Prices has risen by 36 per cent., whereas the scale rate for a married couple has been increased by 57 per cent. On each occasion when draft regulations containing proposals for increased scales have been submitted, they have been accompanied by an explanatory memorandum which I have presented to Parliament as a White Paper.
    Mr. Hale: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is telling the House that the Board has a method of computation of the cost of living which does not rely on the cost-of-living index but on calculations of its own, and that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to disclose to hon. Members what the basis of that computation is, or to place figures in the Library so that they can be checked?
    Mr. Peake: No Government has ever stated how the National Assistance Board calculates the requirements upon which its scales are founded, and that goes for the Socialist Government, as indeed it does for this Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not start?"] When hon. Members say "Why not start?", the short answer is that the Board thinks it would be quite impossible to compile a notional cost-of-living index which would

    747
    meet the needs and requirements of the many different classes of persons for whom it has to provide.

    Earnings Rule
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the necessity of encouraging the employment, without regard to age, of all who can give effective service and wish to do so, if he will give consideration as soon as possible to raising from £2 to £3 per week the earning limit of pensioners.
    Mr. Peake: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 20th June.
    Mr. Harris: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative Party, in its Election manifesto, said it would encourage people to go on working voluntarily after reaching retirement age? What plans have the Government made for encouraging people to go on working after reaching retirement age, and what more effective way of doing it is there than by raising the earnings limit?
    Mr. Peake: We do encourage people to go on working beyond retirement age by giving very substantial increments to the pensions to those who defer retirement beyond the minimum age. So far as the earnings rule is concerned, I would remind the hon. Member of the danger that, if the earnings limit was raised too far, it would lead to large numbers of people who are now working full-time retiring on pension and supplementing their pensions by part-time earnings.

    Discharged Prisoners
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, in view of the difficulties experienced by discharged prisoners in obtaining employment on discharge owing to the fact that their cards are unstamped, he will make arrangements to enable prisoners to maintain their contributions and have their cards stamped while serving a prison sentence.
    Mr. Peake: I have drawn the attention of the National Insurance Advisory Committee to the matter in conjunction with their general review of the contribution conditions for National Insurance benefits.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Minister recall that his Parliamentary Secretary told me that six months ago? Does he not think it is time that something was done, because it is difficult enough to deal with the rehabilitation of these discharged prisoners and this is an additional and most regrettable handicap for a person who, on discharge, wants to earn an honest living but finds himself under a handicap because of an administrative rule? Cannot the Minister do something about it?
    Mr. Peake: It is really something rather more than an administrative rule. Blank spaces on National Insurance cards are due most commonly to periods of sickness or exemption from National Insurance due to low income. Anybody is free at any time, if they are so pleased and can afford it, to place class 3 stamps on their cards at non-employed rates.
    Mr. Isaacs: Is it too much to ask the Government that the State itself might be responsible for providing these stamps for a discharged prisoner, because, otherwise, they would only be carrying on the punishment of imprisonment beyond the time when the man comes out of prison? If he goes to an employer, the fact that he has no stamps on his card discloses that he has been in prison. Surely it would not cost much for the State to put these stamps on the cards.
    Mr. Peake: This matter has been before the National Insurance Advisory Committee, and I should be very unwise to express any opinion on that proposal.
    Mr. Isaacs: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the suggestion to the Committee?

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows in receipt of the basic widows' pension of 10s. per week have to pay the new rate of insurance contribution; and how many now receive an additional National Assistance allowance in order to meet the increased contribution.
    Mr. Peake: I regret that the figure asked for in the first part of the Question is not available, but a widow receiving National Assistance would ordinarily not be paying contributions, and the question of making special additions to National Assistance allowances would not arise.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now take steps to ensure that widows of the First World War are placed on the same footing as widows of the Second World War as regards eligibility for pensions.
    Mr. Peake: In February, 1946, widows of the 1914 war were, broadly speaking, placed on the same footing as regards eligibility for pension as widows of the 1939 war, if the husband's death took place after 2nd September, 1939. The question of carrying eligibility further back than this date has been considered by previous Governments since the war but found to be impracticable. I cannot hold out any expectation of re-opening the matter at this stage.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not that answer mean that the older widows are still treated worse than the younger widows, and is it not a terrible anomaly that widows of the First World War should be treated worse than widows of the Second World War? Will the Minister take steps to remove that anomaly?
    Mr. Peake: No; what my Answer means is that to re-open cases in which death occurred before 2nd September, 1939, would raise a great many hopes which would subsequently be doomed to be disappointed on account of the difficulty, after this lapse of time, of proving that a man's death was due to service in the First World War.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows in Accrington are drawing pensions at the 10s. per week rate.
    Mr. Peake: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister devise some machinery for giving hon. Members this information, because we are receiving correspondence about it and it would be useful if hon. Members had an idea of the size of this exceptional problem?
    Mr. Peake: The reason why I cannot give the figures for particular places is based on the fact that our records are kept centrally. There are about 155,000 of these 10s. widows altogether, and if Accrington is an average sort of place, and if the hon. Gentleman divides that number by the number of constituencies
    750
    represented in this House, he will get an approximate idea.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does the Minister recall that, during a recent debate, he was asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House to expedite consideration of the position of these 10s. widows, and was also asked if he would communicate the views of the House to the National Insurance Advisory Committee? Has he done that?
    Mr. Peake: There is a subsequent Question on the Order Paper dealing with that matter. This Question is limited to the 10s. widows in Accrington.
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he can now say when he expects the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the subject of the 10s. widows pension.
    Mr. Peake: This subject is part of a wider review which the Advisory Committee has been asked to make of all the dependency provisions of the National Insurance Scheme. I do not anticipate that their Report will be available before the Summer Recess.
    Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps I may ask this as a supplementary to my Question about the Accrington widows. The Minister will recall that he has been asked time after time to do this. It is perfectly simple. He can ask the National Insurance Advisory Committee to give priority to this matter. Every hon. Member, on both sides I think, receives letters from representatives of this particular category of widow. Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little sympathetic and to do this immediately?
    Mr. Peake: This problem of the 10s. widow is part of the very large question of the set-up of widows' benefits which we adopted in 1946. The Advisory Committee is looking into it. I think it is very important that it should not be hustled or hurried over its Report, particularly as there is no hardship at the present time amongst this class of widow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A much smaller proportion of 10s. widows has to seek National Assistance than has any other class of National Insurance beneficiaries. About 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of these widows are in full employment and earning good wages.

    Fishermen, Sheringham (Unemployment Benefits)
    Mr. Goochasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is now in a position to give a reply to Sheringham, Norfolk, fishermen, who, in a letter forwarded to him by the honourable Member for North Norfolk last February, complained of being disallowed unemployment benefit and placed in the seasonal workers' class, because of inability to go whelk fishing in the winter months owing to the firing from the Weybourne School of Gunnery.
    Mr. Peake: I hope to be able to reply to the hon. Member shortly.
    Mr. Gooch: Does the Minster appreciate that this matter has been hanging fire for a long time? Is he not aware that the fishermen in Sheringham were prevented from following their lawful occupations by the action of the War Office, and will be attend to it?
    Mr. Peake: The case of these fishermen is before the Commissioner at the present time, and I hope to inform the hon. Member of the result very shortly. Like him, I am a little disappointed that we have not had a decision sooner.

    Overlapping Benefits (Industrial Injuries)
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will consider amending Section 30, Regulation 2, of the National Insurance (Overlapping Benefits) Regulation, 1948, Statutory Instrument, 1948, No. 2711, so that a person over 70 years of age, who having been at work and who has been paying his Industrial Benefit contribution will not find that his retirement pension becomes forfeit because he happened to be injured at work.
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. The rules about the non-duplication of benefits were very carefully considered when the National Insurance Schemes were introduced, and I am not aware of any justification for their alteration upon this point.

    Welfare Officers (War Pensioners)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many full-time welfare officers were employed by his Department at the date of the merger; and what number of such
    752
    officers are now employed to deal exclusively with the problems of war pensioners and their dependants.
    Mr. Peake: At the date of the merger, 83 full-time war pensions welfare officers were employed by my Department. There are now 71 such officers employed to deal exclusively with the problems of war pensioners and their dependants.
    Mr. Simmons: Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this magnificent service to the war pensioners is maintained at the fullest possible strength? It is the one human link between the Ministry and the people it serves. Will he assure the House that there will be no cutting down of welfare?
    Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. I am quite determined that the welfare services of my Ministry will be fully maintained. The small decline in the number of welfare officers is due mainly to the fact that, as a much wider network of offices is now available to the war pensioners, they can get information much more easily than before the merger of the Ministries.

    Contributions and Benefits
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if his Advisory Committee has reached any further conclusions on the treatment for insurance purposes of self-employed people and people with small incomes.
    Mr. Peake: The National Insurance Advisory Committee's Report on the liability for contributions of persons with small incomes was laid before the House in April, and its recommendations have since been embodied in legislation. I hope for further advice about the treatment of part-time workers whose total income is small when, as I recently asked the Committee to do, it has reviewed the contribution position of part-time workers in general. The insurance of self-employed persons is not, as such, before the Committee.
    Mr. Grimond: Does that answer mean that the question of the insurance of self-employed persons is not to be laid before the Committee at all? Secondly, when may we expect the Report on the part-time workers?
    Mr. Peake: With regard to the latter part of the Question, I could not say exactly when we shall get the Report on

    753
    the part-time workers. So far as the self-employed are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will, I hope, recall that the National Insurance Act of 1954 did give the self-employed persons a much fairer and squarer deal, both as to contributions and benefits, than they had ever had before. If the hon. Member has any further suggestions to make about self-employed persons under the Scheme, I shall be happy to take them into consideration.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Gas Industry (Medical Services)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consultations he has had with the Gas Council in the past 12 months concerning the appointment of full-time medical staffs by the area boards; and what progress has been made towards a comprehensive medical service for the gas industry.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My Department and the Ministry of Labour medical inspectors of factories are in close touch with the gas industry. Nine of the twelve gas boards now have full-time medical officers and two have appointed medical consultants.
    Mr. Swingler: I thank the Minister for what he has done to help forward the Gas Council and the gas boards towards the establishment of a medical service, but is he satisfied that there is in existence a medical service for the gas workers which is as comprehensive as possible?
    Mr. Lloyd: In the technical form in which the hon. Member has put it, that Question is actually a matter for the Minister of Labour, but I am satisfied that very considerable progress has been made. The only gas board that has not a full-time consultant or medical officer is the Wales Gas Board, where, for geographical reasons—the separation by mountains and so on—the Board thinks it better to reply on local practitioners. I think that the Board is right in this.

  COAL

    Mining Subsidence
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power his estimate of the annual cost of putting into effect the proposals contained in the Turner Report on Mining Subsidence.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I cannot at present add to the previous answers which the hon. Member has been given on this subject, but this whole problem is now being re-examined.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous answers were totally unsatisfactory and almost completely sterile? In fact, no estimate was given. Is the Minister unable to add to what the Turner Committee did in 1949, when it made an estimate of what the victims of mining subsidence were suffering financially? Cannot we have an estimate today to show the measure of the problem which the Minister has to solve?
    Mr. Lloyd: As the hon. Member knows, this is an exceedingly complicated problem, and I have said that it is being examined.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what consultations he has had with the National Coal Board on the proposals contained in the Turner Report on Mining Subsidence; and what was the date of his latest meeting with the Board's representatives.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Consultations have been going on for some weeks and are not yet finished.

    Carbonising Industries
    Mr. Farey-Jonesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much additional coal has been allocated to the carbonising industries for the next two years, compared with 1954; and how much additional coke is expected to be produced thereby.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Allocations are on a six-monthly basis, and for this summer the carbonising industries have been allocated 3 million tons more than dispatches in the summer of last year: this should produce nearly 1½ million tons more coke.

    Summer Prices Scheme
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider extending the period of time in which house coal can be purchased at summer prices in view of delivery delays resulting from the recent rail strike.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I appreciate my hon. Friend's intention, but the summer

    755
    prices scheme already extends until the late autumn, so that there is still time for deliveries to be made at rates favourable to the consumer.

    Imports
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what arrangements are being made about the shipment of coal which is to be imported into Britain.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: All such arrangements are made by the National Coal Board through commercial channels.
    Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that none of the shipments will be the subject of any fifty-fifty agreement or any other flag discrimination by the country of sale?
    Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the commercial purchases of coal, that is certainly the case, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there was a special arrangement by which American coal was obtained for sterling under an agreement with the American Government, and in this case a different condition obtained.
    Mr. Williams: In which case there will be no possibility of flag discrimination whatsoever in this case?
    Mr. Lloyd: Not with regard to the commercial purchasing of coal.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Cannot the difficulties be surmounted by not importing coal at all? If the Minister wants to know how to avoid importing coal, I can tell him about it afterwards.
    Mr. Bottomley: Are not British shipping interests suffering because of the import of coal from the United States and ought not the Minister to make representations on behalf of British shipping?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a different matter which falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the approximate cost of importing 12 million tons of coal during 1955 as compared with the total cost of coal imports during 1954.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Up to about £80 million compared with £17 million last year.
    Mr. Yates: Does that not mean that this is a very serious burden which the householders have to bear? Could the Minister not say how much the price of coal will have to be increased in order to pay for these imports?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is another Question on that subject.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is not the shortage of coal typical of every other nationalised industry—worse service at increased cost to the unfortunate public?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Could the Minister explain why we are apparently continuing to export coal at a lower price than the price which is paid for imported coal, and will he not consider restricting exports in order to reduce imports and therefore save some money?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question on that subject later.

    Stocks
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) the amount of coal to be allocated to each householder in Birmingham from the period 1st May to 30th October; how far he estimates that supplies of coal will be available to meet the allocation to all registered applicants; and when he will be in a position to indicate the prospects for next winter;
    (2) if the present level of coal stocks in Birmingham compared with the figure 12 months ago.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Allocations of house coal in Birmingham are about the same this summer as they have been for some years past, and no change is expected next winter. Information about stocks held by industrial and other consumers is not available, but on 18th June stocks of house coal in merchants' yards stood at 9,700 tons compared with 3,200 tons a year ago.
    Mr. Yates: How does the Minister square this position with the statement made in the "Coal Merchant and Shipper" on Saturday last, that in the West Midlands stocks at depôts are almost non-existent? In view of the serious position last winter in Birmingham, can the Minister say how we are to meet the situation in the coming winter, even if

    757
    old-age pensioners are making unprecedented demands at this time of the year?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think the position is that the situation is changing rapidly both because of the disturbances due to the railway strike and the efforts being made to put the situation right.
    38. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what the coal stocks are in London at present; and how they compare with the corresponding date last year.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Stocks of coal, anthracite and boiler fuel at merchants' depôts in London amounted to 81,500 tons at 18th June, 1955, compared with 100,000 tons a year ago.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not this a very serious diminution in stocks in London? What is the Minister doing about it?
    Mr. Lloyd: This diminution of stocks in London—I would not at the moment call it a serious diminution—is due quite simply to the fact that we had a devastating railway strike a few weeks ago. The Coal Board, in consultation with the merchants, is now engaged in redistributing the stocks in the country so as to bring up the stocks in the southern region, which, naturally, suffered most when the railway strike took place.

    Prices
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what changes he proposes to authorise in the domestic coal price structure, as a result of losses of £2 per ton that the National Coal Board will incur on all the imports of 12 million tons of coal this year.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The National Coal Board consider their price structure as a whole and consult the consumers' councils when material changes are proposed. Proposals will shortly be considered by the councils and I would not authorise any changes in domestic prices before considering their views.
    Mr. Nabarro: In view of the fact that the deficit of the National Coal Board is now rising at the rate of approximately £750,000 per week, and has been for some months past, on account of coal imports and other factors, would not my right hon.
    758
    Friend consider expediting the announcement of the new prices, notably in connection with households?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is primarily a matter for the National Coal Board, but I can say that the councils are considering the matter this week.
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to sell its coal in future in the United Kingdom at world prices.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board that, pending other arrangements for the financing of coal imports, losses on imported coal shall not be taken into account in the exercise of the Board's duty under Section 1 (4) (c) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, to meet outgoings out of revenue on an average of good and bad years;
    (2) whether he will take over responsibility for coal imports, after consultation with the National Coal Board, regarding the quantity required to meet deficiencies in internal supply and the prices at which the coal shall be offered for sale.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: It is the policy of the National Coal Board to base their prices on the average costs incurred in making supplies available in accordance with the first section of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. I believe this to be in accordance with the national interest at the present time, and I therefore do not propose to give general directions as the hon. Members suggest, nor to alter the arrangements under which coal is imported.
    Mr. Holt: In view particularly of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the previous Question, is that not an extraordinary statement to make? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect us to have a sane national fuel policy if one of the fuels is artificially kept below world prices; and, as industrialists and even householders daily have to make decisions upon which type of fuel burning appliance they will install, how can they do this sensibly if one of the fuels is at an uneconomic price?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that is quite true. I would like to draw the hon.

    759
    Gentleman's attention to the fact that since it is the policy of the National Coal Board to average coal prices, it also follows, and, indeed, is the fact that there are some million tons or so of coal production in this country which show a loss as big as the loss on imported coal.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the Minister's reply to my Question mean that the enormous loss on imported coal is to be borne by the mine workers, or is it to be borne by the domestic coal consumers, or both? As the Minister is answering two of my Questions, may I also ask whether this should not be accepted as a matter of national responsibility to be borne on central taxation?
    Mr. Lloyd: This amount will inevitably be borne in the end by the coal consumers of the country, and certainly not by the mine workers. I think it would be wrong that the taxpayer should subsidise the coal industry.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not about time that the National Coal Board should charge to the industry the full economic price for industrial coal? Is not the practice of selling coal below the world price and below the cost of production the main cause of the present trouble in the coal industry?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is an argument for higher prices of coal.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between the price charged for coal exported and the home price?
    Mr. Lloyd: I could not state the exact difference, but the National Coal Board loses about £2 a ton on coal imported and gains about £1 a ton on coal exported.
    Mr. Jay: Does not the Minister think there is a case for higher prices for industrial coal? Why should the Coal Board sell coal below the economic price?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Coal Board is basing its prices, in the case of both the steel industry and the British Electricity Authority, on exactly the same principles.
    Mr. Burden: In view of the very keen competition in world markets, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the absolute necessity of keeping down the cost of coal to industrial users?

    Power Stations (Oil Firing)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the progress of conversion of coal to oil firing at power stations and dual firing; how much coal will thereby be saved this year and in 1956 and 1957; and what steps he has taken to assure adequacy of oil fuel supplies for this programme, and how much extra oil fuel is involved.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Central Electricity Authority has recently announced a long term contract with one oil company and other negotiations are still in progress. Deliveries of oil will begin towards the end of this year, and it is hoped that half a million tons of coal may be saved in 1956 and up to 4 million tons in 1957. By 1960 the use of 5 million tons of oil in about 16 power stations should be saving about 8 million tons of coal. I am satisfied that these additional supplies will be available.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that a number of oil companies tendered for this important contract from the British Electricity Authority, and that the contract was placed with the lowest tenderer, notwithstanding the fact that it was an American concern? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no price ring operating among the oil companies?
    Mr. Lloyd: There certainly was evidence of strong competition, and the Central Electricity Authority did what it thought best for itself.

    Fuel Efficiency
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of imports of 12 million tons of foreign coal this year, he will give emergency advice to industry, householders and merchants in regard to increased efficiency in coal burning, substitution of oil fuel for coal, and summer stocking of coal, in an effort to alleviate hardship and loss next winter.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I welcome this opportunity of emphasising the urgent need of increased fuel efficiency, both in industry and elsewhere, and the advantage to the nation of increasing the use of oil in place of coal, but I hope to make a fuller statement on these matters at an early date.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that every week that goes by sees an increasing number of coal-consuming plants installed by British industry generally? Is it not urgently necessary that they be given guidance to switch to oil in the same way as the major coal consumer in the country, the Central Electricity Authority, is already switching in a large way?
    Mr. Lloyd: This is being gone into in a technical way by the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service all the time, but fundamentally it must be a matter for each consumer to decide in the light of his own particular requirements.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) how it is intended to finance the capital programme of the National Coal Board over the next five years; and how the Board's account stands at present with his Department and the banks; and
    (2) what is the estimated capital expenditure by the Coal Board on major productive schemes over the next five years.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Board's future capital expenditure programme is at present under review but is expected to include expenditure of about £100 million a year on collieries and associated activities. It will be financed as hitherto from the Board's internal resources and by advances from me which now amount to approximately £200 million. No borrowings have been made from the banks.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not the Minister think that this is a rather unsatisfactory method of financing a very large capital programme? Would he not consider having some examination made of the methods of providing capital for all the nationalised industries so that some comparison could be made between them and we can see how the amount placed to the coal industry compares with that to atomic energy, for instance, or to other comparable industries?
    Mr. Lloyd: I will see whether such a statement could be prepared.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would it not be a good idea, before embarking on additional capital expenditure, to know whether we
    762
    shall get a return on our capital? Is it not a fact that we are getting into an awful muddle in the coal industry and that something ought to be done about it?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would point out to my hon. Friend that in the original plan for coal it was always understood that about two-thirds of all the capital expenditure under that plan would be necessary to make up for the running out of facilities, which is inevitable in an extractive industry.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would the Minister explain how it is that we have been spending large sums on capital re-equipment for years without adequate results?
    Mr. Lloyd: In fairness to the coal industry, it must be remembered that the sinking of new mines takes up to ten years and major reconstructions of pits takes between five and eight years. The results which we are now getting therefore depend fundamentally on the capital expenditure on major reconstructions which took place seven or eight years ago. We have increased the rate of capital expenditure nearly three-fold since we came into office, but we shall not get the benefit of that until a number of years have passed.
    Mr. B. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that output at the face and overall output in 1954 continued to increase and that one of the main problems in the industry is lack of manpower?

    Exports
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what further consideration he has given to reducing or terminating coal exports.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Commitments have been made to foreign customers for this year but exports are expected to be about 2 million tons less than in 1954. The level of exports for next year is being considered in the light of coal production and consumption trends.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's partial conversion to what I have been advocating for some time—namely, cutting down coal exports—may I ask him whether he will go just a little further and take note of the fact that we are importing about 12 million tons of coal

    763
    and are going to export this year about 10 million tons of coal? Why not set the one against the other and cut down coal imports to the extent of having to import only 2 million tons?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Coal Board have to enter into commitments with their foreign customers a considerable time in advance, usually in the late summer or early autumn. Hitherto the policy has been to continue to export, while at the same time importing our marginal requirements, in the interests of the coal industry as a long-term exporter. We have to reconsider that in the light of the very active business conditions and rising consumption of coal in this country, and that we intend to do.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it abundantly clear that it is of the highest importance for our survival as a great industrial nation that we should continue to maintain our coal exports to the coal markets and that some day we may need them very badly?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with that. At the same time, we have to balance it against the price which has to be paid, and at present the price is heavy.
    Captain Pilkington: Would not this problem easily be solved if the coal industry could produce as much as it did under private enterprise?
    Mr. Lloyd: The answer is that for at least a generation the coal industry in this country has been a problem industry. Before the war the problem was that it had a superabundance of coal and not enough markets. The problem today is that the demand is immense and that it cannot produce enough coal.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not also the case that the British coal industry today is producing between 35 and 45 million tons a year more than it produced in the last year under private enterprise?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, that is perfectly true, but, of course, that, too, is an unfair comparison, because we are dealing with an industry which had been contracted in its manpower at the end of a long war.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister not aware that in 1930 230,000 mine workers were signing on at the employment exchanges? Will he inform his hon.
    764
    Friends about the true condition of this industry?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think we should do very much better not to dwell so much on the past but all to work together to get this great national industry into proper form.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Helicopters
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement giving details of the present position and future prospects in respect to the development of helicopters for passenger and goods transport services in this country; and what progress has been made in the experiments designed to reduce noise.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. F. J. Erroll): As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that a prominent feature of aviation day yesterday in Moscow was the twinengined helicopters? Can the Minister say whether we have any such machines of which we could now make use for troops and equipment and, if not, why we are so far behind?
    Mr. Erroll: I would ask the hon. Member to study the answer which will appear in HANSARD.
    Following is the answer:
    Two prototypes of the Bristol 173 helicopter, which has twin piston engines, are undergoing development trials. Further prototypes with more powerful piston engines are in course of construction. The Bristol Aeroplane Company is planning a version with gas turbine engines, which should be capable of carrying up to 27 passengers.
    Fairey Aviation are continuing development work on the Rotodyne helicopter. Two prototypes are under construction, primarily for research into the novel principles of this aircraft; the size and power, however, are such that the design should be readily adaptable to give a 30-40 seater civil helicopter, of the kind for which British European Airways Corporation have stated a requirement. The second prototype is being built with a slightly larger fuselage corresponding with requirements stated by operators for cargo-carrying purposes. The small research helicopter embodying a number of the Rotodyne principles is engaged on development flying in aid of the Rotodyne.
    A third type of research helicopter is under construction by the Percival Aircraft Company. This embodies another form of reactionless

    765
    drive which might be applicable for civil passenger aircraft, and which should be particularly attractive from the point of view of noise reduction.
    A contract has been placed for an experimental installation of gas turbine engines in the Westland S.55 helicopter; if successful, this should be of interest to civil operators.
    Helicopter noise is not a problem to which speedy solutions can be expected. The work, which was described at length in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 28th February, 1955, is continuing normally. In addition, Messrs. Rolls-Royce Ltd. have recently announced details of progress made on silencing jet engine exhausts, which is of application to helicopters incorporating jet propulsion units.

    Engineering and Metal Industries (Ministerial Responsibility)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Supply what steps he took to ascertain the views of the engineering industry before it was decided to transfer his responsibilities for that industry to the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Erroll: Before the decision was taken my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Supply met and discussed the proposed transfer with a group of some twenty leading industrialists representing a cross-section of the engineering industries, and also with the Presidents of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and of the Amalgamated Engineering Union.
    Mr. Strauss: Is it not a fact that these people were only informed of the Government's proposal and were not consulted, in that they were not asked what their opinions were? Is it not a fact that they simply received information as to the Government's decision?
    Mr. Erroll: No. I am very glad to be able to inform the right hon. Gentleman that they were consulted and asked for their views. It was as a result of the views which they then expressed that the decision was taken.
    Mr. Strauss: We were told that these views were very much divided, were we not?
    Mr. Erroll: That is correct. There was a division of view, but the majority was in favour.
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Supply what is the definition of the light-metal industry which is to remain his responsibility after the other
    766
    recently-announced changes in responsibility have taken place.
    Mr. Erroll: The Ministry of Supply will continue to exercise the responsibilities for aluminium, magnesium and titanium in all stages beyond that of primary metal which it has at present.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Eggs (Marketing)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much longer he intends to continue the present arrangements for marketing home-produced eggs.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): A producers' marketing scheme is likely to be formally submitted shortly and my right hon. Friend does not anticipate making major changes in the present interim arrangements for the time being.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Public Accounts Committee has once again stigmatised these arrangements as unsatisfactory? How much longer is his right hon. Friend to flout this Committee?
    Mr. Nicholls: I do not think that is a fair description of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. It said that the packer is placed in a relatively sheltered position and expressed the hope that the introduction of a permanent arrangement would soon be forthcoming. We are expecting the submission of the suggested arrangement shortly. Then action will be taken to make permanent arrangements.
    Mr. Willey: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Public Accounts Committee said that it cannot regard as satisfactory a scheme in which virtually all the financial risks are run by the Exchequer? Why does he complain when I say that the Public Accounts Committee regards those arrangements as unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that half the eggs which go to the packing stations have to be treated as sales to a wholesaler on a normal commercial basis. On that part of the scheme the packers bear the same risks as other wholesalers.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that somebody ought to speak up for the Public Accounts Committee and that repeatedly it has said that these arrangements are unsatisfactory and that they are unfair to the Exchequer? When is his right hon. Friend going to do something about it?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member may be perfectly satisfied that my right hon. Friend will take full account of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee and, if need be, will stand up for it.

    Meat Imports (Trading Deficit)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount of the subsidy on imported meat for the year 1954–55.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The estimated trading deficit in 1954–55 on imported meat was £5·8 million.
    Mr. Willey: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a few months ago his right hon. Friend said the losses would be not nearly £6 million but nearly £100,000? What has happened to create this loss of well over £5 million in the last few months?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member is aware that because of the great supplies we have had from our home producers we have had to sell off imported meat at a lower price than otherwise would be the case.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not obvious that when my right hon. Friend made the remark referred to he was thinking of the amount of subsidy which would have to have been given under the Government of the party opposite?

    Pigs (Subsidy)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount of the subsidy on pigs for pork and bacon for the year 1954–55.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The estimated amount of the subsidy on pigs for pork and bacon for the year 1954–55 is £56·9 million.
    Mr. Wiley: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the anticipated profits will be on imported bacon over the same period?
    Mr. Nicholls: I should like notice of that question.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Old-Age Pensioners (Transport)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Health if he will now take steps to ensure that old-age pensioners are given free transport to hospitals where they receive necessary treatment and back to their homes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): No, Sir. Where an ambulance is necessary for medical reasons it is provided free. Any others who cannot afford the fare to hospital by public transport can already get help after assessment by the National Assistance Board.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this has an important bearing on the health of old age-pensioners and, indeed, on the national economy, because the provision of ambulances costs far more than the 2d. or 4d. old-age pensioners would have to pay for public transport; but it means a great deal to old-age pensioners? Will she look at the question again?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Medical necessity and not age has long been the criterion. That was agreed by the other party when in power, and we see no reason to dissent from it. Medical necessity should be the criterion in providing public transport and not age.
    Mr. Hughes: I regret to have to say that, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter in another way at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Opticians (Registration)
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the reduction in the number of students coming forward to qualify as ophthalmic opticians and the increase in unqualified optical services being offered by itinerant quack opticians, he will take early steps to prepare a Bill for the registration of opticians, based on the report of the Crook Committee; and if he will introduce such legislation in the present Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health when he will introduce a Bill for the registration of opticians.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is afraid that legislation on this subject must wait until Parliamentary time is available, and he cannot say when this will be.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. Lady aware that sales of spectacles in chain stores have been increasing very sharply recently and in absolute contrast to what happened in 1948 after the introduction of the National Health Service, when such sales dwindled practically to nil, and that this matter is causing great concern among hospital workers? Can she give the House an assurance that the declaration of the Minister when he took office that he did not want to be a Minister noted for introducing legislation is not the reason for not going ahead with this very important matter?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, I can assure the hon. Member that the reply I have given is an accurate one. Certainly, a large measure of agreement has been reached in discussions with the professional bodies. We have every intention of introducing necessary legislation when Parliamentary time can be found.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Lady not aware of the very serious difficulties which arise in the medical profession due to the lack of registered opticians? Can the Minister not urge more vigorously that the small amount of time which would be needed to present a Bill should be given?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Issues affecting professional bodies very rarely take up a small amount of time, but I can assure the hon. Member that we are aware of representations of the professions and they know of our intention to introduce legislation as soon as we can.
    Dr. Summerskill: Whilst not agreeing with the last statement of the hon. Lady, may I ask if she can give an undertaking that this important legislation will be introduced immediately after the Recess, as she will agree that the work of opticians is of vital importance, to the people and legislation is very much overdue?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am afraid I cannot give the assurance as to date beyond what I have already said.

    Poliomyelitis Vaccine
    Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that an anti-poliomyelitis vaccine can now be prepared through eggs to be administered by mouth, if he will cancel his orders for the Salk vaccine, which is prepared from monkey kidney tissue.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. lain Macleod): I am advised that the development of an egg vaccine against poliomyelitis is still in the experimental stage; in the circumstances, it would be unwise to reject other available vaccines, subject to all proper safety tests.
    Mr. Viant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his insistence on the production of this vaccine by a company within the perimeter of London has meant that it shut down on the experiment it was conducting, of which it had great hopes?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not accept that. It may well be true that in the end the cultivation in an egg will be the answer, but we would be very unwise to neglect all the other advances made at present until we were sure of that.
    Mr. Hastings: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether vaccines administered by the mouth are, as a general rule, successful?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that is a matter on which a layman would like to comment.

    Newcastle Region (Beds)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health what convalescent beds are available expressed as a percentage per thousand of the population of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: At the end of 1954 there were ·044 staffed convalescent and pre-convalescent beds administered by the regional hospital board available per thousand population of the region. If beds administered by the board of governors are added, the figure was ·077. In addition, over 1,000 convalescent patients were sent during the year by the regional board under contractual arrangements to institutions outside the Service.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the North-East Coast thinks the present position in regard to

    771
    convalescent beds is a scandal? Will he do something about it without further delay in view of the fact that at any rate he could put into operation a hospital for convalescent beds with the expenditure of very little money? Will he please get on with it?
    Mr. Macleod: That is precisely what we are doing. The grant available to the Newcastle Region has gone up year by year since we came to office.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health the reason for the low bed cost in the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board's jurisdiction.
    Mr. lain Macleod: Many factors may affect average patient costs, which vary not only between one region and another, but in the same region between different types of hospitals and different hospitals of the same type.
    Dame Irene Ward: Yes, but is it not a fact, that our low cost per bed is due to the fact that we have not the facilities for treatment that other regions have? Although it is true my right hon. Friend is giving us some assistance, will he bear in mind that it is not nearly enough, and that that is the opinion of the North-East Coast as a whole and of the regional hospital board?
    Mr. Macleod: The reasons for differing costs in different parts of the country are mainly historical, as everyone knows——
    Dame Irene Ward: I am tired of history.
    Mr. Macleod: Perhaps my hon. Friend takes the view that history is bunk, but what I have said is an accurate statement of fact, and what we are trying to do by the new capital programme is to take note of regions, of which Newcastle is one, which suffered in the past and give them a higher share in the programme I announced a day or two ago.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider speeding up the extra capital grant for the region, in view of the fact that it has always shown that it is fully capable of spending any money made available to it?
    Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have given no undertaking this year of an extra grant.

ANGLO-SOUTH AFRICAN DEFENCE AGREEMENTS
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): With permission, I wish to give the House some information about the talks which have taken place between the South African Minister of Defence and United Kingdom Ministers. These have covered all aspects of defence against external aggression and show the desire of both Governments for continuing and intimate co-operation in defence matters of common concern. Close contact will continue to be maintained between the Services of the two countries.
Exchanges of letters between my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence and Mr. Erasmus, which embody Agreements and understandings satisfactory to both Governments, are being published today in the United Kingdom and South Africa together with an agreed statement. A Command Paper containing them is now available in the Vote Office.
Naval co-operation between the two countries has been fully discussed. A new naval command structure is being set up to strengthen the defence of sea routes round the Cape. This is to be based on a maritime strategic zone approximating to the present South Atlantic station and will contain an area under the command of a South African flag officer. In a war in which both countries are involved, the whole zone will be under the supreme command of a Royal Navy Commander-in-Chief. A joint maritime war planning committee is to be set up to ensure satisfactory planning in peace. Representatives of both navies will work under the guidance of the Royal Navy Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, who will continue to fly his flag at a headquarters provided by the Union Government in the Cape area, and will be the Supreme Commander designate in war.
The Union Government have decided to expand their naval forces and to place orders for ships to the value of £18 million in this country. In order to provide an adequate base for this expanding Navy, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have agreed that it will be in the interests of both countries to transfer

773
the control of the existing Royal Navy Base at Simonstown to the South African Navy.
The Union Government have agreed to take certain specified measures necessary to expand facilities at Simonstown. They have also recognised the need for the provision for use in war of naval facilities elsewhere in the Union. After transfer the Royal Navy will continue to enjoy the facilities of the Simonstown Base in peace-time and is guaranteed their use in any war in which the United Kingdom is involved. They would be available in such a war both to the Royal Navy and to the navies of the allies of the United Kingdom.
The Union Government have given specific undertakings to maintain the efficiency of the base and to safeguard the rights and prospects of those employed there. They have also confirmed that there will be no bar to the recruitment and employment of non-Europeans when they administer the base. These and other aspects of the transfer are fully covered in the Agreements. These Agreements will remain in force until such time as the two Governments decide otherwise by mutual agreement.
The discussions about regional defence are set out in the first exchange of letters in the White Paper. The two Governments recognise that while the internal security of the countries of Southern Africa must remain a matter for each individual country concerned, Southern Africa and the sea routes round Southern Africa must be secured against aggression from without. They are further agreed that the defence of Southern Africa against external aggression lies not only in Africa but also in the gateways to Africa, namely, in the Middle East.
Finally, both Governments have agreed jointly to sponsor a conference to develop the planning already begun at the Nairobi Conference in August, 1951, on the improvement and security of the lines of communication around Southern Africa and between South Africa and the Middle East.
Mr. Attlee: Generally speaking, this would seem to be a satisfactory settlement of a very difficult question which we have been discussing for a good many
774
years. May I take it I am right in thinking that this base will be available in the event of the United Kngdom's being involved in war even although South Africa were not involved in war? I understand that there is to be no discrimination between Europeans and non-Europeans in employment in the Simonstown Base?
The Prime Minister: Yes, that is certainly so—the guarantee is for the use by the United Kingdom in a war even if the Union Government were neutral, and also for the use of our allies in a war.
As regards the workpeople in the base, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from his previous negotiations, we have been very carefully into these matters. There are very adequate safeguards for those now employed; and as regards future recruitment, South Africa has undertaken to maintain the base at full efficiency and to this end to impose no bar to recruitment on grounds of colour.
Mr. Shinwell: May I put two questions? First, on what may appear a minor point about adequate safeguards for British personnel now employed in Simonstown, is there any limit in time to be placed on their employment, or does it proceed permanently? My second point is a little more important; at least, I think so, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree. As the area, the lines of communication and the like are likely to impinge to some extent on the Pacific, is there to be any arrangement with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America, which have responsibility for naval arrangements in that area, vis-à-vis the same kind of liaison between the South African Union, the United Kingdom, and the other Pact?
The Prime Minister: Yes. The answer to the first part of the question, about the conditions of work for our own people, is that it will be necessary for a number of British personnel to remain at Simonstown for a considerable time even after the transfer in order that they can give the necessary technical assistance in the operation of the base. That is agreed between us. As the right hon. Gentleman will see from the White Paper when he has it, the conditions are very satisfactory for our people if they elect to stay on.

775
As regards the second part of the question, and a very important one, too, it will be seen that we contemplate having discussions with the other Commonwealth countries which are particularly concerned about the definition—as the right hon. Gentleman rightly indicated, the neighbourliness—of these commands at sea, and I think he can take it—he is familiar with these things—that the area upon which we have agreed is one which our naval staff regards as a satisfactory arrangement.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What is to happen to the naval wireless station under these Agreements?
The Prime Minister: There is an arrangement in respect of that. It will remain under the control of the Admiralty until such time as the Admiralty is satisfied that the South African technicians are able to operate it. When the South Africans operate it they will operate that part of the normal wireless telegraph machinery, which works for the Admiralty throughout the world. In the event of war, even if South Africa is neutral, that wireless telegraphy comes back under our control.
Mr. Bellenger: Will these arrangements result in any lightening of the burden on our own Service Estimates?
The Prime Minister: I think it might result in a slight reduction in Navy expenditure, perhaps a saving of about £500,000. But the important point, as the House will realise, is that the fact that the Union Government are building a Navy, and building it in close association with ourselves—constructed in our own dockyards—is something which should be of real value for military collaboration between the countries in the future.
Mr. Burden: Is the tonnage to be all new tonnage? If so, during what period will it be built? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Royal Naval Dockyards will receive a part of this work?
The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the answer to the last part of the question is, "Yes." These ships will be built over a period of years. There may be some transfers from the Royal Navy. If so, they will be made up with more ships to the Royal Navy. In the end, it is a net gain of £18 million worth of orders.
Mr. Bottomley: Were all Commonwealth Governments consulted before the Agreements were reached?
The Prime Minister: They were all fully informed in accordance with the normal procedure, which the right hon. Gentleman knows.
Major Legge-Bourke: In welcoming the Agreements, may I ask whether there is any consequential arrangements concerning shore-based aircraft working in connection with naval forces?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is not. Perhaps I should correct one answer which I gave a moment ago. I said that I hoped the Navy would save £500,000. I should have said that I hoped there would be a saving of £500,000 a year.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Prime Minister, with his long experience of international affairs, say how the making of a naval base available to this country and its allies in time of war could possibly be reconciled with the neutrality of South Africa? Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about matters of common concern, is he thinking in purely military terms or does he include such wider matters as the democratic way of life and equality of citizenship before the law?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member was kind enough to refer to my long experience of international affairs and in that experience I find that countries sometimes do contrive to make arrangements which, in international law, have not always been entirely anticipated. If I may give one example, Egypt was neutral throughout the whole of the last war but it did not altogether impede us unduly in the arrangements which we found it necessary to make. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, perhaps he will consult the White Paper.
Dame Irene Ward: Will I be right in assuming that the orders for the Navy will be placed in private yards as well as in the Royal Dockyards, in other words, that they will be shared out?
The Prime Minister: The answer to that, also, is, "Yes."
Mr. Dugdale: Can the Prime Minister say whether other members of the Commonwealth were, in fact, consulted or simply informed?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well what is the normal procedure in these matters, that is to say, when these matters are being discussed the Commonwealth Governments are kept informed. They have been kept informed in this case. Normal procedure has been followed.
Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that as a result of these Agreements there is no change in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in connection with the Protectorates?
The Prime Minister: None whatever. Perhaps I should add, in reply to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was one of our negotiators throughout these discussions.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE (ESTIMATES DEBATES)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked last Tuesday about the arrangements for the consideration of Supply in the Scottish Grand Committee and he said that this was a matter which could be raised with me through the usual channels.
The problem arises from the arrangements which were made for Supply before the General Election. The matter was discussed through the usual channels and agreement reached to complete Supply for the year before the Dissolution rather than that the new Parliament should be faced with the urgent necessity of passing all the Estimates in its opening weeks. The Estimates were accordingly passed before the Election and finally appropriated by the Appropriation Act.
It was implicit in this arrangement that certain rights in all parts of the House would be curtailed and it it not only Members from Scotland who are affected. There have been fewer Supply Days on the Floor and the Scottish Grand Committee will be unable to have its customary six days on the main Estimates—because they have already been passed and are beyond recall.
The Standing Orders provide only for Bills and Estimates to be considered by the Committee. Supplementary Estimates are to be presented to the House this week and some of these relate to Scottish
778
matters. They are, however, of such a limited character that I do not believe that a satisfactory debate on them could be arranged in the Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 9th June in the debate on the Address that the Government would be ready to do their best to meet demands for debates which the Opposition might request. It was already proposed that there should be a day on Scottish affairs on the Floor of the House. In view of the circumstances and the representations which have been made, we are prepared to make available two additonal half-days for this purpose. I will do my best to fit in those two half-days before the Recess.
I hope that hon. Members will consider this a reasonable attempt to meet the disappointment which Scottish Members, like other hon. Members, have to suffer because of the unusual circumstances arising from the Election.
Mr. D. Johnston: While thanking the Leader of the House for his statement and the Government for their limited but very useful concession, may I ask whether consideration has been given to the possibility of amending the Standing Orders of the House so that the Scottish Grand Committee may consider matters other than Bills and Estimates remitted to it under Standing Orders Nos. 60 and 61?
Mr. Crookshank: That would be going a great deal further than the problem that arises out of this matter. We have done our best to meet the wishes of Scottish Members, and I hope that they will accept what has been done in the spirit in which it is offered.
Mr. Elliot: While thanking my right hon. Friend for this further opportunity of debating Scottish affairs, may I ask that he will not close his mind to the possible reorganisation of the Scottish Grand Committee so that it might be possible for it to apply itself better to the consideration of Bills and other matters referred to it from time to time?
Mr. Crookshank: That is, of course, another matter, which I know is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Rankin: Can the Leader of the House say whether we shall be getting the earlier or the later halves of the two days which are being offered?
Mr. Crookshank: We can discuss that, but the two halves might perhaps happen to make one day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.49 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  There cannot have been many occasions in Parliamentary history when there have been two Second Reading debates in the same House on the same Bill within three months. It must be even more exceptional for the same Government to move both Second Readings. In these exceptional circumstances there was a danger of the audience, which has been surprisingly little changed by the General Election, being wearied by the repeat performance. The Front Benches, at any rate, have tried to be helpful. The Opposition, I see, threaten this time to divide against the Bill, although they did not do so in April.
  I am sure that all parts of the House will welcome the speech, which we understand, is to be delivered by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) who, in a true sense, is a debutant upon this particular subject. So far as we are concerned, my right hon. Friend and I have exchanged our rôles. He will answer criticisms at the end of the debate. I have to explain the Bill and also present it to the House against a background of our general traffic policy.
  The Bill amends and supplements the existing legislative code and seeks to deal with road safety, traffic congestion and certain anomalies that now exist. It is sometimes not fully realised how limited is the scope of legislation in promoting road safety. If I may say so, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) fell into that error when, on the last occasion, he criticised this Bill as
  "a jumble of unrelated ideas, ill-digested, if digested at all by the processes of thought, and strung together in a haphazard way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 1112.]
  A remark of that kind suggests that the Bill is intended to provide a code of laws governing conduct on the roads. It
  780
  is not intended to do anything of the sort. So far as the law is concerned, that already exists and so does machinery for its enforcement. So far as the rules of conduct are concerned, they are contained in the Highway Code. I gratefully recall the generous words of praise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall about the fourth edition of the Highway Code which the House approved last autumn.
  We have only built on the good work of our predecessors. It was, I believe, originally drafted under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). The second edition was produced by Lord HoreBelisha and the third edition by Mr. Alfred Barnes, Minister of Transport during the six years of the post-war Socialist Administration. Ours is the fourth edition. It is going very well, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that, in addition to the free distribution, 4½ million copies have been sold.
  It is a commonplace of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, of which I am Chairman, to say that road safety depends on the "Three Es"—Engineering, Education and Enforcement. The Government fully recognise that there is urgent need for a great improvement in our road system both by building new roads and by improving those that already exist. In the twenty months that I have been in this Department, both the Ministers I have served under have announced road programmes which represent a great increase in expenditure upon what had gone before. Both statements also made it clear that the programme they were announcing was intended to be the minimum and not the maximum of what the Government intended to do. The two main objects of the road programme are exactly the same as the objects of this Bill—to increase safety and to reduce congestion.
  The second of the "Es" is Education. It has a wider scope and a far greater potentiality for good than mere enforcement of the law. One of the obstinate facts with which we have to deal is the difficulty even of prosecuting people who are guilty of dangerous conduct on the roads let alone of obtaining a conviction. It is of the nature of modern transport that there is no time even to make a note of the offending vehicle. It is often difficult to prove that the conduct was, in

  781
  fact, wrongful, such as failing to dip lights at night, and there are often no witnesses and, in the vast majority of cases, there are no policemen present. So a driver with ill-adjusted head lights, who dazzles an approaching driver and thereby causes an accident in which he himself might not be involved, is often able to get away and it is impossible to establish his identity and even more difficult to establish his responsibility.
  It is, therefore, perfectly clear—and I think my predecessors on the Departmental Committee would agree—that it is far more effective to promote education and to inculcate consideration and courtesy on the roads than merely to seek to increase penalties for misconduct. Successive Governments have been remarkably successful in the last twenty or twenty-five years in improving the general conduct of road users. The number of accidents has recently been increasing in a distressing way, but I want to give two figures to show how road safety education over the last twenty years has brought about a tremendous improvement.
  Despite the increase in the number of vehicles on the road, which is now about double what it was before the war, the number of children killed last year was 616 compared with 1,069 in 1938. Similarly, the number of casualties per 1,000 vehicles has fallen from 99 in 1934 to 76 in 1938 and to 41 in 1954. If I give these figures it is in no spirit of complacency but rather to show the good work that has been done and what more can be done in the same way to promote a greater traffic sense especially amongst children.
  It is with this in mind that Clause 2 of the Bill extends the Minister's powers to provide grants to local authorities in respect of road safety propaganda and removes all doubt about the right of local authorities to spend money out of the rates on these objects.
  I now come to the subject of enforcement. Much public discussion, inside this House as well as outside, has recently turned on the subject of penalties. There is a widespread feeling that the penalties imposed by the courts for motoring offences are often unduly light. It has been pointed out that the average fine in 1952 imposed, for example, for exceeding the speed limit was only £2 3s. com-
  782
  pared with a maximum penalty of £20 for the first offence and £50 for the second.
  It is sometimes argued from this that it is useless for Parliament to legislate for heavier penalties because the courts do not at present even impose the maxima that they can. I believe that this House can exercise great influence in this matter. It is, of course, important that we should not seek to legislate for savage penalties of which public opinion would disapprove. That would merely result in juries and courts refusing to convict or, if they did convict, imposing a small or even derisory fine. It is, of course, a very valuable safeguard of the subject that the courts should be free to exercise discretion as to how they administer Acts of Parliament. But it is, nevertheless, fully within the right of Parliament to indicate to the courts its view of the gravity of certain offences by increasing the penalties that may be imposed.
  Further, the House of Commons is the grand inquest of the nation and it is proper for us, by speech and vote, to express the general view of the country that drastic action should be taken against those who, by carelessness, negligence, or worse, cause death or injury to other road users. It is for that reason that Clause 15 increases the penalties for certain driving offences and makes more stringent provision for the disqualification of drivers who have been convicted.
  There are many good reasons, with which I need not weary the House, for not seeking to throw into gaol a large proportion of traffic offenders. For one thing, the courts will always be reluctant to impose the penalty of imprisonment upon persons who do not start out with any intention of doing wrong. The penalty of disqualification from driving a car is, therefore, I suggest, more just, more suitable and likely to be exercised much more freely by the courts. Therefore, Clause 17 provides certain rights of appeal in connection with the increased powers of disqualification.
  Clause 16 ensures that an unsuccessful appeal shall not have the effect of reducing the period of disqualification. In Clause 8 we try to deal with the abuse, particularly serious in the case of motor cyclists, of continuing to take out provisional licences wthout passing a test.
  Here, I should say a word about Clause 5, which creates a new offence of causing

  783
  death by reckless or dangerous driving of a motor vehicle. I am sure that many people have been shocked by the fact that often drivers who have caused death through dangerous driving have not been convicted of manslaughter. We believe that there is a psychological explanation of this. The very word "manslaughter" is ugly and is associated in the minds of most people with brawls and sordid offences of various kinds.
  A jury, therefore, is reluctant to convict of this offence a person who is obviously very decent and about whom the jury may think, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." We believe, however, that they would be far more likely to find a driver guilty under Clause 5 of this Bill of this new offence if, in fact, his reckless and dangerous driving resulted in death.
  So far, I have been speaking of motorists as though they were the only people who abuse the highway.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the Minister leaves Clause 5 could he give us some useful information, namely, the number of charges there have been on indictment for manslaughter within the past twelve months or two years and also the number of convictions as against acquittals? Perhaps we might have those figures at some time in order to gauge the necessity or otherwise for this new Clause?
  Mr. Molson: I have not those statistics with me and it would be more suitable to deal with that point during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I was saying that, so far, I have been speaking of motorists as though they were the only people who abuse the highway. We are justified in giving special prominence to the offences of motor drivers because they are in charge of a lethal weapon, but it would be unfair to suggest that they are more responsible for road accidents than other road users. Indeed, I feel sure that motorists, as a community, have a greater knowledge of the Highway Code and a greater sense of responsibility than many other users of the highway. Cyclists and pedestrians are often responsible for accidents and, in many cases, it is not they but other people who are the victims of their negligence. It appears to us, therefore, to be only equitable to apply discipline to cyclists,
  784
  as we do under Clause 6, and to pedestrians as we do under Clause 7.
  One of three reforms by which the Road Traffic Act, 1934, so substantially reduced road accidents was the introduction of a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in built-up areas. This was at the time experimental and it now has to be renewed annually by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. We are convinced that a 30 m.p.h. speed limit in suitable places is an essential measure to road safety, and Clause 1 therefore makes it permanent. However, we do not think it necessary that whenever a local authority chooses to put lights on a road this should automatically impose a speed restriction; in fact, often the lighting of a road may make the road safer than it was before. In future, therefore, new speed restrictions will be imposed by order on trunk and classified roads. That is provided for by Clause 24.
  Mr. John Rankin: Does that mean that where the speed limit is presently 20 m.p.h., it is being increased to 30 m.p.h.?
  Mr. Molson: No, this does not have any effect upon the limits. However, this is a complicated point and we will go into the matter more fully during the Committee stage.
  The main difference between this and the first edition of the Bill is that we have dropped the former Clause 1. In its original form it provided for the periodical testing of vehicles by authorised garages or by Government-managed testing stations. Noble Lords in another place amended that Clause so that all tests had to be done in Government testing stations. We made it plain on 5th April that we were not willing to adopt that method.
  In the first place, we could not find the army of examiners with the necessary technical and moral qualifications, and there are many other objections. My right hon. Friend asked the House for its advice on the matter and Front Bench spokesmen opposite complained that he did not know his own mind. The Opposition did not know their own mind, for while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall devoted the greater part of his winding-up speech to support for Clause 1 of the Bill, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—I do

  785
  not see him here this afternoon—said that he did not think the Minister—
  "should ask for a power of this nature at this stage of his knowledge. He is really trying to carry the House much too far … There is much more to be said for the spot check of vehicles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1955; Vol. 320, c. 1033.]
  I make no apology for the Clause, which was included in the Bill originally only after careful reflection. The general standard of car maintenance in the country at present is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I do not hesitate to repeat some, figures which I gave in the previous debate. The Highway Code assumes that in dry weather good brakes should pull up a vehicle travelling at 30 m.p.h. in 45 ft. Some tests were made by the Road Research Laboratory. The Laboratory took not 45 ft. as the standard, but the very much lower standard of pulling up within 70 ft. Of the cars tested, fewer than 50 per cent. reached the lower standard; 10 per cent. of the vehicles could not stop within 100 ft.; and 1 per cent. could not stop within 200 ft.
  Our official publication, "Road Accidents, 1953," suggests, indeed, that only 2 per cent. of the accidents are directly and primarily due to defects in the vehicles. But if we try to ascertain how many of the accidents which have happened and are primarily due to other causes might have been avoided, or might, at any rate, have been less serious in their consequences, if the vehicle had been in proper condition, we estimate that the figure is more nearly 20 per cent. In America, the average number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles is 8 in the States without compulsory inspection and only 6·4 where inspection is obligatory.
  We have decided, however, for the time being not to make the testing of vehicles compulsory in this country. We are, therefore, considering falling back upon the proposal made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, to extend spot checking from commercial to private vehicles. We hope also to obtain valuable results from Clause 4, which was introduced in another place, and which makes it unlawful to sell or supply a motor vehicle in such a state that brakes, steering gear or tyres would be unlawful under regulations made under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act. 1930.
  786
  In a democratic country, the Government cannot go further in enforcing safety regulations than public opinion is prepared to support. We believe that the inspection of vehicles would make for a reduction in the number of road accidents, but if public opinion is not prepared to put up with the additional interference and inconvenience it is clearly unwise for us to try to legislate ahead of public opinion.
  I referred, in the course of my speech on the previous occasion, to a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), that as part of the third-party insurance scheme there should be a requirement about the condition of a vehicle.
  Mr. Frank Bowles: If the hon. Gentleman is leaving the subject of spot checking will he say how he proposes to carry it out. Is every fourth A and every fourth B in the list to be checked, or is someone suddenly to stop a car and say, "I want to check you," or what?
  Mr. Molson: That is a matter which we will go into at a later stage. I dealt with the matter very fully and very fairly on the last occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the difficulties which arise in connection with spot checking, a very convenient place of reference will be my speech in HANSARD of 5th April. On balance, we think that some benefit can be derived from it.
  I said on the previous occasion that we had discussed this matter with the motor insurance companies and had, so far, not been successful in obtaining their co-operation. As this remark of mine, made without previous preparation, has resulted in some misunderstanding, I want to take the opportunity of correcting any false impression.
  All that I intended to convey by this remark was that the motor insurance companies had explained to us the difficulties which they foresaw if they were compelled by legislation to incorporate a vehicle testing scheme in their normal procedure. The last thing that I intended to convey was that they had shown unwillingness to help us in this or on any other matter. My Department is deeply indebted to the motor insurance companies for their unfailing

  787
  co-operation with us ever since the introduction of compulsory third party insurance under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
  That is all I propose to say about road safety.
  I explained at the beginning of my remarks that the second object of the Bill is to reduce traffic congestion. I am sure that Clause 3 will be extremely valuable for this purpose, especially in London, as it provides for the removal of vehicles which are causing obstruction on the roads. At present, the police have no power to remove a vehicle unless it has broken down, has been abandoned, or is likely to cause danger.
  Hon. Members often asked me why it is that the Metropolitan Police do not enforce more strictly our bans on parking and waiting in certain restricted streets. One simple answer is that, for practical reasons of legal evidence, they are obliged to wait until the person in charge of the vehicle returns. Clause 20, therefore, extends Section 113 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, from the traffic offences which it covers to all offences relating to the use of vehicles on roads. I believe that by this quite simple amendment of the law we shall immensely facilitate the task of the Metropolitan Police in enforcing traffic regulations in London.
  I now come to the subject of parking meters. There is no doubt that the greatest single cause of traffic congestion in London and in many provincial towns is the increasing practice of people who drive to work and leave their cars parked for many hours, frequently for the whole working day, on the highway. Let me give some figures to show the extent of this practice. According to the last examination that was made, 78 per cent. of the whole kerb space in Central London and the West End is occupied by cars parked in the middle of the day. A test was carried out. Observation was taken of the time the cars were parked there. It was found that 19 per cent. were parked for two to four hours and 44 per cent. for from four to eight hours.
  People have a right to use the Queen's highway for passage, and I think it is reasonable to allow a car to be left for short periods in convenient places on the road while the driver goes about his
  788
  general daily business; but to leave a car all day parked on the highway is, in my view, an abuse and one which must be checked if traffic is to continue to move in Central London and other towns. If that is agreed to, how are we, in practice, to distinguish between long-term parking, which ought to be stopped, and short-term parking, which should be allowed?
  Experience in other countries has shown that the parking meter is an effective way of doing so. By means of the parking meter, one can hire parking space in a proper position at a reasonable charge for up to two hours. At the end of that time, the rent suddenly goes up to a deterrent level. Enforcement is simple and involves no police prosecution, except in aggravated cases, because the meter holds up its hand at the end of two hours like a child at school owning up to having broken a rule.
  The price mechanism, therefore, is used to regulate short-term parking, but what about long-term parking? Motorists proposing to park for a long time ought to put their cars off the highway and we must see that more accommodation is provided for the long-term parker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is not such a formidable problem as the cheers of my hon. Friends might suggest. In fact, a great many people use the Queen's highway, not because there is no alternative accommodation, but because it is cheaper and easier to do so. We estimate that in the middle of the day one-third of the garage space in the West End and Central London is unoccupied.
  Last week my right hon. Friend and I went to look at parking meters being tried out on the site of Portman House. We found that two-thirds of the space in that great park was empty. Admittedly, our inspection was made reasonably early in the morning, but we asked about it and found that at no time has that park been even half full, and it is capable of accommodating 300 cars. However, we recognise that some increase in parking space will be needed. For that reason the Bill provides that all profits from parking meters must be used for increasing or cheapening off-road parking accommodation.
  Clauses 9 to 14 of the Bill and the First Schedule deal with this matter. The details are complicated, but the principle is simple. We take power to introduce

  789
  parking meters into this country as an experiment on the initiative of local authorities. But I would say at once that there is no reason to suppose that the experiment will not prove as successful here as it has been in other countries where it has been introduced.
  The third purpose of the Bill is to correct certain anomalies and to re-state or to amend the law. I will mention only a few instances. The most important is contained in Clauses 21 and 22. They amend and clarify the law about the need for road service licences in the case of private parties. To meet the case of private party excursions we are making a special concession. If the vehicle is small, not seating more than eight persons, and operates under Parts I, II, III or IV of the Schedule, it does not need a licence. If the vehicle seats more than eight persons, and operates under Parts III or IV of the Schedule, it does not require a licence. We shall be prepared to go into this extremely complicated matter more fully during the Committee stage. For the moment I will merely say that it is our belief that this meets the reasonable complaints about the law made at the present time.
  Membership of the important London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee does not now contain sufficient representation of those who provide or use motor vehicles. That is dealt with by Clause 27.
  It has been held by the courts that the special speed limit applying to goods vehicles does not apply when the vehicles are empty. This seems to us to be an undesirable limitation, and we seek to amend the law by Clause 23.
  In paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule we are taking power to raise the selling price of the Highway Code which, at ld. is badly below the modern costs of production. The Government, unlike most authors, have found themselves in the exceptional and unhappy position of having produced a "best seller," of which the more copies that are sold, the greater is the loss. That does not seem to be reasonable, and, therefore, we are seeking power to increase the selling price.
  A Clause was inserted in another place dealing with the taxation of utility vehicles. As this matter has always pre-
  790
  viously been dealt with by regulation, we thought that it would be a more convenient procedure and we intend to adopt it.
  I have now explained all the more important Clauses of the Bill. We are not abolishing the Road Fund under this Bill, as my right hon. Friend announced on 5th April we intended to do. It seemed more convenient for that matter to be dealt with by the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill, which obtained a Second Reading last Friday.
  I come now to a matter which has aroused a good deal of public discussion. Recent decisions by the courts have stated the law relating to being drunk in charge of a car in a way which has been generally regarded as unreasonable. There is the even more serious disadvantage that in many cases a person no longer fit to drive a car is encouraged to try to drive it home, instead of stopping still and sleeping until he has regained a more sober state. There was an extremely interesting article on the subject last week in the "New Statesman and Nation."
  The Government feel that this is an extremely unsatisfactory position and we shall put down a new Clause during the Committee stage dealing with this difficult and complicated matter. We propose to try and make a distinction between driving under the influence of drink and being drunk in charge of a vehicle. During the Committee stage we shall seek to enlist the help and co-operation of all hon. Members. It is an extremely difficult matter, but it is of the utmost importance that it should be dealt with, both in order to ensure that justice is done and also because it has a direct bearing on road safety.
  Until last Friday I thought that this Bill would receive an unopposed Second Reading in this as in the last Parliament. I cannot think of anything which has happened since 5th April which would justify a change of attitude on the part of the Opposition. The General Election can hardly be the explanation, because from that the Government obtained a vote of confidence. I can hardly suppose that we shall hear speeches from hon. Members opposite upbraiding us again for the Act of 1953, or for giving private enterprise an opportunity to compete again in the road services.

  791
  It would be an even bolder argument to reproach us for parsimony in road construction. The cost to the Exchequer of the schemes of new construction and major improvements which we are authorising this year is six times the Socialist Government's yearly average of expenditure during their six years of office, and ten times what they spent in their last year of office.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is not the hon. Gentleman now comparing commitments with expenditure?
  Mr. Molson: No. I was careful about that. I have sometimes managed to score a point myself in that way, and, therefore, I was at pains to be careful about it.
  When they were in power the Opposition passed the Special Roads Act. It was then the stated intention of that Government—and this illustrates the point which the right hon. Gentleman was making—to authorise £38 million in the first year. In actual fact, they spent only £20 million during the remaining five years that they were in office. We are grateful to them for having put on the Statute Book the Special Roads Act, under which we are now operating, and we thought that they would be grateful to us for having brought it out of the oblivion into which it had very nearly fallen.
  We shall hope to hear from spokesmen opposite why the Opposition have had second thoughts and now intend to vote against a practical Measure based largely upon recommendations by the Road Safety Committee in its Reports, and which, by amending the present law, will help to regulate traffic, reduce congestion and promote road safety.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, while containing various minor proposals, does not provide a comprehensive policy to deal with the urgent and increasing problems of road traffic and road safety."
  We have all enjoyed, as we always do, the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. He has faithfully fulfilled his task of explaining in considerable detail
  792
  the provisions of the Bill. He was forced, unfortunately, to repeat a great deal of what he said before, but that was his duty and no one is complaining.
  I hope that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House will complain if I take this opportunity, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, to deal not so much with the details of the Bill which I commented upon on the previous occasion, but with some of the broader aspects of our traffic problems. We consider this an appropriate occasion to do so.
  The Parliamentary Secretary asked why we were now proposing to move an Amendment to the Bill as we did not do so when it was previously before the House. I will recall the history of this Measure to hon. Members. It will be remembered that the Bill originated in the other House, where it received a rough handling by all parties. When it came to this House, we on this side made some critical comments about it, and those which I made have already been quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of his speech. In short, we then said that the Bill was inadequate.
  Nevertheless, because most of the provisions in the Bill were by themselves desirable—though taken together they were altogether inadequate to deal with the grave road traffic and road safety problems that confront the nation today —we allowed the Second Reading to pass without a vote. But now we are at the beginning of a new Parliament, and the Government have all the opportunity they require to launch and to carry out a comprehensive road plan in which the provisions of this Bill might well play a minor part. It seems, however, that the Government have no intention of doing anything of the sort. Instead, we are served up with the same hotch-potch of minor provisions designed to patch up a few of the deficiencies here and there in our traffic laws.
  We maintain that under present circumstances that is not good enough, and, therefore, in the Amendment which I have moved on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends we are expressing our deep concern at the Government's failure to think imaginatively and to act boldly over the whole range of our urgent traffic problems. We are fortified in our decision by the Government's action

  793
  in dropping what we were told before was one of their major proposals for reducing road accidents. I am referring, of course, to the proposal for the inspection of vehicles. We are told today that although the need for that proposal is as strong as it ever was, the Government do not propose to do anything along the lines which earlier on they said was essential, but instead propose to take other, and, in my view, comparatively ineffective, action. I will say a little more about that later on.
  This remarkable change of mind on the part of the Government is a frightening example of the way in which they are dithering over the whole range of road problems. It will be seen from the Amendment that we are attacking the Government on a broad front because we do not believe that any aspect of road policy can properly be considered in isolation. I do not think that anyone will question that.
  The efficiency of roads and road safety are one problem, and our case against the Government today is this. The road arteries of the country are gradually becoming blocked through having to carry far more traffic than they can bear, and millions of our people suffer helplessly in their daily journeys as a result of this congestion. Our industries are being severely handicapped, their costs are rising, and manpower, petrol, and rubber are being wasted.
  The industries that suffer most are those engaged in our export trade. The situation, bad as it is today, is bound to become steadily worse. The free flow of vehicles on our main roads, particularly in and around our great cities, has already become a snail-like trickle at many times of the day. Simultaneously, road accidents are beginning to mount once more in an alarming way after a remarkable decrease.
  After three and a half years of responsibility, and, presumably, of intensive study, all that the Government propose to do in order to deal with these twin economic and social problems is to introduce what we feel is a petty Measure against the background of the wholly inadequate road development plan announced by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation eighteen months ago. The Government do their best to make that plan look attractive.
  Mr. Molson: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the programme announced eighteen months ago, that is the one before the last. That was announced by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies in December, 1953. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was another on 2nd February this year.
  Mr. Strauss: There has certainly been an extension of it, but I think I am right in saying that it was based on the earlier programme launched by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It must have been based on it; it could not have come out of the blue.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The programme which I had the privilege to announce on 2nd February contained, as did no previous programme, the proposal for the new motorways.
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, but let me put it like this; and I do not think that the Minister will disagree with me. We are complaining that the total amount being spent this year by the Government in capital expenditure on its plans is only something like £7 million more than in the last few years. Next year, it cannot be more than about £12½ million. Thereafter, the Government hope it will rise, but, in my view, under the present plan it will be wholly inadequate to meet the real requirements of the country.
  The facts of the road situation are these. I do not need to give much data to the House. They have been given on many occasions before. One does not have to provide statistics to prove that our road situation is serious, and requires drastic action.
  There has been an extension of road mileage in this country since 1910 of 4·7 per cent. The number of vehicles on our roads has doubled since 1939. It has increased by 50 per cent. since 1947, and it is likely to increase at a very much greater rate in the future. There is not a Member of this House who does not know, in his own constituency, of a black spot, of a road where there is extraordinary congestion, or of an urgent traffic improvement which is necessary on which money should be spent now, and for which, in all probability, no money has been provided in

  795
  the right hon. Gentleman's new traffic proposals.
  Taking all in all, and taking into account the two road improvement schemes which the Government have announced, I wonder if there is any one on either side of the House who really believes that we are now going to spend a sufficient part of our national income, or the right proportion of our capital investments, which last year amounted to more than £2,000 million, on road development. Are not our priorities in this respect shockingly out of balance?
  I believe that it is true to say we are spending less on road development in this country than is being spent by almost any other comparable country in the world. To give two examples, I understand that West Germany has a road scheme under way in which it is proposed to spend £35 million a year, and that New Zealand is planning a road scheme of £15 million a year, which is about the size that our road scheme will reach in a few years' time.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South): Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they are spending so much more than the previous year, because Germany is obviously planning to spend more than £35 million in all?
  Mr. Strauss: This is, I understand, a scheme for the construction of new roads which will total £35 million a year. If it is generally agreed—and I think that a large number of hon. Members on the other side of the House will agree—that this amount of our resources which we are devoting to road development is insufficient, one has to ask: what are the reasons for this lack of action on the part of the Government and for their unwillingness to do what is necessary in this respect? Are the Government reluctant to embark on a worth-while scheme or schemes because they fear that the consequent taxation will be unpopular? A statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation a little time ago suggested that that might be at least one of the reasons. If that is so, it is very foolish economy indeed.
  Some people have suggested that in order to obviate the need for further taxation in this matter, it may be desirable to float a road loan. I am very
  796
  doubtful whether that would be of value or is necessary; or whether the alternative proposal to put capital expenditure on the roads below the line in the Budget will really be helpful. I believe that it all ought to be done and can be done without these devices, but if we cannot do what is necessary without these devices, I would fully support their use.
  Is it suggested that we have not now the physical material and manpower to carry out an appropriate, adequate scheme? Frankly, that was the main factor which caused the Labour Government to postpone their great scheme of 1946. It was then felt necessary to devote our resources to even more urgent purposes to enable the country to establish its viability in the immediate postwar years. Now these very real difficulties have been largely overcome. Since then, there has been an enormous development in mechanical equipment for road-making, and the civil engineering industry has expressed itself confident that it can provide all the necessary equipment and manpower to undertake such major road schemes as the Government may put forward.
  The Government never tired of telling us and their supporters on every Conservative platform during the last Election that they had managed to bring about financial stability in this country and were confident of economic prosperity. If that is so, there is plainly no reason why they should not devote an adequate and much greater proportion of our resources to tackling our road problems before our roads become completely atrophied.
  Is it perhaps because investment in roads is not an obviously profitable undertaking that the Government refuse to do more? Investment in roads does not produce revenue in the way in which investment in industry does and therefore it may be that the impulse to invest the necessary substantial amount in our road system is absent. The Government cannot hide, as the Parliamentary Secretary tried to do today, behind the argument that because a Labour Government, in entirely different circumstances, did not carry out a big road scheme that is a good excuse for the present Government not doing so today.
  Neither can they say, as their spokesmen sometimes do, that the local authorities are the traffic authorities, and

  797
  are the people responsible. All the local authorities in the country are only too eager to carry out such major schemes as the Ministry of Transport will allow them to carry out. The responsibility is fully that of the Government. If it is thought that we are putting forward this indictment today solely as a party one, I should like to quote from an eminently-respectable document, the Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Statistics, in which the Oxford economist, Mr. Henderson, in commenting on the Economic Survey of 1954, used these words:
  "It should be added that the Government itself bears some responsibility for the rate at which cost-reducing capital expenditure is carried out. In particular, it is hard to justify the failure to adopt a more ambitious programme of road construction. Given the neglect which the road system has suffered for the past 15 years, and the obvious benefits which would result from improving it, the present and prospective levels of expenditure seem clearly inadequate. The habit of postponing schemes of this kind, which was appropriate during the war, and defensible so long as strong inflationary tendencies persisted, should by now have been discarded."
  There is one further observation which I should like to make about traffic congestion. It is indirectly the cause of many accidents. A motorist may be held up for a long time by a slow-moving stream of traffic, and when he gets a chance to move ahead, he is apt to do so dangerously to make up for lost time. He is likely to be in a bad temper, which is a fruitful cause of careless driving.
  If the amount of traffic on the roads is dangerously high, as we all agree it is, there are other ways of dealing with the problem besides building new roads. One is by diverting some of the existing traffic to the railways. No one will deny that much of the traffic at present on the roads could go, and in the national interest should go, on the railways. Are the Government doing anything about that? We all know that the answer is "No." Indeed, by dismantling the British Road Services—the Minister, of course, does not like this old story repeated, but it is a true story, nevertheless, and I propose to repeat it—the Government are, in fact, acting in the opposite direction.
  When long-distant road haulage and the railways have common ownership and share the same kitty, and are both operating solely with the objective of serving the public interest, then something can be
  798
  done about it. For example, diversion from one form of transport to another can be effected by financial inducements.
  That possibility has been discarded by deliberate Government action. Moreover, British Road Services, by organisational efficiency, was carrying upon the roads more goods with fewer vehicles than were private hauliers, and this was making a small, but welcome contribution towards relieving the pressure of traffic upon the roads. To this extent, by denationalising this public service, the Government have added to road congestion.
  What about canals? Even if some of them are uneconomic at the moment, might it not be worth while spending money upon their development as a partial remedy for road congestion in the future? Is it not possible that £5 million spent upon canals might be more advantageous nationally than double or even the same amount of money spent upon new roads? I have an open mind on this question, but the greater use of canals in future should be an essential part of any study for an integrated traffic system; and we criticise the Government for not having any such scheme.
  I now turn to road safety. Here, again, the Government's actions appear to be characterised by hesitation and uncertainty. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary feel as keenly about this problem as anybody else, and are just as anxious that the toll of road accidents should be reduced, but they seem incapable of making up their minds upon a number of major road safety problems. I want to deal with only two of those problems today, because I commented upon nearly all the other provisions in the Bill on the last occasion that it was before the House.
  Let us take the problem of flashing traffic indicators—a problem which the Minister has recently remitted to the Road Research Laboratory for investigation. He hopes to have the Laboratory's Report by October—and goodness knows how long it will be after that before anything is done about it. This problem is not a new one. Each year more cars carry one or other of the many varieties of these blinking lights [Laughter]—I think that it is an appropriate adjective—and this will make it

  799
  all the more difficult to take action to prohibit them should it be decided to do so.
  I am prepared to suspend final judgment about these lights until I have seen the report of the Road Research Laboratory, but my present opinion is that they are a menace to safe driving, particularly in our towns, where we have the flashing beacons. A number of these flashing lights together confuse and disturb the motorist without giving him any better warning about the movements of other vehicles than he had with the old type of traffic indicator. It seems to me that the Minister has been seriously dilatory in dealing with these flashy—in both senses—lights, and that he should have taken action, or remitted the problem to the Road Research Laboratory, long ago.
  Now I come to the curious history of compulsory road vehicle inspection. When the Bill was introduced in another place, the Government spokesman indicated that this was a matter upon which the Minister of Transport placed great emphasis, and which he regarded as likely to make a substantial contribution to the reduction of accidents. The proposal was then in a form which was unacceptable to the majority of their Lordships, who thought that it was undesirable that the responsibility for carrying out these inspections should be left to private garages.
  When the Bill was debated in the House of Commons, no effective arguments were made in favour of the proposal until the Parliamentary Secretary wound up, when he gave evidence of what had been happening in other countries. He made out what I believe everybody who listened to him will agree was a conclusive case in favour of some form of vehicle inspection being gradually introduced. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in an earlier speech, had said that up till then the case had not been made out he was perfectly right, because, if he had not read all the old Reports of the Road Traffic Committee—especially the ones signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) and myself—he could not have guessed from the statements made by Government spokesmen what an enormously strong case there
  800
  was for the inspection of vehicles for roadworthiness.
  Today, the Parliamentary Secretary repeated those arguments and told us once more that the Road Research Laboratory estimates that in about 20 per cent. of the accidents which take place in this country defective vehicles are a major or contributory cause. He gave us a lot of other information about compulsory vehicle inspection in the United States. At present, about 14 million cars are inspected annually in the various States. Accidents in New Jersey dropped by 35 per cent. during the year following the introduction of vehicle inspection, and an analysis of examinations carried out by the State of Washington showed that defective vehicles were involved in over 13 per cent. of accidents. Taking the United States as a whole, deaths from road accidents in those States which carry out vehicle inspections are about 20 per cent. less than they are in those States where no such inspections are carried out.
  Those are formidable figures, and yet we are now told that the Government will not deal with this problem in any way except by a system of spot checking. The Minister gave us figures—which further reinforced his case—in connection with the short experience which we have had with the road testing station at Slough, where it was shown that out of every 50 vehicles which went there for voluntary tests, 49 per cent. had some mechanical defect; 60 per cent. had something amiss with their lighting—and we all know how dangerous it is to drive at night when so many cars have badly aligned headlights—25 per cent. had faults with the steering or front wheel alignment, and another 25 per cent. were running with brakes of a lower standard than that required by the Highway Code.
  After making out an effective case for vehicle testing, the Parliamentary Secretary now says, "We are not going on with a provision which, as evidence from other countries shows, is likely to save about 20 per cent. of road deaths and accidents." Translated into figures in respect of this country, it would mean a saving of 500 deaths and about 6,000 serious accidents a year.
  There may still be differences of opinion among my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite about this, because detailed questions of road safety are nonparty. Some people think that one thing

  801
  is better than the other. However, I am fully convinced—as I believe are most of my hon. Friends—that in the light of the information which we have now been given, it is deplorable that, instead of completely dropping this provision, the Government did not decide to institute whatever is the quickest and most practicable form of compulsory vehicle inspection. The lives of 500 people or more might be saved each year—and that is taking a figure of only 10 per cent.—besides 6,000 serious injuries. It is a most remarkable thing that, having made out the case so well, the Government say, "We are not going to do anything about it."
  Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech that the figures in the United States had fallen from 8 to 6·3 per cent. when he was comparing the States where they had inspection with States which had not. That is nothing like the fall which the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to make out.
  Mr. Strauss: I said it was about 20 per cent: If the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) will do a little quick arithmetic he will find that the difference between 8 per cent. and 6·4 per cent. is about that figure. My arithmetic must be quicker than his in this matter.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman was talking of road miles and not of accidents.
  Mr. Strauss: I know the exact figures because I have quoted them often. The number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles in those States which have vehicle inspection is 6·4 per cent. compared with 8 per cent. in States which have not. I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that those figures are correct. There is a difference of about 20 per cent. Halve it for over here and make it 10 per cent., and that as I have said, will make a difference of 500 deaths and 6,000 serious accidents on our roads a year.
  About half the cars now on our roads are at least fifteen years old. Many of them must be defective, and usually the owner does not know. I am not suggesting that we can have a scheme under which all cars will be inspected suddenly,
  802
  but we strongly advocate the gradual introduction of a scheme whereby the older car, say those which are at least ten or fifteen years old, are examined and regularly inspected. Later on it might apply to all cars of at least five years old. We should not believe the propaganda made by some bodies that this proposal will involve enormous expense or thousands of inspectors. If it is properly organised, as in the United States, it will mean very little expense—none on the taxpayer. The 50 cents charged over there may mean 10s. over here, and this will easily cover the cost. The number of people doing the inspection in the early stages, and I believe in the later stages, would not be very many.
  That the Minister should now give us this advice—after making the case effectively before and even better today—and say "We are not going to do anything about it," is extraordinary. If, in the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary, there was such a strong case a few months ago for this proposal, why does he drop it now, and suggest instead a spot check which it will be exceedingly difficult to work out and which, I think he will agree, could be nothing like so effective as a regular check of vehicles?
  I do not know why the Government have changed their mind. They say that public opinion does not like it; what do they know about public opinion? Public opinion has not expressed itself. If the public were told that this plan might save 500 to 1,000 deaths a year, public opinion would say, "We want it, and the quicker the better." Public opinion has not expressed itself on the matter. I seriously tell the Minister that his retreat on this all-important matter shows a deplorable lack of courage and resolution on an issue which is literally one of life and death.
  My hon. Friends have a number of points to express, many of them of detail on the provisions of the Bill and others of general criticism about the Government's policy or absence of policy. I will, therefore, sum up, and say that the time has come when the Government should make up their mind to treat the problem of the roads with far more seriousness and a far greater sense of urgency than they have done up to now. This change will only happen if sufficient pressure is put on the Government by Parliament.

  803
  Today we are taking the first opportunity afforded to us in this new Parliament to initiate what we hope will become an all-party irresistible movement which will bring action in its train. We say to the Government, "This problem of road traffic and road safety brooks no delay. Stop dithering and tinkering about it. Attack it with the imagination and vigour which the situation requires and the country demands."
  5.4 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I have noticed that several Members who have preceded me in the ordeal of addressing this House for the first time have started off by disclaiming any intention of being controversial, but have found it hard to keep to this good resolution. In my case I ought to be particularly careful not to offend in that, or in any other, way, because the fact that I have the honour to represent Nottingham, Central means that this House has been deprived of the services of one who, I was not at all surprised to hear when I arrived here, was so universally popular on all sides of the House.
  However, so far as being non-controversial is concerned, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) has just said, nothing could be more nonparty than the question of halting the terrible carnage that goes on year after year on the roads of this country. I feel very deeply on this subject, and I know that this House does, also. It is a lamentable fact, however, that the general public does not feel that way at all. We slaughtered on the roads last year more than the total population of a town such as Cromer and seriously injured men, women and children equal to the population of a city such as Colchester. The grand total—perhaps the word "grand" is not the right one to use in this connection—of killed and injured was about equal to the population of a city such as Cardiff.
  These dreadful facts, however, appear to affect the public conscience very little. If they did, we should now be debating a somewhat different Bill from this one, a Bill with more and sharper teeth in it. We should also be seeing very different sentences for motoring offences imposed in our courts of law. We should find juries more willing to bring in verdicts of
  804
  "manslaughter," and thus obviate the necessity of Clause 5 of this Bill which institutes the new offence of "causing death by reckless or dangerous driving."
  This is one of those cases in which this House—as it has so often done in the past—should not be content merely to interpret the will of the public, but should act in advance of public opinion. Many factors, of course, affect road safety and the accident rate. Many of them, and perhaps, the most important, such as the construction of new roads and the improvement of existing ones, are outside the scope of the Bill. So far as measures within its scope are concerned, I should like for a few minutes to suggest one or two which are not included in the Bill, but which could be carried out without the expenditure of any public money at all.
  The first of these is to make compulsory the use of both an exterior side mirror and an interior mirror, centrally placed one in the case of all private motor cars and, wherever possible, in the case of all cemmercial vehicles also. All hon. Members who have been used to driving a car and relying only upon a centrally-placed interior mirror will know quite well that there is an extensive blind spot on one's offside, normally occupying about a 10-degree arc. It includes the most dangerous area of all, the final 10 or 15 yards in which another vehicle is overtaking and is just about to pass.
  The position is even worse with commercial vehicles. The blind areas is larger. These vehicles usually have an exterior mirror, but seldom an interior one. Often, of course, it is impossible to fit an interior mirror, but in cases of lorries with low body-work it is possible. The only check I have ever heard of showed that 30 per cent. of commercial vehicles had bodies sufficiently low to enable them to be fitted with an interior mirror, and of these 30 per cent. only 5 per cent. were so fitted.
  In 1953, the last year for which we have detailed accident figures, 1,251 accidents were caused—to use the official description—from vehicles
  "pulling out from the near side, or from one traffic lane to another without due care."
  There were 2,595 accidents caused by drivers negligently opening the doors of their vehicles. Incidentally, 3½ per cent. of all accidents caused to cyclists, a total

  805
  of 3,473 in 1953, were due to collisions with the doors of other vehicles and in most of those cases the much-blamed cyclist was certainly not to blame.
  We have no figures to prove it, but I think that a very large proportion of accidents from these two causes were, in fact, partly attributable to the lack of a second mirror. I think, also, that a great many of the 7,430 accidents caused in 1953 by that most common of all causes, "turning to the right without due care," must also be partly attributed to it. So as no provision for the compulsory fitting of a second mirror is included in the Bill, perhaps my right hon. Friend would consider having evidence collected from now on in order to record what mirrors were, in fact, fitted in motor vehicles concerned in these three types of accident.
  The second provision that I should like to suggest concerns stray dogs on the roads. The four main causes of accidents are drivers, passengers, pedestrians and defects of vehicles. After that dogs are responsible for more accidents than any other single factor. I know that it would be impracticable and undesirable to suggest that unleashed dogs be banned from the roads altogether, but I do suggest that they should be banned from roads in built-up areas. I know that it has been argued that such a law could not be enforced, and, of course, the sight of a police officer chasing a dog along the road in order to establish its identity would not add greatly to the dignity of the force.
  Nevertheless, I think that that objection is rather exaggerated. After all, a village constable knows to whom all the local dogs belong. And, in any case, can we afford not to do something about this when it is remembered that in 1953, 2,848 accidents—an average of about eight a day—were caused from this reason alone?
  Whether or not such a law could be enforced, I should like the Minister to consider one that most certainly could. I suggest that, wherever there is a cycle track, cyclists should be compelled to use it. I know that this is by no means an original suggestion. It has been urged on the Minister before, and I understand that the objections to it are threefold. They are, first, that we have not very many cycle tracks; secondly, that the ones which we have are often not in very good condition, and, thirdly, that in any case, we cannot keep cyclists out of the
  806
  main streams of traffic at the most dangerous places of all, that is to say, cross-roads and roundabouts.
  I do not think that those are very valid objections. They do not suggest that such a measure would not save lives; all they suggest is that they would not save very many. Here again, however, we have no statistics with which to prove the case. May I suggest again, therefore, as in the case of the second driving mirror, that in future the police should collect the figures to show in which cases cyclists were involved in accidents on roads where a cycle track was available?
  While still on the question of statistics, may I also ask for records to be kept of accidents attributable about this time of the year to causes resulting from the failure of the local authorities to scythe the grass verges, which can transform perfectly safe and gentle bends into death traps? I should like to mention one more of these suggestions, and that is that bevelled kerbstones should be used outside built-up areas instead of the upright ones, which so many local authorities are still using and which are positively dangerous because they frighten motorists into driving nearer than they otherwise would to the centre of the road, and, therefore, nearer to other traffic. I understand that the Minister encourages the use of these bevelled kerbstones, but would it not be possible to go a little bit further than encouragement?
  All these suggestions upon which I have touched at least have the merit that they would not involve the expenditure of any public money at all. That is why I have been quoting only measures of that sort, and have not mentioned another very popular one which has been advocated several times recently by hon. Members of this House, that of reducing or abolishing the Purchase Tax on crash helmets. I leave that suggestion there, along with the further suggestion that we might make the wearing of such helmets compulsory, because I think it is more important first to deal with those measures which are likely to stop people killing other people rather than measures which are merely designed to stop them killing themselves.
  That brings me to my last point, and that is the question of the enforcement of the penal Clauses in this Bill, Clauses 15 to 19. While welcoming them very much,

  807
  I suggest that, possibly, they do not go far enough. By that I do not mean that I am advocating larger minimum fines for these offences than are provided for in this Bill. I do not think that they would be any deterrent. Nor am I advocating more and longer prison sentences. We do not want to have these irresponsible people kept in prison at the taxpayers' expense, but we do want them off the roads.
  For that reason, I feel convinced that the right answer to this question is a longer disqualification, but such disqualification to be effective it has to be largely automatic. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, there is great reluctance—and, of course, it is part of this business that the public conscience has not been aroused as it should be on this matter—to impose the sentence allowed. When we come to the question of disqualification, it is found that in 1953, of the 25,141 convictions for careless driving, the discretionary disqualification was imposed in only 626, which is less than one in 40 cases. Even in first convictions for reckless or dangerous driving, the discretionary disqualification was imposed in less than one-third of the convictions.
  I suggest, therefore, that it would be rather more appropriate if there was an automatic disqualification of one year in any first offence for reckless or dangerous driving, and, in the case of a second offence, one of three years. For driving while under the influence of drink, I suggest that a period of three years would be more appropriate for a first offence, but for a second or subsequent offence, I do not think we need to work out any particular number of years. Such dangerous and irresponsible people, together with those convicted a third time for reckless or dangerous driving, should be barred from the driver's seat for ever.
  That is all I wish to say, and I am sorry to have detained the House for so long. I should like to point out once more that the rather minor suggestions which I made at the beginning of my speech concerning road safety would not cost any money. If they saved only a few lives, and if they were really practicable and did not involve the expenditure of any public money, then perhaps they might be considered worthy of further attention. The collection of
  808
  the necessary statistics would be useful for the House and the Minister when further legislation is considered in the future.
  Finally, on the point I made about a longer period of automatic disqualification for reckless or dangerous driving and of driving while under the influence of drink, I have no doubt what the effect would be, and while I welcome the enforcement Clauses of the Bill, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, in fact, they go far enough in convincing the people that we are really determined to do what we possibly can to end this terrible holocaust on our roads which is causing the loss of thousands of innocent lives in ever-mounting numbers every year.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: Whatever may be the fate of the latter part of my speech, I am quite sure that I shall have the whole House with me when I express to the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut. - Colonel Cordeaux) our sincere congratulations on a speech noteworthy for the qualities that it displays. He began with a graceful tribute to his predecessor, and all who knew that hon. Member in this House will be grateful for that.
  I well remember, after the 1906 General Election, the late John Morley being asked to express his views of the result. He said, "Unholy is the voice of loud thanksgiving over slaughtered foes." The hon. and gallant Gentleman has done even more than refrain from that. He has paid a tribute, sincere and well deserved, to one who was a friend—irrespective of the way in which we use that word here —of every hon. Member. I may say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has gone a long way to establishing himself in that position by the phrases with which he opened his speech.
  Again, he spoke on strictly practical lines on some of these intimate problems with which the whole country is concerned. I am quite certain that his right hon. Friend on the Government Front Bench will be duly impressed with the way in which he advocated his particular remedies. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member's career has been one of great variety and distinction. There are few people, I think, who start as a sailor, then become a Marine and then go into

  809
  the Army. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can display on the varied subjects which come before us here the high skill he has shown in speaking about our present subject, his position in the House is assured, and we shall all be looking forward to hearing him on other matters.
  I have discovered in these latter years that there are two opening gambits for a speech. The first is for the hon. Member addressing the House to say that he hopes that the hon. Member who preceded him will excuse him if he does not follow him; secondly, that he will only detain the House for a few minutes. He generally keeps the first promise, but fails lamentably in the second. The customs of the House preclude me from not following the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I shall endeavour not merely to say the second opening gambit, but to prove that I can use it.
  I join in the general criticisms which were made of this Bill by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), and I do not want to spend any more time on that. I want to follow the lines adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central, and to deal with a few practical points. I am concerned at the failure to secure effective enforcement of the law. It is a serious failure. I am not convinced that we rightly call public opinion those influences which are brought to bear to prevent adequate enforcement.
  When I was a teacher, very few parents brought their children to school, but when I leave my home to come to this House, whether at morning or midday, I see nearly one-third of the children—whether attending primary schools or others—being accompanied by their parents because, in spite of road crossing patrols and other devices, these mothers go in daily dread of what will happen to their children if they go to school unaccompanied. They represent public opinion. The steps they take show their concern. I sincerely hope that we shall not regard juries—mainly composed of motorists—as, of necessity, representing public opinion.
  It is no good complaining that a chairman of quarter sessions does not inflict heavy enough penalties if he cannot get
  810
  the conviction which would justify him in imposing any penalty at all. I believe that a lessening of these penalties would result in more convictions, because, if we made the maximum sentence three months' imprisonment, it is quite certain that very different results would be achieved than those achieved when we make the maximum sentence one of four or more months' imprisonment.
  We cannot afford to regard lightly this continued loss of life. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not want to be regarded as complacent when he told us that the number of children killed had fallen from over 1,000 at some date in the past to over 600 today, but 600 children killed needlessly every year is an appalling toll of life. I very much hope that some means will be found by which we can reduce that toll.
  I am not in favour of automatic penalties in any circumstance. One of the difficulties about getting convictions against people found to be under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a vehicle is a speech that was made, not on the bench but outside, by the Lord Chief Justice. In that speech he said that every such conviction ought to be followed by imprisonment. I would not mind had it been said that there would have to be some good cause shown why imprisonment should not be inflicted, but juries have got it into their minds that if they find a man guilty of driving when under the influence of drink the chairman of quarter sessions will be bound to send him to prison. I know that that is not so, but I am speaking of what juries have got into their minds.
  I know of one deputy-chairman of quarter sessions, since retired, who, when he thought that the case was one where there should be a conviction, but was not one of the more serious kind, would say in the course of his summing up, "Of course, this offence, if there is a conviction does carry the possibility of imprisonment, but if you come to the conclusion that the prosecution have proved their case—and you must be quite sure of that —well, personally, I should not regard this, even if you take the whole of the prosecution's case into consideration, as a case in which imprisonment ought to be inflicted." Occasionally a jury, after being so addressed, found a verdict of guilty.

  811
  If, in any other class of offence, as many prosecutions by the police resulted in verdicts of not guilty—and these are nearly always police prosecutions—everyone would say that in this matter the police were over-zealous. But, in spite of all that is said on the matter, no one, so far as I know, has ever accused the police of being over-zealous in this matter. But if they failed as lamentably in getting convictions in cases of breaking and entering and similar offences, I am quite certain that severe criticism of the police would be made.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central mentioned the case of the opening of motor-car doors and the trapping of cyclists as a result. The curious thing is that for a long time, magistrates convicted people for that. Then one of the A.A. solicitors, who get the customary couple of guineas for going to court and saying, "My client is unable to come. She pleads guilty. I do not think I need trouble the magistrates any further except to say that she has not been convicted very often before, and I hope you will make the penalty light," took the trouble to look up the Section under which the woman was charged, and found that one can only be prosecuted for opening a car door if the vehicle is moving. It is a very old statute. The solicitor's client was found not guilty by the bench of magistrates.
  Other people who had been convicted for this offence heard of this, and when I was Home Secretary I was inundated by applications for the matter to be put right. I had to send recommendations for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in dozens, in order to put the matter right. If a person in a stationary vehicle carelessly opens a door, I can see no reason why it should not be made a definite offence according to the law and why it should not be one of the things that should be amenable to the law.
  However, when we come to automatic penalties, let us realise that every case has to be judged on its merits, and in most cases other than these the difficulty is not to arrive at what the result of the case ought to be. The problem arises when the magistrate or the chairman of quarter sessions has to impose a penalty. That is the really difficult thing that falls to
  812
  people who hold magisterial and judicial offices. To be faced with the fact that in a case which in the particular circumstances needs lenient treatment, one is compelled automatically to impose a serious penalty like disqualification for a certain period, often places magistrates and chairmen of quarter sessions in a difficult position and makes benches of magistrates and juries reluctant to convict when they think that the penalty that must be imposed goes far beyond what the justice of the case requires.
  We ought to remember that we call our tribunals "courts of justice," and there are occasions when magistrates and juries find their sense of justice injured by the knowledge that a certain decision that they ought to take will involve a penalty that they believe to be excessive. On these occasions we are lowering the dignity of the law in the country, and I always view with regret any statutes which impose an automatic penalty.
  I therefore do not feel that the increases in penalties in this Bill will, of necessity, have the effect that is hoped. I think that the invention of a new crime of killing a person by a motor car is in itself a thing to be regretted. I would have thought that it is possible under the law with regard to dangerous driving, where manslaughter is not involved, for a bench so to deal with the matter as to see that a proper penalty is inflicted.
  Of course, one of the troubles that we have is that whereas the horse was an intelligent animal, and was not likely to incur injury to itself, no matter what the driver wanted to do, the motor car is a lethal weapon which has no emotions at all. What it does is due entirely either to mechanical defects or to the will of the person who is driving it. I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this provision with regard to making death caused by a motor car a separate offence.
  I very much regret, too, that the medical profession when dealing with middle-class motor-car drivers do not understand that a person can be drunk. I recollect the first time that that definition was contested under the old law, when a doctor went into the witness box and said "Drunk' is a colloquial term. I do not know what it means. I cars describe the symptoms. It is for the jury

  813
  to decide whether the man was drunk or not." When I was a provost sergeant in the Army I knew when a man was drunk. If he could take his boots off before he went to bed he was not drunk. If I had not given him the opportunity to show whether he could do it, I am quite sure that no commanding officer would have found him guilty.
  Only a fortnight ago, a policeman giving evidence in front of me about a man charged with being drunk and incapable said, "Sir, his breath smelt strongly of drink. He staggered. He was drunk." No one can sit in court and listen to the way in which these cases are settled by conflicting medical evidence without realising that public opinion is very often outraged by the way in which the thing is carried through.
  I sincerely hope that this problem of driving a vehicle while sufficiently under the influence of drink or drugs to be incapable of having proper control of it will receive very serious consideration from the leaders of the medical profession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) attends quarter sessions with me on occasions, and he will agree that the way in which this evidence is given in the courts reflects no credit on the medical profession and can only confuse instead of help intelligent jurymen who are trying to do their duty.
  No one wishes to say that the mere fact that a man smells of drink should be regarded as evidence of drunkenness. I do not believe in blood tests, because one man can take a quantity of alcohol which would make another man quite incapable and yet be reasonably under control. But I ask that the medical profession itself, which has a heavy responsibility in this matter, shall face up to that responsibility and assist rather than confuse the minds of those honest citizens who for the first, and possibly the last, time in their lives are sitting in a jury box trying to deal with the matter.
  On the general criticisms offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, I join issue with the Government. I hope that what I have said about the difficulties of enforcement may make some impression on their minds.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. Denzil Freeth: In asking for the indulgence of the House for a maiden speaker, I realise that I labour under three great disabilities. First, I have to follow the maiden speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux), and the trouble is that he set so high a standard as to make it very awkward for those who follow him. Secondly, anybody who talks about road safety brings into judgment his own performance on the roads, whether as a driver or as a pedestrian, and I am very conscious of the fact that both my views and my sympathies tend to alter rather a lot according to which rôle I happen to be playing at any one time. Thirdly, I labour under the disability that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is an elector in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and the House will therefore see the over-riding necessity for me to be as non-controversial about the Bill as possible.
  Through the constituency of Basingstoke runs the main road from London to the West of England—A.30, A.303. Further, through the middle of the town in which I live we have the main road from Birmingham and the Midlands to Southampton and the sea. In other words, using our roads we have not merely the vehicles taking away the manufactured goods and farm produce of our industries and our farms, not merely the vehicles needed to bring the raw materials to keep our industries of Andover, Basingstoke, Overton and Whit-church fully employed, but also large numbers of constituents of other hon. Members coming through my constituency either in charabancs and buses or in lorries and private cars, particularly at the week-end. Driving and the condition of our roads is, therefore, to us one of the most important things of our lives.
  It is, I submit, non-controversial to say that at present our major roads are entirely inadequate. Large stretches of them are under the 30 m.p.h. speed limit, and at the present rate of building it appears that ever-larger stretches are likely to come under the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. I am glad that in his Bill my right hon. Friend proposes no longer to link this prewar speed with the erection of post-war lamp-posts.

  815
  I cannot help feeling that, as a general limit all over the country, a 30 m.p.h. limit has much to be said against it. There is, surely no scriptural authority for the figure 30. There are many places in built-up areas where a speed of 20 m.p.h. can be dangerous, and there are many more where a speed of 45 m.p.h can be pursued in a built-up area in a modern car with absolute safety. I cannot help thinking that there is a case for allowing a far more flexible speed limit in built-up areas and also for a great deal of the responsibility for deciding that limit being given by the Minister to the local authorities concerned.
  It also seems to me that safety on the roads does not demand only a maximum speed limit. I think there is a case in many instances for a minimum speed limit. Let me explain what I mean. Most of the major roads in this country are of the normal three-car width. I regard that width as about the most dangerous imaginable. Indeed, I can never understand why today, when major road improvements are undertaken, or even minor widenings, we still maintain in so many cases the three-car width. For three cars to drive abreast at any one time is perilous. Yet overtaking can become almost a vital necessity. For instance, when a car is hugging the crown of the road at about 30 to 35 m.p.h. and when other drivers on a hot Saturday afternoon have come out of London, perhaps through Staines, and are suffering through their patience wearing thin and their lungs being filled with petrol fumes, they may believe that it is vital to overtake, and they do overtake.
  It seems to me that there is a case—and I remind hon. Members of the procedure in many continental countries, on the autobahnen and other roads—for having a minimum speed limit where there are by-passes or duplicate roads running round a town. This is in order not to have main line traffic which can travel at a faster speed held up, particularly on winding narrow roads, by the person who is prepared to travel at only 25 m.p.h.
  In so far as the Bill supplements a road building programme, I believe it is welcomed, or at any rate parts of it are welcomed, by most hon. Members. I particularly welcome Clause 2, which
  816
  deals with education for road safety, and the assumption which it brings with it that the Minister is prepared to persuade the Treasury to disgorge larger sums for this purpose. It is, I think, a pity that at the same time as we have this encouragement to believe that more money will be spent upon road education we are also told that that best seller, the Highway Code, is to be increased in price; because to have taken away with one hand what is given by the other does not make one relish the gift all the more.
  I believe that many people in this country still have not bought the Highway Code, and I doubt whether they will be encouraged to buy it by the decision to raise its price from 1d. to 2d. I cannot help feeling that this is one case where an extra 1d. could almost literally mean an increase in the cost of living.
  I hope that many of those excellent maxims in the Highway Code will be taken by the Minister out of the covers of the Highway Code and given greater prominence in the country. I will give two examples of what I mean. When I drive on a Friday night from London to Basingstoke, I very often discover that there are two or three lorries or charabancs driving nose to tail along the road. That is essentially dangerous on a three-car width road, because a charabanc is wider than a car. One is unable to pass because there is not sufficient space between the charabanc or lorries on winding English roads. It is noticeable that even new roads seem almost to have been designed by Chesterton's "rolling English drunkard." It is almost impossible to pass a large fleet of charabancs or lorries.
  The Army provides an excellent example of how to drive in convoy and to give room for others. Unfortunately, civilian drivers do not follow that example. Yet we all know that in the Highway Code there is Rule 56:
  "Do not drive nose to tail on the open road."
  Unhappily, that is a maxim which very often remains within the covers of the Highway Code.
  My second example is those either very small or very large cars—I do not know why it is usually one or the other—which cling tenaciously to the crown of the road and pursue the even tenor of their way at about 25 to 30 miles per hour. Again

  817
  we all know of those needless queues that form behind those cars which could be avoided if only people would take heed of maxim 17 of the Highway Code:
  "Do not hug the middle of the road."
  I ask the Minister to take those excellent maxims out of the covers of the Highway Code and placard them about the country. I should like to see a national poster campaign around the country with posters on sites at the side of main roads, not merely in towns, not merely where there are large hoardings, but where there are quite small ones by the sides of main roads facing oncoming traffic, and not only by the sides of roads in built-up areas. They should be by the side of roads in the countryside, and particularly by the side of dual carriageways, to encourage the car driver who, overjoyed at having passed something, thereupon remains glued to the outside lane.
  It may be objected that we have had poster campaigns before and that after a General Election we are particularly sick of them. Although we have had the "Black Widow" asking us to "Keep death off the road," I cannot help thinking that my suggestion avoids the disadvantages of past programmes. The first reason is that the posters need not be very large and they should be by the side of the road where drivers of oncoming traffic can see them. Secondly, they would be not general but specific in the advice they would give. I believe that as a nation we have grown tired, we have grown almost immune, to generalised exhortation. For so many years we have been told to "Export or Die," "Work or Want," "Go on Saving" that I do not think we very often read those posters. But, if one comes round the bend of the road and sees a notice which hits one in the face "Don't bunch," "Don't hug the side of the road," people will take much more notice of it.
  It may be objected that we have far too many hoardings in the countryside at present. That may well be true. We are told what beer to buy, what tobacco or what detergent, but, so long as road posters remain on our countryside there is one thing more important—more important than "boiling whites whiter"—and that is keeping blood off the roads.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: It is my privilege and pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) on the second of the two first-class maiden speeches which have been made this afternoon. I think he combined those qualities which are desirable in a maiden speech: first, that of talking about something he really knows; secondly, relating it to his constituency; thirdly, bringing in a modicum of wit, which he very pleasantly did; and, finally, of being non-controversial.
  It was a constructive and helpful speech. I hope that the Minister will take note of the many useful suggestions which were made. I know the House will look forward to future speeches from the hon. Member. I express the hope that they will be controversial. I have reason to believe that they will be, as the hon. Member represented Cambridge University in a debate in the United States a few years ago, when his reputation was considerably enhanced.
  I cannot quite understand why the Government decided to reintroduce this Bill at this stage. In the Lords the original Bill received very rough treatment. Here, during Second Reading a great number of suggestions were put forward, criticisms made, comments passed and none of those suggestions—or very few—has been accepted by the Government. I should have thought that this Bill could have waited until we reassembled after the Summer Recess. That would have given the Government time to redraft considerable portions of the Measure which was dropped on the Dissolution of Parliament and to bring in a more comprehensive Bill. It will be many months before this Bill can become law because of the long Summer Recess, the Committee stage, and so forth. In the end, little time would be lost by following that course.
  As it is, the Bill remains a series of miscellaneous proposals, many of which are desirable in themselves, but the sum total of which do not achieve the purpose of the Bill which the Parliamentary Secretary described this afternoon—that of adequately relieving road congestion and materially increasing road safety. I recall that, during the Minister's speech on Second Reading of the former Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was

  819
  necessary to fit the pieces of Government legislation into the jigsaw of transport policies.
  The pieces of this part of the jigsaw do not make any pattern whatever. Many pieces are missing and others are very difficult to fit in. Now that the proposal for compulsory testing of roadworthiness of vehicles has, unfortunately, been dropped in the way my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) described, apart from the important Clauses which create new offences in some cases and increase penalties in others, which have been adequately and extremely well dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the main Clauses are Clauses 9 to 14 and the First Schedule, dealing with parking. They introduce a number of new principles, some of which I certainly do not favour.
  I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary's exposition of this part of the Bill. While the intention is good, I have considerable doubts whether these Clauses will succeed in achieving the objective which has been set. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, 78 per cent. of the kerbside space in Central London is occupied by parked vehicles during the day. If we are to succeed in removing a considerable number of those vehicles into garage space, or to new facilities provided off the highway, we shall have to undertake a very considerable amount of construction.
  That is very desirable, but does the Parliamentary Secretary really think that by the erection of a large number of parking meters we shall succeed in removing those vehicles from the roads? With the number of parking meters which will have to be erected and the great amount of garage space that will have to be provided, it is difficult to see how they will solve the problem. If we erect parking meters to cope with a large proportion of those vehicles we shall make permanent the parking of vehicles alongside the roads, and that ought not to be. I think it is wrong in principle to authorise the permanent use of a large part of the Queen's highway for the parking of vehicles, but that is what will be done by the introduction of parking meters.
  I wonder whether they would relieve congestion. What I fear is this. If we authorise the use of certain streets for
  820
  parking, whether they are streets already used for parking or not, those streets become so congested that the flow of traffic will be slowed down and vehicles will seek the main arteries again and so add to congestion elsewhere. One sees that already in streets where there is heavy parking, as there is in Soho. Traffic cannot get through streets in Soho despite or because of unilateral parking, and Soho Square is congested with double parking.
  This problem of parking creates a dilemma. We need to ensure both adequate parking facilities and a free flow of traffic, and the two are contradictory. I fear that if we increase the amount of parking space for motorists we shall encourage them to some extent to bring more cars into Central London or other urban areas. It seems that there is nothing a motorist abhors more than a kerbside vacuum. The kerbside seems to have some compulsion over him to draw him to it to park there.
  First, alternative accommodation has to be provided for him. Secondly, there must be a considerable increase in the restrictions imposed upon parking in urban areas. It will be difficult, I know, to enforce restrictions on parking. That is one of the main problems which confront us. I suggest that the free flow of traffic through London during the railway strike has some lessons to teach us.
  There were three factors which contributed to the freer flow of a much greater volume of traffic during the strike. One was the increased restriction on parking in Central London. It acted as a deterrent to some traffic from coming in. It was also a deterrent to the abuse of parking or the breaking of parking laws. Secondly, the manual direction by the police of the traffic helped it to flow more freely. Thirdly, there was the acceptance by drivers of the necessity for those increased regulations and the drivers' consequent co-operation with the police. The co-operation of the public during the railway strike was very noticeable.
  If, in normal times, there were similar co-operation on the part of the public the traffic problem would be somewhat easier, but there are several reasons why that cooperation is not given at present. One is that the public does not accept that the present restrictions are fairly imposed. People ignore a number of the parking rules because they are not convinced that

  821
  they are fairly enforced. Many people park vehicles where they are not supposed to be parked, and where they cause obstruction, and they seem to regard their fines for doing this simply as so much parking payment in lieu of garage fees.
  If there is to be that co-operation from the public which is necessary there must be stricter enforcement of the present regulations, and fair enforcement. At present, as every motorist knows, if one parks illegally, it is a gamble whether one is accosted by the police or whether one gets away with it. It is a gamble often worth while taking. It is not, however, the way in which the law should be regarded.
  There is something to be said for having a special corps of traffic enforcement officers in London. It will ultimately be found to be the only way in which motoring offences can be thoroughly checked and the situation kept under control, and people forced to co-operate in observing the law.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall pointed out, we cannot deal with the question of road traffic and road safety in isolation or in the piecemeal way which is attempted by this Bill. The overall transport plan which is required includes an adequate roads programme, sufficient traffic regulations for public service vehicles and private vehicles, adequate provision for public services, and, of course, other provisions, which are dealt with in the Bill, for standards of driving, parking, and other matters relating to road safety.
  In relation to these there are certain general aims of which I would put first, as the most important, trying to fit the roads to the number of vehicles using them, and, of course, to make those roads safe for those vehicles. In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary said today about the inadequacy of the previous Labour Government's roads programme, I do not think the Government can fail to admit that the present roads programme is quite inadequate. It is no good saying that because the Labour Government failed to spend much on the roads—there were many reasons why it then proved impossible to spend more—therefore, anything the Government spend they must have credit for and anything the Govern-
  822
  ment spend must be considered adequate and, consequently, they must not be attacked for not spending more. That is not the way to look at this very serious problem.
  In the days of the Labour Government it was necessary strictly to watch priorities in capital investment. There were great shortages at that time, and certain investments had to be made to catch up on deficiencies left by the war and to enable industry to regain export markets. In those circumstances, unfortunately, expenditure on the roads had to be deferred. The situation is not the same today. Many of the deficiencies have been made good and much more money is being put into capital investment today than before, but the roads are not receiving their full share. The roads programme could be increased and could be speeded up.
  Last Friday we debated this during the Second Reading of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, and which abolishes the Road Fund. I referred to this matter, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply, said that it was not finance which was holding up an increase in the roads programme. He said:
  "It is a matter of the plans being ready and the resources available for going forward with them. At present, these are the restricting factors, and not the impossibility of providing money.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 1st July, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 686.]
  If that is so, the Minister has no reason to hold up an increase in the road programme any longer because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said, the civil engineering industry has stated categorically that it could increase substantially the work on road construction.
  The industry has said that materials are available and the skill is available for doubling the size of the present programme. Sir Geoge M. Burt, the President of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, has stated it, and so have those who are concerned with the production of materials such as sand, ballast, and cement. There have been great advances in the mechanisation of road construction and the manpower involved is by no means great. The speed with which construction takes place today is so much greater than formerly

  823
  that there is no reason why there should not be a considerable increase in the roads programme.
  The Minister of Transport, when he was reminded in a television programme earlier this year that the civil engineers said that they could carry out double the programme which he announced, asked, "In the end, is it not always a question of finance?" I do not know whether the Minister is right in saying that, or whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was right in suggesting that work is restricted by lack of plans and inadequacy of materials. I am convinced that the plans are there. We have a surfeit of plans. They are ready for implementation. We on this side of the House drew up plans when we were in office but, as has been explained, we were, unfortunately, unable to carry them out. Many more plans are now available and so are the men and materials.
  In addition to making the roads adequate to the vehicles which are coming on them in increasing numbers, another need is to attract traffic to the public services and thereby relieve the congestion caused by private transport, both passenger and goods. The bus, per passenger, occupies very much less road space than does the private car per passenger. Figures relating to that fact have been given in the House on other occasions, but if the public are to be attracted to the public services certain requirements are necessary. The services must be speedy and adequate and that requires a clear and faster flow of traffic. The flow is now so restricted by the congestion caused by the parking of vehicles and other factors that in some cases services are inadequate.
  A further factor is that the high cost of travel today often makes it worth the public's while to use their own transport in one form or another rather than the public services. The high cost of transport also leads to a restriction of the running of certain routes. We have seen, in the rural areas in particular, how un-remunerative routes have ceased to be operated. The high cost of transport is leading to restriction of transport which leads to desertion of the public service vehicle for private transport, which, in turn, has the unfortunate consequence of further increasing the cost of transport.
  824
  One way in which the Government can help to attract people to the public services is to reduce the cost of transport by reducing taxation on fuel. I have already said that it is necessary also to have adequate and speedier services. Here, again, the Government can help considerably by allowing the British Transport Commission to proceed with the construction of the new tube route "C" across Central London for which plans are being drawn and authorisation is being obtained through the Commission's Private Bill. The Commission has pointed out that if that tube is constructed there will be considerable relief to surface transport in London, although it may be that in the early days the tube will be unremunerative and Government assistance will be necessary.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has already referred to the break-up of British Road Services and how that has led to congestion on the roads. That cannot be disputed at present. There are now more vehicles carrying the same amount of goods as before, which obviously means more congestion. In addition, with the increased competition which has come with the break-up of British Road Services there is far less safety on the roads, because of longer hours worked by the drivers, their inadequate rest periods and the fact that many vehicles are poorly maintained. These facts have been pointed out in the House on several occasions. There is less safety. There is also more waste through smaller loads being carried and less economic operation. This leads to the encouragement of the ancillary user.
  We on this side of the House were attacked time and time again when we were in office because C licences increased in number when the Transport Commission was operating British Road Services, but I suggest to the Minister that he will find that the number of C licensed vehicles is not falling today but is continuing to increase and that the deterioration of road services is encouraging the use of private transport. I will not refer to the whole subject of integration of transport, because we have discussed it so frequently, but the position has not changed, but unless we have planned transport, with integration of road and rail, we shall not be able to bring about any permanent solution of the traffic

  825
  congestion and difficulties which concern the transport system of the country.
  The Government are shirking the transport problem. They have not faced the real difficulties which concern those who are responsible for operating transport, whether the public services, private enterprise or the private owner of vehicles. The Government are doing little to meet the problem through the medium of this Bill. Until they succeed in introducing an adequate roads programme and follow a policy which sees that the traffic goes to that section of transport which leads to the most economical use of our transport system, we shall continue to be faced with the present serious situation of congestion, dangers on the roads and uneconomic operation. It would be in the interests of road users and their safety if the Government withdrew the Bill and prepared a comprehensive Measure for presentation in the autumn. That is why the Opposition have put forward the Amendment, which, I hope, the House will accept.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: There has been rather a spate of maiden speeches this afternoon and the longer I sat listening to the contributions the smaller got my speech. If I had continued listening to much more I would have torn up the whole of my notes. I should like to say how proud I am to be the first Member in this House for the new constituency of Selly Oak, in Birmingham. Perhaps I may mention the name of one who was very dear to all of us, the late Ronald Cartland, who was for many years the Member for the greater part of what is now my constituency.
  No one in this House or outside it could claim that any traffic Bill would be a cure for all the ills of our traffic problem, but my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has convinced me that the Minister has gone a very long way towards easing the problem which now faces us. I was pleased to notice the justification for this Measure and the arguments why we cannot go further. We must all remember that road users—and that is not only the motorists—have suffered a tremendous amount of legislation in the past and to load on to the road user more than is in this Bill would be much more than we humans could digest,
  826
  particularly when we remember that no one using the roads could remember all the regulations, which he does not observe anyway.
  This Bill is for the safety on our roads and the relief of congestion on them. It is frightening to think of what the traffic on our roads will be like twenty years hence. It is not likely that any Minister during that time will be able to put our roads into the condition in which they ought to be. There have been many difficulties in the past few years, and we ought to remember that no Minister could accomplish much in the war years and that that loss has not been made good since.
  I should like to make one suggestion which, no doubt, the Minister has in mind. There is a tremendous amount of road surface in the very limited area of our small island, already too heavily populated, which will have to take more vehicles in the future. We have land taken by canals and the railways as well as the roads. Every new vehicle that comes on to the roads—and they are coming at a terrific rate—must find room somewhere. Each vehicle has to be accommodated somehow on our road system, because it cannot fly over a river in the way that helicopters fly over the Thames.
  The congestion on our roads is not only due to parking while we are about our business, but the vehicle has to be put somewhere for the rest of its life. Already reference has been made to the congestion in the streets of London, and we know that in other towns and cities the authorities are faced with the same problem. My suggestion, for what it is worth, is multi-storey car parking. Too much space has already been taken for motor and other vehicles and we cannot afford to go on taking space for this purpose.
  Some years ago my native city, Birmingham, produced a scheme for multi-storey car parking, but whatever height it was to be it was not going to be tall enough. I believe that it would greatly relieve congestion if local authorities were able to build taller buildings and have multi-storey car parks. There seems no reason at all why motor vehicles should occupy the space we so badly need for our industries, as living space and, indeed, for food production. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not take more land than is absolutely necessary.

  827
  Although I was born in Birmingham I am very interested in agriculture, and very alarmed at the rate at which agricultural land is being taken. Twice in the last thirty years we have been faced with a possibility of starvation because we could not grow enough food for our people. Yet we are giving more and more of our land to machines. Some of the space is going for making motor cars and some for the use of them. If the time should ever come—and we hope it will not—when we are faced with another emergency, and we find that we cannot import sufficient food to feed our people, we will deeply regret giving up this land to other purposes. We shall be sorry to see wide verges on our new roads, the sort of which, in the last war, many of us wished to see being used for food production. I hope that aspect of the matter will be considered. That is why I should like to see the question of multi-storey car parking taken up instead of vast areas of land being given over to car parks.
  In my view Birmingham and other similar cities and towns should be considered in this matter of traffic congestion as well as London. Several hon. Members have stressed the problem of congestion in London, but it must not be forgotten that Birmingham, like other cities, suffers equally. In Birmingham, there is no underground travel, no electric railways and no subways for pedestrians. These are some of the things we badly need in our industrial towns to relieve traffic congestion. Birmingham's population is about 2½ million, it is the second city of our land, but there is not enough room on the surface in the centre of the city to cater for all the traffic that uses its streets.
  Yet in Birmingham there are miles of suburban rail tracks which are not used at all—or used very little. There are tramway reservations running for miles which are not used. All the trams have been scrapped, but the line reservations are there, suitable for any modern electric transport. As a member of the local authority I say that the nationalisation of the railways has deterred the city council from doing anything about it. The capital expenditure involved is too frightening for an authority such as Birmingham to construct tube railways.
  828
  We have had all sorts of excuses over the years. Some said that the soil was not suitable. Now it is generally admitted that it is a question of capital expenditure. I am told that it takes about £1 million a mile to build an underground railway. We should not need many miles in Birmingham because we have the reservations used previously for tramways. Just a few miles of underground travel would make a tremendous difference, but there seems to be difficulty in raising the necessary money.
  Only recently I read of a fire-fighting vehicle which could not proceed on its proper route in London because the traffic was too heavy. What was happening to the fire while the vehicle went another way, I do not know. Recently, there was an enormous fire close to the Birmingham City centre. Had that fire been a quarter of a mile away and, had it occurred in the peak period, the building would have had to burn out completely, and any people in it would have been lost, because no fire-fighting machine could have got there. Those instances are examples of what goes on in other areas.
  I may seem to be critical of my native city and I will not say much about its one-way traffic system because I expect others have heard all about it. Let me say at once that Birmingham has been a well-governed city. It had a wonderful water scheme in the early days and a fine electricity authority has been built up. Birmingham also has the only municipal bank in the country and it has an enormous output of exports.
  The only other thing I can criticise about our city is its sprawl, which is not a good thing and which affects the transport position tremendously since the greater the sprawl, the greater the number of buses coming into the centre, and there is no other means of transport than diesel buses.
  There is also the problem of diesel and petrol fumes. I believe that there is little difference in the harm to the public between the two; certainly, the experts tell us that fumes from petrol burning vehicles are just as harmful. I have had some experience of battery electric vehicles and I believe that some help could be given to our problem in encouraging their use either by the Treasury or by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. In wartime even motor cars, driven by battery

  829
  electric traction, were running round London and Birmingham. These vehicles are silent, they are not fast, which is a good thing, they are cheap to run and, when we have enough coal, they can be run on home-produced fuel.
  It is a pity to see electric vehicles of any type disappearing from our roads, even trolley buses since they are much quieter, much cleaner, and use less imported materials. I would like to see more bakers, milkmen and laundries making local deliveries by battery electric vehicles. Even small motor cars could be sold in great numbers for local journeys.
  I even go so far as to visualise multi-storey car parks fitted with electric charging apparatus. Users could plug into this on payment of 2s. which would include parking fee, and enough electricity for a journey of 30 or 40 miles, leaving a profit for the people running the car parks. What could be better for London and other congested towns?
  I promised that I would not speak too long, but I must tell the House about one thing which has puzzled me. One of the letters I received when I came here as a new Member of Parliament was from an association for mental health, offering its help. Thinking over the contributions I have heard today, as well as on other days, I cannot understand why that offer should have been sent. I do not know whether all hon. Members received it, but they certainly do not deserve it.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: It falls to me to congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Sellyoak (Mr. Gurden) on his maiden speech. It was marked by a most engaging candour, by sincerity, and by a real touch of originality due to the fact, I believe, that the hon. Gentleman has not yet discovered the Library. For those reasons I am sure that the House would like me to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and say that we hope to hear from him in future debates, although I promise that he will not have such an easy passage as he has had today. It is fitting that I should have been called, because the hon. Gentleman was at one time a student at Birmingham University, of which I am a governor, and I was a student at Fircroft College, which, as he knows, is in his constituency.
  830
  This Bill is, in some respects, disappointing, because when the Minister introduced the original Bill and incorporated in it provisions for a compulsory test of road vehicles, I said to myself, "Here is a Minister who has courage"—because it requires courage to face up to the implication of this problem. But, the Minister has surrendered and he has done so as the result of what transpired in the other place.
  The Parliamentary Secretary described the test as being one that had proved, on investigation, to be impracticable. I believe he has come to that conclusion because the private motoring interests came to that conclusion also, and because it was envisaged originally that a compulsory test to examine whether vehicles were roadworthy or not was to be carried out by private enterprise. Now that, after investigation, it has been proved that this can only be carried out satisfactorily as a public service, either on a municipal basis or by the State, the Government have decided to surrender and to withdraw the proposal.
  Mr. Molson Mr. Molson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Moyle: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. If he would be kind enough to amplify why the Government decided to drop this provision, which was Clause I in the original Bill, I shall be grateful.
  I read the debate in another place and considered very carefully the views expressed by noble Lords. It appeared that the reason why the Clause was proved to be unsatisfactory was the enormous sum of money involved, which was estimated to be not more than £20 million, and it was said to be impracticable because the public would not stand for having a horde of civil servants to carry out the scheme. One noble Lord went so far as to say that the motoring associations, on whose behalf he was speaking, were dead against the proposal for a compulsory test.
  I have been a member of one of the motoring associations for many years, but I have never been consulted to find out whether or not I agree with having a compulsory test for road vehicles. I have discussed this matter with colleagues of mine, and they have not been consulted. If the Minister had had the courage to stick to his guns and retain the original

  831
  Clause 1, he would have carried public opinion with him. Everybody knows that the major cause of road accidents is mechanical defects in vehicles. I hope the Minister will have second thoughts and try the scheme out. I shall be 100 per cent. in support of a compulsory test to discover whether vehicles are roadworthy or not. It is something which really calls for legislation.
  I now turn to the subject of traffic congestion. It is true that the Bill can be generally regarded as being non-controversial in a party sense but, of course, it is a controversial Bill because we all have our own views as to how the problem should be tackled. As soon as any proposal comes before the House for doing something about road safety, every hon. Member receives propaganda from road transport interests, the effect of which is that the solution is to spend more money on the roads. I am in favour of having the best roads that can possibly be obtained because they will reduce vehicle maintenance costs, but I hope that no hon. Member thinks that having better roads will produce a reduction in road accidents, for that has yet to be proved. I am prepared to accept the argument that better roads will relieve traffic congestion, but I have yet to be convinced that any measurable improvement in the roads will lead to a reduction in accidents.
  The number of vehicles on the roads has increased from 4½ million to 6 million during the last three years. Yet there is not a single word about the problem in the Bill. What are we to do about it? Are the Government prepared to say—I think they ought to be—"There comes a time when the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads should be limited by law"? The problem will not be solved by transferring road vehicle traffic to the railways, although that would make a big contribution. I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport does not consider the problem and make some proposal about it. I believe that the only way to solve the problem, at any rate temporarily, is to put a limit upon the increase in the numbers and types of vehicles.
  Some time ago I suggested the formation of a civilian corps to control traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield,
  832
  East (Mr. Ernest Davies) made the same suggestion this afternoon. Why should there not be such a corps? It is a fantastic experience to travel along our roads, especially at weekends, and see policemen—at any rate, those who can be spared for the task—attempting to control the traffic. It is true that the police do a first-class job, occasionally reinforced by mobile patrols. Yet every time I use the roads I wonder why we do not supplement the police force with a competent, voluntary special corps qualified to control traffic, at any rate during weekends.
  Can anyone suggest a more competent traffic controller than an A.A. or R.A.C. road patrol? Those associations have first-class men who do a first-class job. If A.A. and R.A.C. road patrols can undertake traffic control duties in the course of their work, why cannot we have a special corps of competent civilians to take over the duty at weekends to allow the police to engage in the work for which they were originally recruited?
  I am very pleased that the Minister has agreed to make the speed limit in built-up areas uniformly 30 m.p.h. That is the best contribution made by the Bill towards the solution of the problem of road accidents. I hope that the Minister will not go back upon his decision.
  I should like to know what the Minister's definition of a built-up area is for the purposes of the Bill. By-pass roads and trunk roads originally laid down in areas almost completely rural are in some cases now built-up on both sides, and the absence of a speed limit in such cases is positively a danger to the community. The hon. Member for Selly Oak will know the Birmingham-Wolverhampton main road. Part of it runs through built-up areas, but there is no speed limit along it. I am not exaggerating when I say that it is common for cars to travel along it at between 70 and 80 m.p.h. The consequence of their being no speed limit is that it is a positive danger to people living in the immediate vicinity.
  I hope that the Minister will take courage from the House of Commons, having lost it in the House of Lords, about the compulsory testing of road vehicles, and will restore the provision when the Bill proceeds to its final stages.
  6.49 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Wood: I still find it extremely difficult to understand why the Opposition have decided to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Only last Thursday the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) described the Bill as largely a nonparty one. We have had this afternoon from the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) an adumbration of a new theory that one does not vote against a Bill when one secretly has wind that a General Election may be in the offing, but that one votes against almost the same Bill when it is reintroduced in a new Parliament.
  At the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman argued with great cogency, as indeed did the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), for an extension of vehicle tests. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall described it as a matter literally of life and death. If he wishes for a wider extension of vehicle testing, I suggest that he votes for the Bill tonight and ensures that it is amended during the Committee stage. Both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) voiced a great many arguments against the Bill, but it seemed to me that the arguments would have been just as powerful two months ago as on this occasion.
  I readily agree that the Bill leaves much to be desired and that it will require a great deal of amendment. But I believe it represents a sincere attempt by the Government to improve road safety and road progress by legislation. We have heard a great many excuses, particularly from the hon. Member for Enfield, East, why the Labour Government of 1945–51 did not spend more money on improving roads. I have not heard any excuses for their not having presented the kind of ideal road traffic Bill which hon. Members opposite have in mind during the six years in which they were in power.
  It would seem to me—and here my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) seemed, in his maiden speech, to hit entirely on the point—that only a limited amount may be achieved in this way by legislation. I thought we were all agreed that that was the case, but the Opposition seemed to have
  834
  a pathetic faith in the power of legislation in such matters. I hope that before the end of this debate the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), whom I congratulate on having the task of winding up tonight for the Opposition, will provide a more satisfactory answer than we have so far heard about why the Opposition are opposing the Government.
  In a discussion of the Bill, when the problems are familiar to us, it is difficult to avoid a detailed examination of specific proposals, but I imagine that there will be plenty of time for that later.
  The first two objects of the Bill suggested by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, road progress and road safety, seem to me, in any given set of circumstances—such as the state of the roads and the number of vehicles using the roads, the density of built-up areas and so on—to depend almost entirely on three things; the self restraint of road users, self discipline and experience. Obviously, it is true that the smooth working of human relations in general depend on those factors. It is particularly and urgently true of human relations on the road, where, as has been pointed out several times today, every road user, whether motorist, pedestrian or cyclist, is either himself, or is carried by, a potential agency of death. Pedestrians and motorists seem to share that quality; they can both cause death by irresponsible behaviour.
  It is impossible for any Government to legislate for the necessary amount of self-discipline and restraint, any more than a Government can try by law to compel people to be polite and good tempered. It is true that legislation may help. All of us can think of examples. One-way streets, in my opinion, have certainly increased road progress. Driving tests almost certainly have increased safety on the roads. Certain, but not all of the Clauses in this Bill will assist progress or increase safety, but the limitations of legislation in this matter are adequately illustrated in Clause 1 which makes permanent the 30 m.p.h. speed limit.
  I agree entirely with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is lacking in discrimination. In many places a lower speed would be dangerous; there are other places where

  835
  a faster speed would be quite safe, particularly, I suggest, in the small hours of the morning. I feel that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit is open to objection because it encourages the view that speed in itself is dangerous and that a slow pace in itself is quite safe. Anyone comparing the danger to the public of a car well driven at 40 to 50 m.p.h. and a car badly driven at 25 m.p.h. need be in no doubt about which of the two vehicles is the more dangerous. I should like to see less reliance on a specific limit and a more clear and general direction of caution; with many more prosecutions for offences within what is at present a 30 m.p.h. area for reckless or dangerous driving, or any other of the offences mentioned in Clause 15.
  If the Opposition persist in their intention to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, they are, in fact, voting against every Clause, including Clause 2. I believe that to be a good Clause. My contention, and that of many hon. Members, is that less will be achieved by legislation than by the instruction and co-operation of all road users. More stringent rules about tests may help regarding motorists.
  I feel that the effect of increased penalties for driving offences will be negligible. There exists, and probably will continue to exist, a small proportion of bad and selfish road users. The trouble is that tests will not unearth them. A great number have never taken a test, and those who have and are now bad and selfish drivers were probably on their best behaviour on that occasion. Higher penalties will not deter them, especially, as has been pointed out, when the present maxima are seldom inflicted. The brightest hope of making bad and selfish drivers a litle more wise and responsible seems to lie within the limits of information, advice and instruction which it is sought to extend by this Bill, particularly in Clause 2.
  I hope we shall not fall into the error of thinking that the passage of this Bill will contribute largely to the removal of traffic congestion and the limitation of road accidents. I am not optimistic that great things will be achieved, but I feel that if the Government and local authorities, with the powers which are taken in
  836
  this Bill, can secure even a small improvement in the standard of road use, at least they will have done something to assist progress on the roads and cut down the mortality and injury which occur there at present.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: Although I intend to vote against the Bill, I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), because I agree with a great many of the things which he has said. My intention to vote against the Bill is entirely as a protest against the lack of imagination in the Government's whole road policy and their failure to face the present situation. I think that situation is recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I particularly agree with what the hon. Member said about the difficulty of personal relations on the road and the whole problem which is involved in them. When he talked about not liking the specific speed limit of 30 m.p.h., I rather agreed with him, but I do not quite see what the answer is.
  I am quite sure that an old ramshackle car driven at 30 m.p.h. is often a great deal more dangerous on some of the trunk roads than a good modern car driven at 45 m.p.h. It may happen that the driver of the old small car has very slow physical reactions and that the driver of the big car is very keen on motoring, is alert and reacts to anything that may happen two or three times quicker. All these are matters of great moment if a sudden emergency arises.
  How we are to get over this difficulty, I do not quite know. The hon. Member referred to the question of some further guidance on caution on the roads. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, one of the great difficulties in all legislation with regard to roads is the question of enforcement. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) also pointed out the difficulty of identification and of tying down the person responsible. As one looks at the whole problem, one is forced back to the simple argument which has been stated before in this House, that the only real solution which will offer certain improvement so far as traffic congestion and the reduction in accidents are concerned is segregation.
  This is where the Government's lack of imagination comes in. We realise that

  837
  in 1955 it is no good looking at the Queen's highway in the same way in which we looked at it in the old days. if we have fast-moving traffic, it has to be moved on separate lanes; if we have bicycles, they have to move on separate lanes, and, so far as pedestrians are concerned, the further they are kept away from all moving traffic the better. It is a difficult problem, and it is obvious that we aye miles away from it. Not until we really try to tackle it shall we make any significant impact on the terrible figures of read accidents.
  I should have thought that what had done most to improve the road accident figures, when we consider the vehicles on the road now compared with those before the war—and we must realise that there has been relatively a big improvement—has been education, and that should go on. I suggest that unless we make a bold attempt to separate the traffic we shall not get much further. It is not a question of building motorways linking the main centres of industry, but of dealing with the problem in the towns and cities themselves.
  A few years ago, guard rails around the worse parts of roads and junctions in city centres were put up. I know that when they were first put up in Bolton there was considerable amusement caused because one or two of those who were wont to spend their newly-gained free Saturday mornings in the town centre complained that there was no heating put through the pipes. Nevertheless, they have gone beyond the original idea of being a bit of a joke and a bit of a nuisance for pedestrians. They are steadily being recognised as a considerable improvement to safety measures in a town centre.
  We have to visualise, and take action accordingly, that our main thoroughfares in towns and cities have to be widened a great deal, and not only the streets but the pavements as well, and the two being separated by fences with a space here and there for pedestrians to cross the street. Personally, I can see no other way, because if someone says "We will stop people walking into the roads," I am afraid that he will be up against a lot of trouble from all of us. If I want suddenly to cross the road and I see no traffic coming, unless there is a fence to stop me, I shall go across. I may go
  838
  across very alertly one moment and as a jaywalker the next—and then the accident takes place. So, unless we really sit down to think of this problem in terms of 1955, I do not think we shall get anywhere.
  I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he coined the phrase a while ago of doubling the standard of living in twenty-five years, may have some cause to regret this eventually. At first there was some discussion as to whether this was possible, but soon there were people to tell us that of course it was possible if we did this and that. People are now beginning to forget about "If we did this or if we did that" and to feel that doubling the standard of living in twenty-five years is almost an inevitable process. There is an awful danger about this with regard to roads.
  The Minister seems to get a lot of brickbats. Certainly, over the last two or three years he has had some difficult jobs to do, but, after all, he has been at the Treasury and must know where the real trouble is. If he would really stand up for more money, which is the crux of the matter, he would have the support of both sides of the House. He produced a programme in February. The statement he made on 2nd February on the expanded road programme was an excellent beginning. But it is, after all, only a beginning. He is like a weight lifter who has just flexed his muscles. He has not really started on the job of lifting this severe burden which has been left by the neglect of past Ministers of Transport and of past Governments.
  In the plan for motorways, 800 miles is the generally accepted idea of what needs to be done urgently. We are starting this programme by commencing work on ninety miles. It is not only, as I stress again, the main motorways which have to be made. There has to be an entirely new and imaginative treatment of the roads in the centres of the cities.
  I should like to offer two comments in particular on car parking and vehicle testing. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that he visited a car park in London and found that only one-third of the area was being used. I can assure him that if he comes to Manchester and looks at the number of cars parked round the centre of the city, and on bombed sites north of Deansgate, as well

  839
  as in the garages, he will find them well filled. One cannot get into any big garage—one which I know is Kendalls Garage—at any time during the middle of the day. One may be able to get in there very early on, but certainly not in the middle of the day. It is only by commencing to build these tiered garages now that we can hope to solve the problem. The Minister cannot wait until meters are put up in the streets, collect the money from them, and then start to build the car parks; he must start straight away, as soon as the Bill—in spite of the opposition which has been put up against it—becomes law.
  My next point concerns vehicle testing. The Minister has been wise to drop the original arrangement, and even some of the alternatives, but I hope that he will not leave the matter there. As has been stated by a previous Parliamentary Secretary—although he did not put forward the suggestion in exactly this form—I suggest that the Minister should urge the R.A.C., the A.A. and any other motoring organisation which there may be to start an "Efficient Car Club" and that a certain standard should be laid down. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the research station which had been testing cars considered that a car should be able to pull up in 45 feet, but even when it tested cars to pull up in 70 feet, only 50 per cent. passed the test.
  A standard should be decided upon, and anyone who wishes to belong to the "Efficient Car Club" should agree to have his car tested once a year, in order to get the scheme going, and subsequently at more frequent intervals, and have it stamped by a garage approved by the "Efficient Car Club" to carry out such tests. This system does not need to be upon the elaborate scale originally envisaged, but we could start a voluntary movement, which would at least make people think about it.
  Although it is mentioned in the Highway Code, if hon. Members were asked in what distance they ought to be able to pull up their cars very few would be able to give any satisfactory answer—and they would certainly not mention the figure advocated by the Road Research Laboratory. I should think that a fruitful line of action might be started in that direction, and it might eventually
  840
  develop into something universal. It is astonishing how such an idea as this will catch on, if it is fundamentally a good one.
  In spite of all the improvements that may be made to the Bill, I feel that no Measure connected with road traffic or roads should go through this House at any time in the next few years without a very strong protest until, whatever Government are in power, real imagination is used to tackle the present problem of the roads.
  7.14 p.m.
  Sir Austin Hudson: I look upon the Bill more as a safety measure than as an occasion to advocate big road schemes. Nobody is keener than I to see good roads built, or improvements made to the existing ones, but I am a little doubtful whether, when these great motor roads are built, we shall not do exactly what America has done, namely, find that more casualties are being caused because of the increased speeds of vehicles.
  It is because the Bill deals with the safety aspect of the problem that I give it my support. For the benefit of those who have been referring to the slowness with which the major road projects of my right hon. Friend are being carried out, I would say that today, for the first time, I saw a notice in London saying, "Works in connection with the Cromwell Road Extension" and tears of joy came into my eyes at the sight of it. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend when a start was going to be made upon it, but I see that it has now been started.
  The problems with which the Bill seeks to deal are very much the same as those which we had immediately before the war. We have in the House quite a number of ex-Parliamentary Secretaries, but I consider myself to be the senior dowager ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, having held that post from 1935 to 1939. It is interesting to see how far what we were then planning has succeeded and how far it has failed. I was encouraged to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the number of children killed upon the roads was decreasing, although as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, the casualties are still so great that we must not be complacent about them.

  841
  In pre-war days, when I was at the Ministry, we were only beginning to mark pedestrian crossings. The beacons were then set up for the first time, although they did not flash, and were made of tin. The reason for these marked crossings was that children could be instructed in school and at home to cross at those crossings and nowhere else. I am quite sure that those crossings have been a success. We see many older pedestrians jaywalking, but we do not see many children doing so, and I believe that that is partly due to the existence of the marked crossings.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that this Bill is a bad one. One reason for this is that road traffic is a subject upon which everyone thinks he is an expert, and it is quite impossible to please all the experts. A friend of mine told me, some time ago, that in his view the 30 m.p.h. limit should be abolished. Another told me that that limit was far too high, and a limit of 15 m.p.h. should be introduced. The Minister will probably agree with neither of those opinions, and my friends will probably both come to me afterwards and say, "This is a bad Bill. The Minister should have done what I suggested." In my view, no Bill is a bad Bill which really tries to deal with the problem of road accidents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) rightly said that we could drastically reduce the number of road accidents if, by legislation, we could make all motorists painstaking, courteous and observant, and all pedestrians careful, tolerant and watchful—but we all know that we cannot do that by legislation. Therefore, we have to do the best we can in other ways.
  The Minister has tried to deal with this problem in a wide range of Clauses. I am not going to attempt to deal with all the Clauses concerning the dangerous motorist, and endeavouring to give him a greater sense of responsibility and also to keep his car efficient. I was sorry to see that the periodical mechanical examination of cars is not to be introduced. I presume that the Bill will go upstairs, and I hope that that question can be thrashed out in Committee and, perhaps, a new Clause introduced.
  I read the other day of a case before a magistrate—I think it has now gone to
  842
  a higher court—in which somebody had crossed against the red light and a fatal accident resulted. The police evidence was that when the brakes of the car were full on, three out of the four wheels could be turned by hand. It is easy to see why the motorist did not stop; he could not. If he had had to have his car examined, that accident would never have occurred.
  I believe this is the first time that the Minister is trying to deal with what I call the dangerous pedestrian. In my experience the dangerous pedestrian is almost as great a menace as the dangerous motorist. Clauses 7 and 25 will be very difficult to enforce, but through them an effort is made to bring a sense of responsibility to the pedestrian.
  I have come to the conclusion that the pedestrian, and the cyclist, are much too impressed by their rights on the roads rather than by their duties to other people. They are inclined to say, "I have as much right to be on the road as you have." If one continues to adopt that attitude, sooner or later one will be run over. It is possible for hon. Members to walk straight off the pavement outside this building saying, "The Sessional Order says that I must be allowed to pass," but anyone who does that will probably be saying the last few words underneath a bus.
  People must be aware of their enormous responsibility instead of always insisting on their rights. That applies to the cyclist as well as to the pedestrian, and I welcome Clause 6, which applies to cyclists the provisions already applicable to motorists. If these Clauses assist in improving road behaviour, we can look forward to a reduction in accidents.
  I wish to say a few words about the 30 m.p.h. limit. Clauses 1 and 4 are excellent. The 30 m.p.h. limit obviously should be made permanent. The reason that this provision was put in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was that originally no one was sure that 30 m.p.h. was the right speed. I think that by now we have come to the conclusion that 30 m.p.h. is right for built-up areas, and, therefore, that we should remove the 30 m.p.h. provision from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and embody it in permanent legislation.
  When the 30 m.p.h. limit was first put into operation, we had to have a yardstick in order to tell what were built-up

  843
  areas. That yardstick was street lighting. Gradually, as street lighting was extended, the 30 m.p.h. limit was also extended, sometimes out into the country, unless the Minister derestricted that portion of the road. I am certain that we should not now keep to this yardstick. If any local authority wishes to have a greater length of road limited to 30 m.p.h. it must take the necessary steps to hold an inquiry, and so forth.
  I do not want to be too long—and here I am reminded of a cliché mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Shields. I wish to say a few words about parking places, and particularly in London. This is one of our most difficult problems. If we get rid of at least some of the all day parkers mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, there would result a great improvement in the flow of traffic, because undoubtedly congestion causes irritation, and irritation causes accidents. We are made aware of this fact again and again. We see a great blockage of traffic, and then somebody takes a chance, be it pedestrian or motorist, then the accident occurs.
  I appeal to the motorist to try to help the Minister. Let us try to make work the experiment of parking meters, and if it is not necessary to take his car into Central London let the motorist leave it behind and use public transport. I ask, in return, that the authorities should try to help the motorist a little more than they do. There are still places where parking could be allowed, but is not. During the railway strike there were a number of places where parking was allowed, which did not seem to do anybody any harm, and which are now not allowed for parking now that the strike is over.
  May I mention one example? I know that this concerns a Royal Park and that the Minister is not entirely responsible. I am certain that if the side of the Mall, by the wall which is used for parking during the Royal garden parties, were made available, it would accommodate a large number of cars. The objection to using the parks, quite rightly, is that people are prevented from going through and seeing the parks. The place that I have in mind is a former riding space on the St. James's Palace side. As the sand is removed, cars could park there in a row with their backs or fronts pointing to the
  844
  Mall, and they would be well out of the way. I give that merely as one example, and I ask the Minister to see whether there are other places which could be used for parking.
  The Bill contains provisions which will be of use, and I hope that the Opposition will not vote against it merely because they are not satisfied with the roads programme, which could not be dealt with in the Bill anyhow. If we can save one life by the application of some of these Clauses, we shall have done a good day's work.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), and I will immediately take up his last point about the use of the Royal Parks for parking. I was wondering where the guests at the Royal garden party would park their cars.
  Sir A. Hudson: They park their cars in the park.
  Mr. Pannell: I should think that it would be difficult for them to get out of the habit of doing so. Would the hon. Member suggest that the guests should have a reservation for two days in the year?
  Sir A. Hudson: The police could put temporary "no parking" notices and there would be no difficulty at all.
  Mr. Pannell: I want to say a word or two on the contentious part of the Bill, on whether provision should be made for the examination of vehicles. On balance, I am glad that this provision is out of the Bill. In its previous form I should have imagined that it was well-nigh impossible to work. I would remind hon. Members of the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) during the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill, on 5th April. It seems to me that in view of the great number of cars that are now on the roads, to have a systematic check of new, old, medium, large and small vehicles would be fantastic.
  Generally speaking, I think hon. Members do less than justice to the motor car industry and its efficiency when they ask for that sort of thing to be done. The motor car industry—I am speaking of all the great firms—has evolved the

  845
  most efficient motor cars in the world. Consider, for example, that on the small vehicles are to be found the luxuries of hydraulic brakes, and so on. I can go back over thirty-five years in the motor trade, where I earned my living all that time until I came to the House. The four-wheeled brake was not introduced until 1925.
  When we consider that sort of thing, how do we approach this problem? I appreciate that there might be a case for vehicle testing, and it seems to me that if we are to have it we should use the age basis as a start. It seems to me that this would be reasonable, and the Minister might consider in Committee whether it could not be introduced into the Bill. We could say that the day after a vehicle was five years old it would not be eligible to go on to the road until it had had an exhaustive test. I was about to say that I did not mean a 2½d. test. but my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) spoke of a 10s. test.
  In my opinion, we cannot do the test which is required at that sort of price. Before the war the average loaded time for a mechanic in any garage—and not necessarily one paying the best trade union rates—was about 5s. an hour and in a good garage today a mechanic's loaded time might be 8s. to 10s. an hour. I very much doubt whether we could have an effective test on all aspects of a road vehicle in an hour.
  The original suggestion, in the first Bill, imposed a great task, almost a judicial responsibility, on the garages, which I thought was a bad thing. Yet the alternative of public testing stations opens up a vision of all sorts of competent people in the motor car trade checking each other's vehicles when they might be more profitably employed on the export trade building more vehicles to go abroad. It would be a chronic waste of manpower. The age which we might have in mind as a basis for a test could be five years or perhaps three years. We could introduce a certificate of efficiency stating that such a car, of that age, was fit to go on the road.
  All those people who develop an affection for old cars—and there are many—should not grumble at such a suggestion. They should feel proud to have a certificate of roadworthiness. I know that many
  846
  old Bentleys and Rolls-Royces on the road are kept in a better mechanical condition than some of the cars of a more recent vintage, but they are the exception and I think that my suggestion about an age basis is not unreasonable.
  When a car is first let loose on the road it carries with it a certain warranty, and there is also a pride of ownership among most people for the first twelve months. I think we should encourage the motor trade to give a better guarantee, a better warranty, during the first twelve months. The trade could say that within the first year it would give the car two checks and would adjust the brakes and the headlights and do all the other little things which do not involve very much work in the trade but which are a different proposition for the amateur first driving on the roads. We could encourage the motor trade to improve the warranty which it gives on the sale of a new car. Equally, we could arrange tests for older cars.
  If it happens that court proceedings intervene in this period, might it not be a good idea, when people are charged with dangerous or careless driving, to have as one of the penalties the provision that they should have an efficiency check on their cars, for which they must pay?
  Having gone into all these suggestions, I want to emphasise that defects in road vehicles are not a prime cause of road accidents. There are two things which we could tackle and which would lead to an improvement almost overnight—drunks and dogs.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: Gay dogs.
  Mr. Pannell: I appreciate what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about drunkenness and about the danger of impinging upon the functions of the judiciary in deciding that there shall be an automatic imprisonment or a fine, but I see no reason why a second or third conviction for being found drunk in charge of a car should not mean that the offender is taken off the road for life. I do not say that this should be done on the first offence, but there is no reason why it should not be done on the second or third offence.
  Having said that, I want to say a few words in support of what my right

  847
  hon. Friend said about automatic imprisonment. I remember being an expert witness in a case of manslaughter—in fact, double manslaughter. It was a case in which one of the most skilful drivers I know, a man driving a commercial vehicle for his living, had an accident travelling round a bend on the Hertford-Hatfield Road. There was no grass verge, but a bank on each side of the road and a hedge 12 feet high.
  As this man came round this bend he found two nursemaids, two perambulators and a child spread across the road in front of him and coming round the next bend, in vision, was another lorry. In an effort to avoid an accident he came as near to committing suicide as I have ever known. He turned his vehicle completely over by shooting up the bank and went into a nearby field. The steel tailboard of the vehicle flung back five yards and killed two people.
  I can honestly say that had any one of nine or ten elements been absent in that case, he would have got away with it and would have been strongly praised for a remarkable piece of driving. What happened, in fact, was that he was tried by a local jury. Whereas it took the local justices of Hatfield 50 minutes to decide whether to commit him for trial, it took the local jury 17 minutes to send him down for manslaughter. I can honestly say that that sort of thing has moved me a good deal in motor cases. I can tell the story now because the man has served his sentence, but, of course, he was blacklisted for life by every insurance company and was finished as a driver. Yet, in my opinion, justice should have been on his side.
  When we are deciding in the House what we shall do in these matters we are often deciding in vacuo because we do not know the sort of things which happen. Many hon. Members have probably never driven a heavy vehicle or such vehicles as a 2,000-gallon tanker with a shifting load behind the driver, where there is a different system of braking and application of braking than is found anywhere else. I urge the House to be careful, as my right hon. Friend said, before laying down arbitrary sentences and removing every bit of justice from our courts. Often I hear these suggestions of automatic imprisonment made by cyclists and pedestrians.
  848
  My right hon. Friend said he noticed that one-third of the children in a primary school near him are led to school by the hand by their mothers. I was impressed by that, but I am oppressed by the number of young children—too young—who are riding bicycles in our busy city traffic. Very often, when we consider these problems of taking little children to school or providing road patrols, we should consider whether it would not be a good thing to lay down an age limit for children cyclists. I have seen fathers and mothers near where I live—good parents who would do anything for a child—riding along and taking children on their first cycling trip. I think the time has come, with the number of vehicles we have on the roads at present, to say that small children shall not be allowed to ride cycles on the road without any form of control.
  I wish to say a word or two about dogs causing accidents. I came across this problem in a peculiar way when a dog dashed out of a police station and brought a motor cyclist down. I wrote to the chief constable of the city concerned and he told me quite a story about dogs. He told me that two or three years ago, in the City of Leeds, one in four of the accidents could be traced to some extent to straying dogs. I asked a Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who was then Home Secretary. Statistics given showed that, nationally, the proportion was one in six. It is difficult to get such statistics quite correct. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) used other figures. He said that about eight accidents a day—2,848 in a year—were caused by dogs. I think it all depends on which statistics are used.
  When I went into the question of accidents caused by dogs I was surprised at the "fan mail" I received as a result of publicity in this House. It was not the sort of "fan mail" one would expect. I was not blamed, neither did all sorts of dog lovers rush in to say that I was being hard on them. It was rather the reverse; all the animal societies said that it was time that there was some control of dogs in the interest of dogs. People talk about the freedom of dogs, but they should think of the distress, maiming and injury caused to these dumb creatures. A dog is unpredictable on the road, but accidents have to be reported. If we asked the police

  849
  how many accidents caused by dogs were not reported, I think the answer would be none. When a dog rushes out into the road an accident is frequently caused to a human being, perhaps a child, and third-party insurance is invoked, but where are we at the end of the day?
  I do not think it unfair to say that the dog should no longer be treated as the "sacred cow" of British politics. It is time dogs were controlled in busy districts for their own sake. They should not be allowed to run all over the place. There should be zones in which dogs should be kept on leads. I believe that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) spoke about the dog being like the sacred cow. I was reminded that many years ago when, in the early 1920s I was friendly with my Member of Parliament, the late Lord McEntee, Members of Parliament were frightened of dealing with cyclists riding without rear lights.
  The whole House of Commons seemed afraid of insisting that cyclists should have rear lights. Members fiddled about with legislation about reflectors for years. When the war and Defence Regulations came, the red light went on to the back of the bicycle. Who, today, would say that we should take it off? It is really fantastic how we get stewed up about these things. When we consider the large number of accidents caused by dogs, I say that it is time the Minister addressed his mind to this subject.
  On the question of the variable speed limit, I am still amazed that this Government, after holding office since 1951, have done nothing at all about the 20 m.p.h. speed limit. We had a debate on the subject one Friday, when the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) took part. We have to get rid of the idea that speed of itself is dangerous. A heavy goods vehicle is one of the finest engineering jobs we can produce in this country, finer even than a light motor car. Often it is far safer to drive such a vehicle at speeds well within its coasting range of 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h.
  The curious thing is that although we prescribe a 20 m.p.h. speed limit for a goods vehicle, when the same vehicle, with a coach body, carries passengers instead of goods the legal limit is 30 m.p.h. If speed of itself is a danger we put a
  850
  premium on the passengers and not on the goods, which seems quite ridiculous. I know all the arguments about this, but everyone knows that it is best on wide roads for vehicles to maintain the speed of that road.
  The Minister and everyone knows that the speed limit is not really observed, and this law is brought into contempt. It is time everyone got together to see whether we can make our speed limits more rational. I do not like restrictive practices, whether they are indulged in by employers or trade unions, but it is a chronic waste of capital assets to under-drive a vehicle and to use it below its capacity.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I wish to ask the hon. Member a question because, rightly or wrongly, a number of us on this side of the House have been thinking that he was an obstructive element—a very important element—to getting this change made in the law. In Committee on this Bill will he support a new Clause, or whatever is the appropriate amendment, to raise the speed limit for heavy commercial vehicles from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h.?
  Mr. Pannell: In reply to the first part of that intervention, the noble Lord is mistaken. I stand by the speech I made originally on this subject. It was made when the matter was discussed and Mr. Alfred Barnes was the Minister. I have not changed. I am an engineer and I do not like to see machinery wasted. If there are obstructive elements they are not in the union of which I am a member. As to the suggested amendment, let us see it first; I think that that is fair enough. This is a matter on which I feel strongly. The noble Lord can read my earlier speech; I stand by it.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke made an extraordinary suggestion. Although I do not think it quite the thing to criticise a maiden speech, perhaps one may comment on it. The hon. Member wanted more posters on the road. I should have thought that that rumbustious young woman, Jane Russell, was responsible for as many road accidents as anyone. One sees motorists' eyes stray to such posters. I should have thought the best thing for drivers to do was to keep their eyes on the road and not on anything else.

  851
  I should have thought that there was a case for a variation of the law in regard to people drunk while driving, or in charge of a car. I cannot say that we have got it in the Bill. We may have to look at that question again in Committee. One knows of cases of people who have realised that they have had too much to drink and have been sensible enough to know their nervous reaction is such that they would be a danger. Some have deliberately thrown the key into the back of the car and gone to sleep to sleep off the effects. It may not be a virtue to be drunk, but they have the virtue of humility and of knowing that they might be a danger if they drove.
  As we recognise the prisoner who "comes clean" I think we might also recognise the man who knows full well that he is not in a fit state to drive and does as I have described. The penalty ought not to be the same in that case as that for the man who not only may wreck the lives of other people but his own. I heard it said by a High Court judge that the difference between dangerous driving and manslaughter is that dangerous driving is dangerous, but manslaughter is when a man cares for no one's life, including his own. That is the degree of irresponsibility.
  I hark back to what was said by my right hon. Friend to the effect that, if necessary, we must build smaller primary schools and in small neighbourhood units so that young children will not have very far to go to school. The siting of schools is an important consideration. All these are factors bearing upon road safety. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) said, it is very much a matter of public spirit and public education, tolerance on the roads, tolerance of the pedestrians.
  We can all preach our rights on the roads, but we should remember the limerick which some hon. Members may know, though others may not:
  "Here lies the body of Johnnie Jay,
  Who died protesting his right of way.
  He was right, dead right, as he strode along,
  But now he's as dead as if he was wrong."
  We all know that the motor car is a lethal weapon, but we live in a society in which we cannot dispense with motor cars. Motoring is an element in our lives, but to safeguard ourselves and our children in an efficient, industrial, mechanised
  852
  nation, education is necessary in the proper use of the roads, and that will do more than anything else to promote it. If I have not mentioned the quality of the roads, it is because that is a per-requisite to all else.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: This Bill is designed primarily to save lives. That is why I regret very deeply that my right hon. Friend has not adopted an obvious course to save a great many lives. I mean, making it compulsory for motor cyclists to wear crash helmets. I shall not keep the House long, for I do not think I need try to persuade anyone of the value of crash helmets. I have no statistics with which to back up my case, but it must be quite clear to everybody, it must be common knowledge, that large numbers of motor cyclists are killed and injured every year, and they would not have been killed if they had worn crash helmets.
  Indeed, my right hon. Friend agrees about this, and the only point on the subject at which he and I differ is that whereas I think the wearing of crash helmets should be made compulsory he prefers to trust to the motor cyclists voluntarily and spontaneously to wear them. It is the careful and sensible and intelligent motor cyclist who will wear a crash helmet even if it is not compulsory. The people I want to protect are the more careless and less imaginative riders who, at present, do not wear them.
  I have had correspondence with my right hon. Friend about this matter, and I understand that the main objection to compulsion is that it would cast an unfair burden on the police. Is it unduly imaginative to suggest that a hundred or, perhaps, two hundred motor cyclists are killed every year, who would not have been killed if they had worn crash helmets? Certainly, it is not unduly imaginative to suggest that many hundreds of motor cyclists who suffer head injuries every year would not receive them if they were to wear crash helmets. If we are in earnest in our desire to save lives on the roads, if my right hon. Friend is earnest in his propaganda about the saving of lives on the roads, it is obvious that this course must be taken.
  I may be asked, what about the motor cyclists' passengers? Would I compel pillion riders to wear crash helmets? I

  853
  am prepared to make a concession. I should say, no. Logically, of course, one should compel them to wear crash helmets, too, but as a matter of practical politics I would insist on the riders only wearing them. There is also the problem of the power-assisted cycle. I should not try to be logical in that case, either. The need for the riders of such cycles to wear crash helmets is not quite so great, because those cycles do not attain the enormous speeds of motor cycles.
  Every safety measure has always been strenuously resisted at first. We find that that has been so in industry and in sport. In industry there was at first resistance to the wearing of safety helmets, and to such other safety appliances, in mines. In sport, there was resistance to the wearing of crash helmets in steeplechasing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) spoke just now about the resistance to the putting of rear lights on pedal cycles. This reform of which I am speaking, I maintain, is bound to come, and I would rather it came sooner than later, to save all the misery, the death and injury, and all the hospitalisation and medical treatment involved.
  I have put the point shortly and simply, but I feel very strong about it. I feel that our agitation about saving lives on the roads rings hollow if this perfectly obvious course is not adopted. The police are there to do a job of work, and it is merely to strain at a gnat to say that we shall not save scores, possibly hundreds, of lives, which we can save, by a stroke of the pen, because this would cast another duty on the police. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to my plea.
  7.56 p.m.
  Mr. James Harrison: I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) a question. I felt that the provision in Clause 1 to make 30 m.p.h. the speed limit for goods vehicles was one of the best features of the Bill. I have been impressed by the fact that the law is being flouted by lorry drivers driving their lorries at more than the speed limit. I have observed this myself on the roads, and it has been mentioned in this House many times. It is the experience of many of us.
  854
  My hon. Friend suggested that the engineering capability of the vehicle should be the determining factor in deciding what its speed limit should be. He said that the engineering capacity of a heavy lorry should be the determining factor in reckoning the speed limit of the lorry. I know my hon. Friend's vast experience in motor manufacturing and engineering, so what I would ask him is this. What does he consider to be the engineering limit of a modern goods vehicle, the engineering limit upon which he would base the speed limit?
  Mr. C. Pannell: I think my hon. Friend misunderstood me. The 30 m.p.h. speed limit mentioned in Clause 1 will apply to all vehicles in built-up areas, but I have no quarrel with that, except to say that under the present law the 30 m.p.h. is 20 m.p.h. for heavy goods vehicles above a certain weight, whereas for passenger vehicles of the same weight it is 30 m.p.h., which seems to me a foolish discrimination. I did not make the point that the capacity of a heavy lorry should be the determining factor of its speed. I did not say that at all. I said that road safety depends upon the capacity of vehicles to keep up with the speed on the roads, and that I thought that the average coasting speed of cars and coaches upon our roads is not less than 35 or 40 m.p.h. These are passenger vehicles. I did not think that it should be left to those carrying goods. I think my hon. Friend inadvertently misunderstood what I said.
  Mr. Harrison: I am very sorry, and I apologise to my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, however, the opinion I formed seemed to be the same as that of other hon. Members, including, I gather, hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, because my hon. Friend was asked whether he was prepared to support an Amendment in Committee to increase the permissible speed of lorries.
  Mr. Pannell: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked me—and this is an old controversy—whether I was prepared to support in Committee an Amendment which would allow heavy goods vehicles which are now limited to 20 m.p.h. to travel at 30 m.p.h.
  Mr. Harrison: In that case, I must have misunderstood the gist of my hon.

  855
  Friend's remarks, but I wanted to establish clearly that there are a good many people on this side of the House who would not favour an increase in the speed of heavily loaded lorries.
  Mr. Robson Brown: Why?
  Mr. Harrison: Because we feel that it would lead to an increase of danger and because we accept the suggestion which is made very often from the benches opposite that these lorry drivers break their legal speed regulations. We suggest that if the speed limit of heavily laden trucks is increased from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. the capability of the engine will soon permit an increase to a speed of 40 m.p.h. To retain the speed limit for heavy trucks at 20 m.p.h. seems to me a most valuable safeguard.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: Is it not a fact that in some cases lorry drivers who are paid on a time basis manage to go fast and get their work over quicker and in that way earn increased wages? Is there not something of that behind the desire not to see the 20 m.p.h. limit raised?
  Mr. Harrison: There is something in that, but there is more to it. Our experience on the road is that if the lorry is capable of travelling at 40 m.p.h. and the schedules for the trip are drawn on the basis of 40 m.p.h. the driver receives the same wage for doing 40 m.p.h. and completing the journey in half the time as he would have received for taking the extra time. Schedules are drawn up to comply with the law and with the safe driving of the vehicle concerned. At least, they should be so drawn up but that is not always done.
  We are quite accustomed to hearing of the speeding up of trips and tightening of schedules to produce a quicker turn-round of vehicles, but it is seldom that that helps the drivers over a period, because very soon the rate of pay is adjusted to meet the increased speed. We are fully aware of that trick in the transport industry, particularly now that such a large proportion of the vehicles are owned by private owners over whom there is not the control that there is over publicly-owned transport.
  The Parliamentary Secretary gave the House some alarming figures showing how far the element of mechanical defect
  856
  enters into the incidence of road accidents. I thought that he quoted really frightening figures when he said that 30 to 40 per cent. of accidents contained this contributory element of mechanical defect.
  Mr. Molson: I estimated it at 20 per cent.
  Mr. Harrison: Even a figure of 20 per cent. shows that this element enters substantially into the picture. It leads me to the impression that it is a grave omission from this Bill that there is no provision for compulsory mechanical overhaul.
  A former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) described in this debate an accident in which it was found that three of the wheels of the vehicle which was involved were not in any way locked when the brakes were fully applied. That was an illustration of the defective machines that are found on our roads at present. It still further strengthened the potent criticism of the omission from the Bill of provisions to deal with mechanical defects.
  The reason why we on this side of the House oppose this Measure is simple and clear. It is because it does nothing substantial towards solving one of the most urgent problems of the day. That problem is the congestion and terrible waste of manpower and machines which occur regularly on the roads throughout the country. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke rather boastfully about the amount of money which the present Government were prepared to spend on the roads, but it is accepted in many quarters that a sum of £1,000 million would be necessary to bring our roads up to date as first-class modern highways.
  When we compare that figure with the paltry sum which it is intended to spend in the next few years, we must accept the fact that we shall not solve our urgent road problems within the next five to ten years. We must accept that the present tremendous wastage of manpower and machines on the roads will continue for at least another decade. If that is the position, we should join hands with our Liberal friends and oppose the Bill on the sole ground that it will not be effective in solving the main problem.

  857
  I strike a more conciliatory note in mentioning that it has been my pleasurable experience to see some of the results of the Parliamentary Secretary's second "E"—education. There have been delightful and encouraging examples of the results of road safety talks and education in Nottingham. Considerable sums of money have been spent on this education, and it has paid off wonderfully well. Nowadays it will be found that and around Nottingham a careless pedestrian turns out in most cases to be an adult. Children are today far more careful than adults. That is a reflection of the amount of training in road safety which is given to them in the schools and other places. I am sure that many of our children could accept the position of tutors in road safety to their parents. I hope and pray that the Minister will emphasise and publicise this education in road safety wherever and whenever possible. It is one of the most wonderful things that we can tackle immediately in attempting to solve the terrible problem of danger on the roads.
  Recently, many thousands of pounds have been spent on building a new car park in the centre of Nottingham. Old buildings were demolished at tremendous cost. I should like to give the figures of parking in a provincial centre like Nottingham as distinct from the metropolis, the figures for which were given by the Minister. One day I went three times to the car park to see what had happened. It was not three-quarters full; it was almost completely empty on these three occasions, but at the kerbside all the way round the car park and in the main streets running from it were parked cars. I noticed that some of these cars had cost £1,000 to £1,200 when they were new. These substantial vehicles indicated that the people who owned them were wealthy, at any rate sufficiently wealthy to pay the 1s. parking fee.
  It seems to me that some regulations about parking are not only desirable but very necessary. I welcome that part of the Bill which suggests that parking meters should be tried for an experimental period. By all means let us tackle this kerbstone parking for long periods, and one of the ways to tackle it is as suggested in the Bill.
  There are other matters I should like to raise, but we will all have an opportunity to do so during the Committee
  858
  stage. I sit down with this observation. One of the most frightening things on the road today is for a car driver to meet someone coming in the opposite direction, not with two glaring headlights which can be dipped, but with one great big searchlight which it is not possible to dip and which is focused right in front of the oncoming driver's eyes. A habit is growing among many motorists of having one headlight, and then no matter how it is focused they think there is no need to dip it. This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest menaces of the day to the driver of the oncoming car. If we can do anything in Committee to meet a situation of that kind we shall be doing something to help road safety.
  We on this side of the House oppose this Bill on the grounds of its inadequacy to meet many of the problems with which we are faced on the roads of Britain. We will take this opportunity tonight to register our protest against the Bill.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) based the main burden of his attack on the Bill on the fact that he did not like the provisions dealing with congestion, and for that reason he said he was going to vote against it. My right hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think the provisions in this Bill about congestion are very different from those in the Bill we debated in the last Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman is going to be consistent, he ought to have got his party to vote against the previous Bill, because our proposals about congestion are very much the same as were submitted to the House last April.
  The other point in his speech which interested me was his reference to the question of the 20 m.p.h. speed limit for goods vehicles. I have a certain knowledge of this practice, and also of the law on this subject. I do not think that anybody who has had anything to do with industry will detract from the services which the transport workers render to it. But it seems to me that there is a considerable anomaly and, in some cases, breaking of the law which could all be overcome by discussion and negotiation on this subject.
  Here is something on which both sides of industry can get together and deal with the problem in a practical and sensible

  859
  way. Nothing is worse than seeing the law flagrantly flouted by these empty 20 m.p.h. vehicles going home at a speed of 30 m.p.h. and being driven with perfect safety and in a proper manner. I believe those connected with industry could assist in getting a realistic approach to this issue.
  I should like now to turn to the Bill before us in its more general aspects. The thing that I like about it is that the original Clause 1 is no longer in it. The Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon faced a certain amount of criticism from hon. Members opposite about that, but I should like to congratulate him on taking a realistic stand on this issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was a little unkind in his remarks. I recall, when we were discussing the steel proposals, that he suggested that hon. Members on this side of the House should change their minds. There is nothing wrong in anyone changing his or her mind. Here the Minister, with all the facts in front of him, changed his mind, and I think the right hon. Gentleman could have given him some credit for doing that. In another place, changes were made in Clause 1 which were not really practicable.
  Those parts of the Bill which deal with safety and the question of accidents are to be commended. The spot checking of cars is something which is practicable, and speed limits and the ironing out of dangerous roads are things which we all can support. There is one matter I would put to the Minister for his consideration. It occurs to me that a reckless driver who may have caused a great deal of damage to his own vehicle may be fined £10 or £20, but the fact that the insurance company pays the full amount of the damage to the car leads to a certain amount of recklessness in some people's minds. Would it be a practicable proposition to give the magistrates the power, in the case of a driver who is found guilty of dangerous driving, to say that when he drives on the road again he will not be able to take out a full insurance policy on his car—I am not now talking about third party risk, which is fully provided for by the law—but shall be allowed only, say, 50 per cent. coverage? That would mean that this dangerous driver would know that if he damaged his car part of the money for repairs would have to
  860
  come out of his own pocket. The psychological effect would be important, particularly in those cases where men or women were driving valuable cars. They would know that if they took a risk and damage resulted they would have to meet part of the bill themselves.
  This suggestion has been put forward by certain sides of industry, and I would ask the Minister to consider it. I do not expect a decision from him on it tonight, but I believe it would be a practicable way of bringing home to a driver the seriousness of such conduct on the roads, and I think it would result in more careful driving.
  I want to turn now to that section of the Bill dealing with congestion. I agree that we must try to deal with this problem not only in the City of London but also in our own individual areas, and that includes the City of Sheffield. However we have laws already existing which are not enforceable and which are held in disrepute. Therefore, this House, before imposing further restrictions upon the motorist which it is not possible to enforce, should consider the position carefully.
  Let me give some examples of what I mean. First, there is the question of parking along the side of a road or street. I do not believe that it is practicable to deal with this problem merely by prohibiting such parking. It can only be done if the local authority is made to provide some alternative. The criticism I have of this part of the Bill is that there should be a duty placed upon the local authority to provide alternative parking accommodation before the police are given the wider powers mentioned in the Bill.
  I would suggest that a quarter of a mile should be the distance of the area in which alternative parking should be permitted, and that it should be the duty of the police to show that there is available alternative parking space before they can use the powers which the Minister is proposing to give them in Clause 20. Otherwise what shall we be doing? We shall merely be giving the police the discretionary right of summoning the motorist, and as there may be a long line of cars the police obviously cannot deal with them all and they will pick out one or another.

  861
  I do not believe that this is practicable. We must realise that motoring is now a way of life. That was shown during the war, when we tried to restrict the petrol user and when we saw how necessary it was for those with cars to use them for their business. From certain arguments put forward from both sides of the House today I am afraid that there is some idea of trying to impose more restrictions upon the motorist and this will not solve our problem.
  Let me put three practical solutions of it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the Minister. As regards London, I believe that the parking arrangements during the strike were extremely successful. For instance, those in Hyde Park and St. James's Park proved effective and did not in any way diminish the amenities of those areas. I do not know whether those parking spaces are available since the withdrawal of the emergency powers—for instance, there was one towards the Serpentine where the cars were well out of the way. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether those spaces are still available? If they are, or if they could be reinstated, they would provide one way of relieving parking congestion.
  My second suggestion is the greater use of one-way streets. Where these are practicable—in some cases they are not—the use of the one-way street, particularly in London, is beneficial. I understand that there has been in the Department for a number of years a plan for the introduction of one-way streets. I would like to hear more about it and the views of the Minister upon it. I understand also that the police are hesitant in advising the Minister to put this plan into effect mainly because of the criticism which might come from shopkeepers in the roads concerned. However, conditions have become so bad recently that I think public opinion has changed and so the plan might now be given a trial, especially since one-way streets around Piccadilly and Dover Street have proved so effective.
  Thirdly, there is the question of parking spaces. To my mind, this Bill puts the cart before the horse in trying to drive the motorist off the road before providing these. I commend to the Minister the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) which, I thought, was most effective. Of course, parking places are not used if there is a
  862
  premium for using them. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned a parking place in his city where he had to pay Is. whereas people could park for nothing on the street. I do not know about Nottingham, but in Yorkshire if there is a free parking place people will use it rather than pay 1s. or 6d. So I believe that it is necessary first to provide parking places and then impose a fine on those who do not use them.
  It is not fair of the Parliamentary Secretary to say that garages in London are not being fully used. When I use them I am charged an exorbitant price, and this may be the reason why they are half empty. If, however, the Minister were to send cars off the roads into the garages, there would not be sufficient room for one-tenth of them. So, if we take this course there must be a duty placed upon the local authority to see that alternative parking space is made available. The present transport arrangements, particularly in London, provided by the Underground and buses would not be sufficient to take the extra load of passenger traffic which would be forced to use them if cars were banned from the central area.
  Those are my main criticisms of the second part of the Bill dealing with congestion; that is to say, I believe we may be imposing further restrictions upon the motorist which can only be enforced at the discretion of the individual policeman and he will not be able to solve the main problem by dealing with individual motorists. This brings me to my final point on Clause 20, which widens the scope of Section 113 of the 1930 Act. That Section states that where an offence has been committed then the owner of the car shall say who is in charge of it.
  The offences which can be committed under the 1930 Act deal with such things as reckless or careless driving, to which I do not object. In the case of parking a car or leaving a car without any lights, however, the offence is the leaving of it. This offends such legal upbringing as I have. It is a question of principle. It is a case where the offence is the leaving of a car and Parliament is asking a policeman to go to the person concerned and ask him if he is guilty or not. If he refuses to say, he must pay a fine of £20 or more. That is a dangerous principle. Except for some provincial areas where it should not have been imposed—and I

  863
  see no reason why we should continue the practice—it is the first time in English law where the offence is the question of whether the car was left or not, and the policeman or the inspector has the right to demand whether the man admits he is guilty or not.
  The Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion was that it would be for the convenience of the police. A lot of these things may be for the convenience of the police, but that is no reason why we who, I hope, have a regard for the liberty of the individual should use that as a necessary excuse. It may be the only way to deal with the problem, I do not know, but, as I see it, we are giving the police very wide powers which they may use on any occasion; whether cars are parked in big streets or small ones, outside or inside a town, and whether there be any congestion or not.
  Mr. Molson: I should like to correct the misapprehension of my hon. Friend. We are not increasing the regulations. All that is proposed under this Clause is to make it simpler for the police to operate the present regulations. There is no question of admission by a driver that he is guilty, but merely of saying who was in charge of the car at the time an offence was alleged to have been committed.
  Mr. Roberts: That is exactly my point. The offence is committed by whoever was in charge of the car. Whoever was in charge of the car is the only person who may be proved guilty, who may be accused. I do not wish to labour the point now, there may be opportunities to do so later on. But I have read the old Acts very carefully, as well as this Bill, and I cannot accept the explanation of my hon. Friend.
  Motoring is now an essential part of our way of life. The motorist must go up and down the Queen's highway and he must put his car somewhere. On the other hand, we have these appalling accident figures and we have to make a careful balance between the two. I believe that in some of the regulations dealing with obstruction we are going too far and giving too great a power to the Executive. I believe that that must be watched carefully.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on attempting to tackle what is not an easy
  864
  problem. I congratulate him on the way in which he has amended this Bill as compared with the previous Bill. I suggest that reveals courage, because it is not often that a Minister is prepared to amend a Bill and be faced with the criticism which was voiced by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. I believe that my right hon. Friend will have the good will of hon. Members on both sides of the House—once this debate is over—in his efforts to get this Bill into a workable shape. I will do all I can to help him.
  I welcome the general principles contained in this Bill. I hope that even at this late stage—because we have not heard from them any pertinent arguments to the contrary—that hon. Members opposite will allow this Measure to have an unopposed Second Reading and will bring forward their Amendments during the Committee and Report stages.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope that the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) will pardon me if I do not follow him all the way in what he has said, although I am in sympathy with his concluding observations.
  I first drove a motor car in 1921, when one of the prerequisites of a motorist was a knowledge of mechanical engineering. If this Bill gets on the Statute Book, and joins the rest of the motoring legislation, a person will have to graduate in law before becoming a motorist. It seems to me that today a motorist must know all the byelaws and regulations relating to one-way streets and parking places and the rest of it. I well remember the first time I drove a car—I will not say into Birmingham, because I failed to get into the city. I went round in circles and eventually decided to stay outside. I found that it was much easier to jump on a bus.
  That sort of situation is developing. It is a misery to drive from the suburbs or from outside a town and try to get into the centre for the purpose of going to the theatre or the cinema. It is difficult to find a place in which to park one's car and afterwards to get out of it. One might just as well go by bus.
  I was pleased to hear several hon. Members mention legislating for courtesy on

  865
  the road. I know a young man of my own age—perhaps I ought not to say that, perhaps I should say a middle-aged man—who, ordinarily, is a perfect gentleman, very courteous and methodical and slow in his actions. One would never believe the transformation which occurred in that man's character when he got into a car. He reminds me of the book "Importance of Living", by Lin Yutang, in which he says that he believes that Britain and her civilisation will be saved when two gentlemen can draw up their cars in opposite directions in Piccadilly in the middle of the day and talk to each other about their wives, children and grandmothers for an hour while policemen are blowing their whistles and the drivers of other cars are hooting and telling them to get a move on.
  It reminds me of an Indian pedlar who spent twelve months touring this country trying unsuccessfully to sell his wares. When he went back to India, friends asked him what it was like in Britain. He replied that it was an extraordinary country in which everybody had everything they wanted except time. This was because whenever he called at a house the lady said "I am sorry; I have no time this morning."
  Motorists, also, never seem to have any time to spare. They are always in a very great hurry, and that accounts for all the speeding. I remember a wager between two motorists as to which one would get to London first from Newport. One man had a Hillman and the other a 1908 model Rolls-Royce, a beautiful car with triple ignition, which was used commercially. I went in the Hillman as one of the witnesses. We never exceeded 40 m.p.h., but we beat the other man who boasted that at times he was doing 70 m.p.h.
  As a motorist, I have proved that if one travels along at a moderate pace in a car which is in decent condition one can very often get to one's destination long before the fellow who rushes madly along. The people who rush form great blocks of cars and then they have to meander for an hour before the road is clear again. They waste more time if they rush and cause a road jam, and the fellow who ambles on behind beats them. I remember passing a tandem just outside Newport when travelling to Birmingham. I was in an Austin car, but the tandem, going along at a steady 18–20 m.p.h.,
  866
  passed me at Malvern in spite of my bursts of 40 m.p.h.
  We have heard about speed and mechanical condition, but no one has mentioned one of the greatest causes of accidents, the bad loading of commercial vehicles. I had an accident when driving a car in 1929 or 1930 as a result of a lorry being badly loaded, the load being badly distributed and badly tied. The same thing can happen with private cars as a result of tyre pressures.
  I am not now the owner of a car; I cannot afford one. With reference to spot checking, as a former owner of a car, I can say that I should be very reluctant to accept my car as being satisfactory from some garages which I have observed. Suppose one asks a garage proprietor to give a certificate of roadworthiness. If an accident happens, who is responsible? One can put a car or motor cycle in order, and yet a mechanical defect can occur after a hundred yards and the garage proprietor can escape all responsibility for it. I maintain that the man who owns or drives a car or motor cycle must himself be responsible for it. It is impossible to put the responsibility upon a garage proprietor.
  Nothing in the Bill deals with the problem of varying road surfaces. One of the worst accidents that I ever had was the result of a change in the road service. I was driving a 1,100 c.c. Enfield twin-engine motor cycle—about 11¼ h.p.—a huge, heavy motor cycle, which the fellows called a "flying camel." It was a beautiful motor cycle. I bought it cheap, did it up and sold it, and made a good profit on it. That was before the war. The motor cycle would easily do 80 m.p.h. I was riding it one night on a good road surface at 30–40 m.p.h. I suddenly went on to another surface, and the result was that the motor cycle slithered round and I had a nasty accident.
  A change in road surface can be very serious, especially in light rainfall. Only last week I saw a near-accident when a car and a bus swung in Glasgow where the surface changed from macadam to cobbles. We ought to ensure that motorists find a consistent surface on main roads running through or skirting towns. I have motored for many miles on a good road properly banked on the turns, and then suddenly come to a section of the road where there is no banking on the

  867
  bends. When that happens, a person can easily be caught out unless he keeps his eye permanently on the road. These are important matters for any motorist. I know some roads in Britain where there is no banking at all on the bends.
  Nothing in this Bill compels county councils, local authorities or even the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to provide a standard surface for the roads. If it is desired to put down an experimental road surface, then for goodness' sake let those responsible see that it is not put on a section of a road which has to take a heavy volume of traffic. I have seen these experimental sections, and I cannot see the good of them. When a motorist comes to an experimental surface, he usually treats it very gingerly. I know that I used to do so. I used to pull up to examine it.
  I do not consider that the road surfaces being laid today are suitable for the modern motor-cycle. As I say, I used to be a very keen motor-cyclist, but I should be very reluctant to drive a high-powered motor-cycle on some of our roads in wet weather. They are most unsuitable. I think that consideration should be given to the roughening of the surface of our roads so as to enable the motor-cycle to get a grip on it, and so that the motorcyclist can use his brakes to their fullest efficiency.
  I have not driven a modern car with syncromesh gear change, but when I drove I used to make it a practice to drop down into a lower gear to avoid using the brakes unnecessarily. That is better for the car and one is less likely to get into a spin.
  On the question of road lighting, I well remember driving along at a fine old pace on the crown of a road. I was following the cats' eyes when, suddenly, they disappeared. I went round two or three corners before I saw them again. Fortunately, it was not too dark to see just where I was. The reason why the cats' eyes disappeared was because on that stretch of the road they were in the kerb. It was on a road between Tewkesbury and Gloucester. Because one lot of cats' eyes was in the middle of the road and the next lot—round the corner—was in the kerb, I found myself getting into the kerb, and this, as I say, when I was going along at a good speed.
  868
  It could have been very serious. I do not know whether a crash helmet would have saved me if I had hit the kerb, but a pillion rider without a crash helmet might have been seriously injured. Very often, in such circumstances, the pillion rider comes off worse. The driver is able to hang on to the handle bars, but the pillion rider is not so fortunate.
  Clause 7 deals with pedestrians, and it is a Clause with which I am very concerned. I admit that there is a considerable lot of jay walking, but let us be careful what we are doing when we give a policeman at a traffic control spot power to pull up a pedestrian for disobeying a signal given by the officer. People may not see the policeman. They do not even see the traffic sometimes. That is just too bad for them. If pedestrians are to be summoned for disobeying a policeman's signal, we must be very careful about that. Where a policeman is standing there may be traffic lights and some traffic lights have a "cross now" signal for pedestrians.
  I admit that there is some justification for these traffic signals and "cross now" signals for pedestrians. But people may be walking down a street in London or any of our big cities and cross the road where there is very little traffic about. They may be 20 yards from where the policeman is on point duty. He has given a signal at that point that no one must cross. If they are crossing 20 yards away, is the policeman in a position to prosecute them? Instead of going up to where the policeman is standing to cross, they may cross where they are. I know what I should do if I saw a policeman standing 20 yards down a road regulating the crossing. If there was only a little traffic, I should dodge across the road there, and not go 20 yards down the road to the policeman.
  That seems to me to be a quite impracticable proposition. It does not do the job. To tell a policeman that he may prosecute people for doing this and not doing that is no remedy for the problem. We keep piling regulation on regulation. The motorist keeps on paying more taxes—more petrol duty, more road tax, higher insurance—and then we pile on more regulations. The motorist's life will not be worth living in a few years' time.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said that our standard of

  869
  living might be doubled in twenty-five years. I presume that means that more people will have motor cars, so it looks as if we double our standard of living in the next twenty-five years we may halve our expectation of life at one and the same time, unless something is done to create the right physical conditions, not necessarily by regulations.
  I do not believe that all these regulations will answer the problem. We have to create the physical condition. We must have footbridges for crossing roads, wider roads, better road surfaces. We must educate the motorist and, if possible, the pedestrian as well. It is the physical means which are vital for handling road traffic conditions, and not merely regulations.
  Then there is the question of bad loading. One sees heavy lorries very badly loaded. I have seen serious accidents as a result of overloaded and badly loaded lorries. Surely there is only one answer. We have the finest railway system of any country in Europe. The answer is that if we do not want to halve our expectation of life at the same time as doubling our standard of living we should put heavy traffic back on the railways, where there is some control in loading and a strict inspection of how the stuff is loaded. This is not so on the roads, where stuff is loaded in the most shocking manner.
  I have seen steel bars and tubes loaded on a lorry in such a way that the slightest bit of spin on the road and the shifting of the load could result in all sorts of accidents. Then there is the extended bar, hanging over the back of a lorry, with a red flag on it. Look at the trouble that can cause. Look at the trouble it caused Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times," when the flag fell off. There is often a huge pole hanging out over the lorry which one cannot see at night, especially if one happens to be on a badly lit road. I have seen accidents to people following a lorry with a steel bar protruding over the end, with a red flag on it.
  I shall vote against the Bill because all it does is to pile on more regulations. It does not make one attempt to create the physical conditions within which the motorist and the pedestrian can really play their parts in preventing the tre-
  870
  mendous loss of life which is occurring upon our roads.
  8.50 p.m.
  Sir Frank Medlicott: I could not disagree more with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in his general approach to this problem. I do not believe that physical conditions are anything more than a secondary consideration. My view is that the solution to this problem—and it can never be more than a partial solution—depends upon the attitude of the individual driver or pedestrian. I appreciate, however, that I must not delay the House unduly, and I shall, therefore, confine myself to the remarks which I wanted to make in any case.
  The difficulty about all road traffic legislation is that it attempts to do two almost incompatible things: it tries to make the roads safer, and, at the same time, faster. Those two factors are incompatible unless they are followed by a third, namely, the bringing into being of better drivers and more careful pedestrians. It has already been said that in this matter we all regard ourselves as experts, and in one rather grim sense that is true. Unless, as drivers, we are expert at avoiding running over pedestrians, or, as pedestrians, are equally expert at avoiding being run over, we are not able even to be here to debate this topic. In that sense we all have very personal knowledge of the problems involved.
  Both in today's debate and in that in the previous Parliament, a good deal of time was taken up in discussing the problem of testing vehicles. I feel that that is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. Time and time again the problem comes back to a question of testing the driver. I do not necessarily mean the formal test, but the test of experience. Although my criticisms will be directed mainly at motorist, it is a fact, which ought to be made very plain, that pedestrians contribute largely to the appalling total of accidents, and in the Report called "Road Accidents 1953"—upon which I congratulate the Minister and his Department—the remarkable fact is brought out that 24 per cent. of the accidents in that year were caused by pedestrians stepping into the road without giving proper warning or taking proper care. That fact must be borne in mind if we are to keep this problem in its proper perspective.

  871
  I want to say a few words upon the question of speed, because many hon. Members have argued, both today and in previous debates, that, somehow, there is safety in speed. It may be possible to demonstrate that in certain conditions 40 m.p.h. may be safer than 20 m.p.h. for a large lorry, but such conditions can only be exceptional, and it must follow that a speed of 40 m.p.h. is normally more risky than one of 20 m.p.h. We have to think of the two factors involved, namely, the greater difficulty of pulling up and the consequences of an impact, if one should take place. Motor manufacturers like to build speedy vehicles, and we motorists like to drive them, but let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that there is safety in speed.
  A further point I want to make has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, and that is the remarkable change which takes place in some quite ordinary, inoffensive people when they find themselves driving a vehicle. Somehow, getting into a motor car arouses the worst in people who are normally careful, cautious and considerate when they are on their feet. Perhaps it is that latent desire to exercise power which comes to the surface when we find ourselves in charge of a vehicle with all the possibilities of power of the modern motor car. With apologies to the late Lord Acton, it might well be said that while power corrupts, horsepower corrupts absolutely.
  There were a number of other things that I would have liked to say on that theme, but I must limit myself to stating that there are thousands of motorists who ought never to be on the road at all. In so far as this Bill will help to take off the roads those people who are not able to drive adequately—I hope by disqualification rather than by such penalties as imprisonment—I think it will do a great deal of good. It is not only the incompetent driver but the selfish, inconsiderate driver of whom we have to think, and although much has been said tonight about dangerous corners, it is so often the driver who is dangerous, and not the corner.
  I also wish to add a word for more mobile police. How can the police deal with this problem, since they are already 8,000 short of their full strength? We
  872
  we must see that the Minister is supported in that respect.
  I want to give one last illustration of the kind of driver who, I think, ought not to be on the roads. We all know the driver who drives for miles with his traffic indicator sticking out. Not only is it irritating, but how can a man be said to be in full possession of his driving faculties if he is not aware of such a fact?
  More recently, an even more stupid example has come to my notice. We see on the roads people returning from the seaside, from great towns the names of which I will not mention. They now have the habit of buying pennants which they plaster across their motor car windscreens. They are so glad to show where they have been that they can hardly see where they are going. I urge the Minister to give the police power to go to a car in that state and insist that these things—the golliwogs on the back and the pennants on the front—are removed so that the car is in a fit condition to he driven.
  There is more that I would like to have said, but I do not want to delay the important speeches which are to follow. This is a rather sad and somewhat depressing problem. If we thirst for speed we shall have to pay the price in lives. It is a great pity that public opinion is not more easily aroused. A week or two ago a small boy was missing for three days and the whole nation, quite rightly, felt concerned and alarmed. Yet, in 1953, 797 small children were killed on the roads and nobody seems to care, or to care enough.
  There is, happily, one realm in which there is progress, and that is the education which is being carried on by the Minister of Education and the Minister of Transport, by teachers, parents and the B.B.C. There has been a definite step forward in educating the children of this generation in road sense. If the children of our day remember nothing else of their schooldays, so long as they remember that lesson they may be able to do more towards solving this problem than we have ever been able to do ourselves.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Since we started this interesting and, I hope, useful debate this afternoon 150 of our fellow citizens have been killed or injured on the roads and, by the time the

  873
  Minister of Transport comes to the Dispatch Box on Wednesday to explain why further delay in improving our roads is inevitable, another 1,200 will have been killed or injured.
  Indeed, it may be worse than that, because the figures for May, which were issued the other day, show that it was the second worst peace-time month since road statistics have been kept. It seems fairly certain that June and July will be even worse and that we shall be killing on our roads this month about five times the number who were killed in the motor-racing disaster in France a few weeks ago.
  Almost every newspaper, and a number of hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott), have reminded us that it is against the background of those figures that we must consider this Measure. I feel that if we take the Bill against the background of the road casualty figures, it will be shown to be largely irrelevant. After all, nobody can say that Her Majesty's Government have a heavy programme of legislation this Session. No major Measures were envisaged in the Queen's Speech. It is twenty years since we had a Road Traffic Bill before the House. In the circumstances, I should have thought that the Minister could have produced a more considerable Measure than that which we are discussing tonight.
  I am afraid that the only effect of the Bill will be to distract attention from the real facts of the situation and to give the public the impression that the Government are responsible for a great drive for road safety when, in fact, that is not the case.
  I am bound to confess that I hoped for a good deal more from the Minister of Transport. In the days of the Labour Government, as many who are here tonight will recall, nobody was so prescient, nobody so nearly omniscient and nobody so full of enterprise and initiative as the present Minister of Transport. Now, when he has his great opportunity, he produces a Bill which is only an emasculated version of an earlier Measure which received the coldest of receptions both in this House and in another place.
  The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to refer to the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) on the Bill when it was introduced in the last Parlia-
  874
  ment, but he very wisely did not tell us the descriptions which were given to the Bill in another place. For example, a Conservative earl referred to it as "ramshackle," a Socialist earl called it "ridiculous," another Conservative peer said that it was a "very bad Departmental Measure" and another Socialist peer said that it was "ill-conceived and slipshod."
  Now we find the "Manchester Guardian" telling us, the day after the Bill was read a First time, that the
  "rehashed Bill deserves all the criticisms of its predecessor for its omissions: it tinkers here and there quite usefully, but it is in no sense the major measure that road problems demand."
  It goes on to say:
  "These real problems of the roads will have to be faced one day, and the new Parliament offered an excellent opportunity for fresh thinking. It has not been taken. The present bill is at best a temporary traffic diversion when what is needed is some real road reconstruction in a legislative (as well as a physical) sense."
  We shall all look forward tonight to the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the Bill. We always listen to him with interest and appreciation, for we enjoy his epigrams and his impromptu remarks and we appreciate his debating skill. In the long run, however, the public will judge the right hon. Gentleman not by the epigrams he makes but by the bridges he builds, not by the impromptus he prepares but by the highways he produces.
  It is because of the criticisms which have been made of the Bill that we propose to vote against it tonight. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was kind enough to ask me to expand a little upon our reasons for doing so on this occasion when we did not do so when the Bill was before the House in the last Parliament. Quite apart from the fact that we did not want to be accused of electioneering, we appreciated that the political situation was uncertain and that it was natural enough that the Government should not want to embark upon a major piece of legislation at that time.
  Since then it has become increasingly apparent that the proposals of the Government are wholly inadequate, and it is to a large extent because of that lack of imagination, to which the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) referred, that we are opposed to the present Measure. We believe also that it is timid. We believe it should have received much more careful consideration before it was brought

  875
  before the House and, perhaps most important of all, we are going to divide against the Bill tonight in order to assure the Government that there will be no respite for them in this Parliament on the matter of road safety.
  We are getting some remarkable reinforcements in that policy. On 28th June, the London County Council discussed the road situation. The Labour chairman of the town planning committee spoke in some criticism of the Government and said that he proposed to hammer it out all summer on the doors of the Ministry of Transport. Then Lady Pepler, for the Conservatives, said:
  "We will gladly and energetically stand on the steps of the Ministry of Transport and hammer as hard as we can."
  In the bleak future which lies ahead of the Government, that at least is something to look forward to.
  My job tonight is to sum up the views of the Opposition on this question. There has been general agreement upon the three approaches to this problem. In the first place, we can punish people for wrongdoing, which is one of the main themes of this Bill. Secondly, we can create the conditions in which accidents are less likely. Thirdly, another purpose of the Bill, we can educate the public in a sense of its own moral responsibility.
  I should like to take the second of those approaches first—the creation of conditions in which accidents are less likely. I had expected tonight that we should have heard a great deal more about the growth of the number of cars upon our roads. In 1946 it was 3,100,000 motor vehicles. This year it will be 6,250,000, about double what it was nine years ago. The Road Research Board, in its annual report for 1954, has told us that by 1963 there may well be twice as many as we have at present.
  We should not overlook the fact that if there should be any decline in our exports of motor cars the home market may well be flooded with cars and the pressure upon our roads suddenly become more severe. We are now putting on to the roads every day 1,500 new motor vehicles. That means that every year we are putting 1,250 miles of new vehicles on our roads and already the number of vehicles to the mile is higher here than in any other part of the world.
  876
  It is this increasing urgency of the situation that drives us to the conclusion that the highway programme of the Government is wholly inadequate. I thought the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) made a most courageous and encouraging maiden speech. He, too, said that the programme of the Government was inadequate. I am sorry we shall be forcing the hon. Member to vote against his convictions so early in his Parliamentary career, but, of course, we take exactly the same view.
  The Government have had two bites at the cherry. They have announced two road programmes. I checked back on the statement the Minister made on 2nd February and, so far as I can understand what he said on that occasion, the second programme did absorb the first, which is not quite the impression he gave when he was discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall earlier in the debate.
  The first statement the Government made was on 8th December, 1953. We were told then that they had 10 major schemes which would cost £50 million over an unspecified number of years. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) has shown most commendable pertinacity in chasing the Minister upon the progress of the schemes. When on 29th April the hon. Member for Solihull questioned the Minister about the progress which had been made with those ten schemes, the Minister had to confess that work had been started upon only three of them, and one of them, the Cromwell Road extension, is one upon which work became apparent to the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) only when he went along it today. In the case of one only of those schemes, the Stafford-Stoke road, had any real progress been made, although so many months had elapsed.
  The second statement which the Government made was on 2nd February this year. Apart from the wholly retrograde proposal to charge tolls for the use of the motorways, it was an improvement upon the earlier statement, but it is still inadequate, especially when we compare it with what is happening in other countries. It is disappointing, too, because so many really important long-standing schemes like the Severn Bridge appear to have been abandoned indefinitely.

  877
  On that occasion the Minister said that he hoped that expenditure of £147 million on new construction and major improvements would be authorised over the next four years, but it appeared that the actual expenditure will be only £97¼ million. The expenditure in this year will be only £8¼ million. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think it an act of great generosity on the part of the Government that they are going to spend £97¼ million over four years, during which time the motorists and the traffic-using industries of the country will have paid over £1,500 million in taxation to the Government. Only one-fifteenth of that is being returned to the public in the form of improved roads.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Robbery—highway robbery.
  Mr. Greenwood: There is an aspect of this on which I should like the Minister to comment when he replies to the debate, and that is the slowness of the administrative machine. When the county surveyor of Kent, Mr. Vallis, addressed the Royal Society of Arts on 11th May, he listed twelve stages which had to be gone through between a project being approved in principle and the preparation of the engineering drawings, and when those twelve stages have been completed all that remains is for the local authority to buy the land and then to build the road. Surely it is not beyond the capacity of the right hon. Gentleman as an experienced administrator to do something to speed the administrative machinery, to streamline the processes which have to be gone through, and, while preserving the rights of the individual, nevertheless to make it easier and swifter for the public interest to be served.
  There are other forms of slowness in the Ministry upon which I should like to comment. There is, for example, the slowness of some of the right hon. Gentleman's own officials. In November, 1953, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked the Minister to put traffic lights at the junction of Al with Kingsley Way, N.W.11. On 9th February, 1955—fifteen months later—my right hon. Friend asked the Minister how many accidents had taken place in the meantime. He was told that 66 accidents had been reported in which two people were killed and 27 injured. The only excuse for the dilatoriness for his Department the right
  878
  hon. Gentleman was able to adduce was these things were governed by the date of the delivery by the manufacturers. He added:
  "Owing to the demand for this equipment, at the moment there is generally a six-month delay."—[OFFICJAL REPORT, 9th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1890.]
  To bring forward a six months' delay as an excuse for having delayed for fifteen months during which two people were killed and 27 injured is surely not the kind of reasoning that should commend itself to the House.
  One can go on through various aspects of the Government's transport and traffic policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to street lighting. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on 4th May drew the Minister's attention to the fact that the report of the Road Research Board had suggested that better street lighting can reduce accidents at night by 30 per cent. The Minister replied that he had the whole question of the administration of street lighting under consideration.
  If one asks the Minister what he is doing about dazzle, he has the matter under consideration. If one asks about winkers and blinkers and all those other curious features of road transport today, one will find that he has them under consideration and hopes to give a decision in six months', nine months' or perhaps twelve months' time. All through the record of the Ministry runs this theme of dilatoriness and indecision.
  We heard a maiden speech today from the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux). My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) reminded us that the hon. and gallant Member had served in the Marines. I should like to tell the hon. and gallant Member what a pleasant change it is for the Marines to be telling it to the politicians. It was an admirable maiden speech. The only error of judgment it contained was when the hon. and gallant Member asked the Minister to investigate the possibility of making external side-mirrors compulsory on motor vehicles, because anything that is suggested to the right hon. Gentleman will almost inevitably be lost in the labyrinthine workings of the Ministry of Transport. When the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) was making his interesting maiden speech and referring

  879
  to the difficulties of finding his way through the one-way street system of Birmingham, it occurred to me that Birmingham's one-way system is simplicity itself compared with the workings of the Ministry of Transport.
  One is forced to the conclusion that it is to cover up this record that the Minister has brought forward these legislative proposals. I do not think it is likely that these proposals will be the subject of acute party controversy in Committee. They are matters upon which all of us have ideas, and because of that I hope that the Government will see that the Committee stage of the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House.
  At the moment, I should like to confine myself to two general propositions. The first, of course, is the absence of any proposals for the testing of cars. I should have thought that it was desirable for the Parliamentary Secretary to give us rather more explanation of why the proposals for testing have been dropped. On the Second Reading of the previous Measure the Parliamentary Secretary said that in Committee the Government hoped to take into account the views which were expressed in all parts of the House. I should have thought that the Government would have been well advised on this occasion to have included either the original Clause or an amended Clause in the Measure so that we could know the Government's views and have an opportunity of accepting or amending them in Committee. No doubt other hon. Members will put forward a new Clause for consideration in Committee, possibly on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell).
  The other general proposition is the way in which the Bill proposes to increase the penalties for various offences. It is a little surprising to find a Government devoted to the principle of setting the people free, extending penal provisions in this way to pedestrians and cyclists and making them liable to new and heavy penalties. It is a little surprising to find a Government which believes in anarchy in economic affairs becoming so authoritarian in matters of transport.
  I agree entirely with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for
  880
  South Shields. He is an experienced magistrate; I am a comparatively new one. I would have thought there were dangers in increasing the offences when the police are already incapable of tracking down all the breaches of the present law. It is doubtful too whether it is expedient to increase penalties, when we know that heavy penalties have a deterrent effect both upon magistrates and upon juries.
  Another point I should like to make, and it was one which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, is the need for the Government to have a real transport policy. Everybody except the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary appear to agree that our transport system is inadequate and will be inadequate even when the Government's present programme goes through. When our roads are inadequate, two things logically follow. The first is that we have got to ensure that all other forms of transportation, whether canals, railways or coastal shipping, are used to their maximum capacity; and the second is that commodities must go by the most appropriate method.
  We have had a discussion today about those awkward loads which are known in the elegant language of the Ministry of Transport as "abnormal indivisible loads." We all know that it is not possible to remove completely from our roads loads of that kind. But the other day in one of the newspapers I read about a case in the South of England in which the traffic on a main road was held up for five hours because a lorry had broken down. What was significant about it was that the lorry was taking a large new launch from Thorneycroft's, Southampton, to London Docks. What can be the justifications by the Ministry of Transport or anybody else of allowing a large launch to be taken on our already congested and overloaded roads from one of our main ports to another? Yet I do not believe it will be possible to get a proper disposition of abnormal loads of that kind until we have an integrated transport system such as that in which we on this side of the House believe.
  I sympathise with the Minister of Transport because of the way in which he is sabotaged by other Government Departments, first of all, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which

  881
  is clearly giving planning permission against the interests of a solution of our transport problems. Secondly, I sympathise with him because of sabotage from the Treasury. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) talked about the need of our motor cyclists to wear crash helmets. Although the Minister of Transport wants cyclists to wear these helmets, the Treasury insists on collecting Purchase Tax upon them.
  Purchase Tax on cars discourages the purchase of new vehicles, and the fuel tax means that money is consumed which is needed for the maintenance of cars. So we could go from one Department to another showing the way in which other Ministers are failing to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman.
  That brings me to the last point, which is perhaps the most important of all, the need for educating the public to a sense of their responsibility. I am glad that in one of the Clauses of this Bill the Government increase their powers to give help to local authorities. The local authority road safety committees and bodies like the Pedestrians' Association are doing a useful job of work which deserve the Minister's encouragement. We have to impress upon the public that in the first place this is a question of elementary good manners, that it is bad manners to "blind" through villages which are the homes of other people; that it is bad manners to jump the queue at the traffic lights; that it is bad manners for pedestrians to step off the footpath in front of motorists without giving a warning apart from an imperious wave of the hand. At its highest, this is a matter of individual moral responsibility which imposes upon every one of us a need to behave on the roads as we ought to behave, and to teach our children to behave in a way which shows consideration for others and for the safety of others.
  Tonight, we shall vote against this Measure, but it is more than just a vote of criticism of the Government. To some extent we all share responsibility for this situation, particularly those of us who have been in this House for some years and who are responsible for the legislation of this country. I believe that the highway authorities, which have not yet a sufficient sense of urgency, have their share of the responsibility, and I believe that a public which tolerates the carnage
  882
  that goes on must also bear its share of responsibility. Yet the fact remains that the one person who is strategically placed to make any real nation-wide impact upon this problem is the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the House, and it is to shake the Minister out of his lethargy that we shall divide against this meagre, mean and muddled Bill.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has made what I believe was his debut at this Box in the same agreeable way in which some of us used to watch him at the Oxford Union. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman summed up the case, if there be one, for the Opposition very adequately; that is to say, in the course of making certain criticisms of general Government policy, with which I shall attempt to deal, he was not able to find time or occasion to bring forward a single reason why his right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against this Bill. The hon. Gentleman attacked the Bill, in general terms, as lacking in imagination. I am bound to point out that his own imagination did not go so far as to suggest one item which he thought should be in it which is not in it already, with the single exception of the vehicle testing proposal with which I will deal in a moment.
  It is not good enough to say to the House that it should reject the Bill which the hon. Gentleman, winding up for the Opposition, is unable to criticise, and which a number of his hon. Friends have, with fair-mindedness, admitted contains useful and valuable provisions. The hon. Gentleman fell back on what appears to be a new technique from the Front Bench opposite, relying for his criticism of Government Measures on quotations made in another place—a remarkable development of Socialist dialectic. The clue to the whole thing was given when he put in an impassioned plea for a particular treatment of this Bill in Committee, when the course which he is recommending to the House would secure that the Bill never got to it.
  Until the speech of the hon. Gentleman, the greater part of this debate, as it related either to the Bill or matters

  883
  germane to the Bill, underlined the importance of getting it to the Committee stage and on to the Report stage, so that the contributions which hon. Members on both sides of this House can give so easily and valuably on a fundamentally non-political Measure of this kind can be given in a way in which they can only be given at the later stages of the Bill.
  It seems to me that the great weight of argument adduced from the benches opposite on particular issues—and I think the House will agree with me that it is specific and precise criticisms which have value and weight—is itself the strongest condemnation of the course which the hon. Member for Rossendale was advocating, which was that this Bill should come to a stop tonight.
  The debate has, apart from that, been valuable. We have had three most impressive maiden speeches by hon. Friends of mine. Two of them were the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), and I am particularly glad, as one of his constituents, to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Freeth) upon his extremely impressive speech.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Did the right hon. Gentleman vote for his hon. Friend?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should be a good enough lawyer to know that the ballot is secret.
  We now come, at the end of the day, not, as one might have hoped, to a quiet consideration of the general effect of the Bill and the proposals in it as a preliminary to an examination in detail at later stages, but to deal with what courtesy and the convention of the House demand that I should refer to as a reasoned Amendment. Its timing is singularly odd. The earlier Bill, as we have been reminded, was given an unopposed Second Reading on 5th April, and the only explanation so far given of that in the light of tonight's performance is that given with delightful ingenuousness by the hon. Member for Rossendale, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not want to seem to be electioneering.
  884
  This Bill was announced in the normal course of business by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on Thursday of the week before last to be taken last Thursday. Indeed, it was only on Tuesday of last week that its postponement to tonight was announced. Until that Tuesday no Motion of this sort had appeared on the Order Paper. It was only on Friday that whoever controls the Opposition arranged that this Motion should be put down at this stage in order to urge the rejection of a Bill which had been given an unopposed Second Reading less than three months ago.
  The only excuse or pretext which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) gave for this course was a very peculiar one. It was that this Bill was not, as I concede it is not, precisely the same Bill as that to which the House gave a Second Reading in April, a Bill which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall himself conceded in his own speech had a number of useful features, but he said, "You have dropped the old Clause 1, vehicle testing."
  The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well what happened to the old Clause 1, and how it was made unworkable by an Amendment moved in another place by noble Lords sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. It really is a little unreasonable if right hon. Gentlemen in this House make it a pretext for opposing a Bill which, previously, they had not opposed because the Government have adopted the point of view which was expressed by their own noble Friends in another place. It really does, on a non-party and non-partisan Measure of this sort, make it extraordinarily difficult to indulge in the normal give and take of ordinary Parliamentary discussion and the normal willingness to accept points of view, even if they are put from the other side, if, when one does so in deference to the strongly expressed view of those who lead the Opposition in another place, it is then made an excuse for opposing the Measure when it comes to this House.
  Before I go back to what I am bound to call the reasoned Amendment, let me answer quickly points which were put in the course of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in connection with the

  885
  Clause relating to dangerous driving causing death, asked for the figures in respect of motor manslaughter prosecutions. I can tell him that in the three years 1951 to 1953—they are the latest figures that I have—151 persons were charged with manslaughter by the driving of a motor vehicle on the roads, and of them 133 were sent for trial with the following results: 41 acquitted; 67 acquitted of manslaughter, but convicted of dangerous driving; and 25 convicted of manslaughter.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central, in his most interesting speech, asked what we were doing to secure that fewer kerbs of a vertical nature were built on our roads. I am glad to be able to tell him that in the next two or three weeks I am proposing to send a circular to local highway authorities announcing the result of the very serious consideration which has been given to this matter and which, broadly speaking, recommends that they do not use vertical kerbs except in exceptional circumstances where it is quite essential in order to keep the traffic from going off the roads.
  The reasoned Amendment, if I may return to it, seems to me to be based on a fallacy. It makes the point that the Bill
  "does not provide a comprehensive policy to deal with the urgent and increasing problems of road traffic and road safety."
  Those words seem to indicate a complete misunderstanding of the position. The purpose of a Parliamentary Bill is to alter the law so as to serve the needs of a policy. But it is only required to embody that part or section of a policy which requires a change of the law. It seems to me the most complete fallacy to indicate—as by implication this reasoned Amendment does—that the whole of our policy on roads matters should be embodied in a road traffic Bill.
  No one outside has made this mistake. The "Economist" says that it is obvious that any Bill must be a secondary matter to the major matter of road policy. So does "The Times." Anyone with any experience of these matters knows perfectly well that over a very large part of the field, legislation is not required. Generally speaking, we do not need legislation to build roads. We do not legislate, at any rate, for a large number of road safety measures. Legislation is
  886
  needed to perform the ancillary secondary supports for the policy and only to achieve the making of the necessary changes in the law. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite expose one of the fundamental fallacies of Socialist thinking in their naïve assumption that if a policy is not in the Bill we do not have a policy.
  A Parliamentary Bill is required for compulsion or direction, for ordering and compelling people to do things which they do not wish to do. But it is only required where it is needed to bring in the authority of Parliament—as we have to for certain purposes—and it is a revelation of the Socialist approach to these matters that they assume that, except where you are-compelling, except where you are legislating and where you are imposing penalties, you have no policy at all. It may weir be that the policy of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite requires to be embodied in a Statute, but let me tell them at once that the larger part of our policy is not embodied in this Bill which is designed, as the "Economist" has said, as a secondary support for it.
  It is, for example, required as a support for our safety measures, to increase safety on the roads by preventing, and where it is not possible to prevent it, by punishing incompetent and reckless driving. Where needed, it gives the powers to deal with traffic congestion in great cities; it clears up the anomalies which have arisen in the road traffic laws; and also, as the "Economist" points out, it gives us power to undertake experiments in the control of traffic and in dealing with congestion. If I may say so, I think that the whole approach of right hon. Gentlemen opposite indicates that they have never thought out the implications of a road traffic policy, or they could not have believed that it would be either possible or necessary to embody this in a Parliamentary Bill.
  Now let me come to the policy. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall waxed quite sarcastic about our road policy. It is true that, when challenged, it came out that he had not heard of the latest road programme, and was dealing—with great vigour—with a programme that was superseded some months ago. The right hon. Gentleman really must learn to tune in to the right programme. He entirely failed to understand what is, in fact, being done in connection with our road programme.

  887
  I will say a word or two about it because, in my judgment, it embodies the major part of our policy both in respect of congestion and in respect of road safety. We are now in the early stages of a major road programme, and we are working on the basis that there is and will be a very great expansion in the number of vehicles on our roads.
  We do not accept that as a cause for discouragement. On the contrary, it is a symptom, and a healthy and encouraging symptom, of the high and rising standards of life of our people and of the widening standards of welfare and wealth which have come about in the last few years. The very fact that road vehicles are increasing in number is an illustration that the motor car is no longer a symbol of wealth and privilege. It is more and more widely dispersed throughout the community, as anyone who has seen the great car parks outside Midland factories knows well.
  Equally, the increase in commercial traffic is a symptom and a symbol of a high and rising level of industrial activities. In the light of that our business is not to be alarmed and not to do as some hon. Members have done, moan helplessly about the increased number of vehicles, but to cope with it. We can take it as a possibility that by 1980—which, on the law of averages, is the next time that a Road Traffic Bill is likely to be moved from this Box—there will probably be four times the number of private cars on the road than there were in 1939. That is why we are working to a big road programme planned well ahead for the future.
  In parenthesis—and this is where the helpfulness of this Bill comes in—in a community such as that which we can see some years ahead, when there will be a very large number of vehicles moving fast on a fine road system, it is all the more important that bad, dangerous and incompetent driving should be penalised severely, because in such a community dangerous driving becomes an even grosser social evil than it is at the moment. That is how the penal provisions of this Bill, which I regard as among its less important parts, fit into and are integrated with, but are subsidiary to, a major road programme.
  888
  The House may like to know something of the progress made with the programme which I announced on 2nd February. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) pointed out from his own visual evidence, the Cromwell Road extension is started. I have authorised the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel, and work is going on already on the Conway Bridge, on A.34 in Staffordshire, the Glasgow-Stirling Road, the Leven Bridges and the Langstone Bridge, to take just a few examples.
  This month we are starting the Cavendish Bridge, the West Drayton diversion, the Inner Relief Road, Bridgwater, and the widening of A.40 from the Oxford City boundary to Islip turn. In the next month or two we shall start the Markyate by-pass, the Newbury Park Station approach, the Liverpool-Aintree Road, the Bridge of Don, Pelham Street Bridge, Lincoln, Doncaster Mill Bridge, and the dual carriageways on Western Avenue will all be started.
  In September, I hope to publish the formal line required under the Special Roads Act which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained in respect of the first half of the London-Yorkshire motor road, that part of it which will run from St. Albans to Dunchurch where it will connect with the modernised A.45 into Birmingham. This road will be built with dual carriage ways, each containing three 12-ft. traffic lanes with what is technically called a hard shoulder on each side and a central reservation. It will pass either on embankments or by cuttings over the greater number of subsidiary roads which it passes, and between St. Albans and Dun-church there will be only six points of intersection, where fly-over junctions and roundabouts, either above or below the main road according to the layout, will be built in.
  This is the first of the motorways. The motorways system—the Birmingham-Preston one is to follow—also includes a number of by-passes which are being built in the near future to motor road standards, so that they may themselves be incorporated in the future motor road system. Examples include the 15 miles of the Doncaster by-pass which will connect with the Yorkshire motor road, the Preston-Lancashire by-pass, ultimately forming part of the Birmingham-Shap

  889
  motorway and the Maidenhead by-pass, which will in future be part of the South Wales motorway.
  Mr. Bence: What about Scotland?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he might very well have criticised me for the fact that the schemes which I read out included a large proportion of Scottish schemes, which I should have thought would have been familiar to him.
  At the same time, a very large number of smaller schemes are going ahead, including, in particular, the building of dual carriageways on a number of main trunk roads towards the ultimate design of having a dual carriageway system on all the main trunk roads.
  At the same time, the smaller schemes will get rid of what are technically called black spots where the visability, layout and surface of the road is apt to cause accidents. Hundreds of these will be dealt with during the present year's programme. That fits in with the whole purpose of the Bill, as the purpose of the Bill fits in with that programme, because it is essential that these great new roads should carry traffic which is well and skilfully conducted, so that we shall not suffer, as one of my hon. Friends reminded me we might, from the situation which from time to time has developed in the United States, in which great well-planned roads have, none the less, had a heavy casualty rate.
  I appreciate that it is no use building great roads across the country unless they have access into and connect with the necessary through roads of the great towns and cities which are also affected. That is why a large number of schemes in London are going ahead in the next few years; street widening in the Strand and at Notting Hill Gate, and so on. These schemes are expensive not so much because of the work but because of the property which has to be acquired in order to clear the way for them. It is for that reason that we must ask, if we are making, as we intend to do, this highly expensive effort to improve the streetways of our cities, that those who use them should also use them reasonably, and that highly expensive road systems should be used, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, mainly for moving traffic and not be congested with parked vehicles.
  890
  It is in that context that the provisions of the Bill about parking meters and the moving of vehicles which cause obstruction are very relevant, once again, not as the main purpose but as subsidiary to the policy. I have listened to one or two suggestions that the road programme might be even larger—not without a certain sneaking sympathy. I would remind the House of the words which I used deliberately at the end of my statement on 2nd February:
  "… it is the Government's firm intention to continue with a substantial programme of road construction and improvement—at least on the scale I have indicated—until the roads of this country are adequate for the traffic they have to bear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1100.]
  I must remind the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that in the financial calculations of the amount to be spent during the next four years on major schemes of construction he omitted altogether the reference in my statement to the fact that certain of the major schemes of national importance are to be paid for over and above the money I have mentioned in the scheme.
  We can argue whether this scheme should be larger or not. That is a matter for legitimate discussion. What is a little difficult to accept, however, is criticism in the tone adopted by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, when one recalls the performance of his own Government upon this very issue. In the whole six years of the Administration presided over by the Leader of the Oppositon, about £29 million was expended upon major improvements and construction, which is almost exactly that which in one single year—the present year—we expended at the beginning of our programme.
  The figures are even worse than that, because the road programme of right hon. Gentlemen opposite was a diminishing one. It started quite well, with a programme of about £8¾ million in 1946, but in 1951 it had fallen to under £3 million. With a record such as that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter it really does not do for them, in a mood of apparent indignation, to denounce our programme as puny and inadequate when, in its initial year, it expends for this purpose more than they spent in six years.
  Nor is it good enough for them to take that line when their own apologies and excuses, to which I have listened today,

  891
  are pitifully inadequate. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said that they had no money, and that the times were hard, and one or two of his hon. Friends said the same thing. But our criticisms of the late Administration are not based upon its thrifty economies. That Government maintained taxation at wartime levels and spent money in all directions.
  I would remind the House and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the money expended upon the groundnut scheme alone—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which, I am glad to see, raises reminiscent sympathy in the minds of hon. Members opposite—would itself have been sufficient to build the Yorkshire motor road. A great deal of the trouble which this Government have to face in connection with road problems is due to the fact that we came to power after six years in which traffic was growing and virtually nothing was done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the roads—six years which ended with a road programme involving an expenditure of only £3 million, and with a financial crisis just to make us happy.
  The road building programme also makes a main contribution to safety, but road building alone will not solve safety problems, as France, Germany and the United States have experienced. Naturally, anyone holding my present post must feel deeply the high figure of road casualties. Although, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, casualties have not risen in proportion to the number of vehicles on the road, they are heavy and, I believe, unnecessarily heavy—but there is no simple panacea. It is only by a combination of methods, over and above an effective road programme, that we can deal with them.
  There are many such methods. There is education, such as is given by the new Highway Code, of whose large sales we have already heard, and whose free issue is just beginning; there are training schemes, official and unofficial, such as those of the R.A.C. and A.C.U., for training motor-cyclists, or such as that which a great bicycle manufacturing firm in the Midlands is giving pedal cyclists, out of a sense of responsibility; there is propaganda, and there are experiments, such as those which we are conducting at Slough, where we are trying to carry out
  892
  all the various techniques of road safety together and in succession, so as to be able to test for almost any conditions
  They include a vehicle testing station, the use of substantial numbers of police, special signalling systems, road arrangements, and so on. In addition, there is the action by local authorities in promoting road safety for which Clause 2 of the Bill helps to provide the finance. Similarly, the control of motor cycles and pedestrians makes a subsidiary contribution.
  As I have tried to show, the Bill is neither a complete policy, which hon. Members opposite think it ought to be, nor is it other than a very useful support and contribution to that policy. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite acknowledge that fact. Several of them, including the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, have admitted that it contains valuable and useful proposals. None the less, they have told us that they propose to vote against it, and they propose to try to turn, in that way, what is essentially a nonparty political Measure—one on which opinions go to and fro across the House —into something in the nature of a party political Measure. I think that most people who are interested in this subject regret that, and although I shall continue to try to meet points of view wherever they come from, if the atmosphere of controversy is introduced some damage will be done.
  That is a matter for hon. Members opposite, but, before they go into the Division Lobby, they ought at least to be clear what they are voting against. They are voting against having a road traffic Bill and against the subsequent stages of a Bill in which their own proposals can be associated in Committee and on Report. They are voting against stopping the sale of dangerous vehicles, against bringing some sense into the chaotic law of speed limits and against giving power to enable local authorities to have contributions for road safety. They are voting against the stopping of abuses of provisional licences and against bringing the penalty for the drunken motorist up to that for the dangerous motorist.
  They are voting against clearing up, as everybody wants to see cleared up, the present muddle of the law relating to private parties and special occasions. They are voting against the experiments

  893
  in parking meters and pedestrian crossings, and against the possibility of even further detailed discussion on these matters.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss Mr. G. R. Strauss rose——
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: They are voting against making the road traffic law a more efficient subsidiary instrument for the carrying out of road policies and against measures which they themselves have said are of value.
  It is for hon. Members opposite to consider whether they want to do that, but I am bound to say that if, on a wholly non-political Measure of this sort, a Measure with much of the contents of
  which many of them agree, they decide to do this as part of a wider political manoevre, they can do so, but I very much doubt whether the people of this country will either forgive or forget.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a reasoned Amendment of this sort is a traditional Parliamentary method of expressing dissatisfaction and of saying that the Bill does not do as much as the Opposition would like it to do?
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 212.

  Division No. 14.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C.

  Heath, Edward

  Aitken, W. T.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Henderson, John (Cathoart)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. S.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ashton, H.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Drayson, G. B.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Banks, Col. C.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Barber, Anthony

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Ecoles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Barter, John

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwiok & L'm'tn)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Beamish) Maj. Tufton

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.

  Bell, Ronald (Buoks, S.)

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. Sir Norman

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Fell, A.

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Birch Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Finlay, Graeme

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Black, C. W.

  Fort, R.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Body, R. F.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Freeth, D. K.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Brains, B. R.

  Glover, D.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Godber, J. B.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Kaberry, D.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Keegan, D.

  Brooman-White, R. G.

  Gower, H. R.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Kerr, H. W.

  Bryan, P.

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. B. (Nantwich)

  Kirk, P. M.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Green, A.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Carr, Robert

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Leavey, J. A.

  Channon, H.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Leburn, W. G.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Harris, Fiederio (Croydon, N.W.)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Cole, Norman

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maidon)

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Lindsay, Martin (Sollhull)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (SuttonColdfield)

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Heald, Rt, Hon. Sir Lionel

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Storey, S.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

  Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Osborne, C.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Page, R. G.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Teeling, W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  MoKibbin, A. J.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Pott, H. P.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Rawlinson, P. A. G.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Redmayne, M.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Maddan, Martin

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Vickers, Miss J. H.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Marples, A. E.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Marshall, Douglas

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool S.)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Mathew, R.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Maude, Angus

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Mawby, R. L.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith & Border)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Williams, Rt. Hn. Charles (Torquay)

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Shepherd, William

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Speir, R. M.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Neave, Airey

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Mr. Studholme.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hannan, W.

  Albu, A. H.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hastings, S.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Daines, P.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Anderson, Frank

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Healey, Denis

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Baird, J.

  Deer, C.

  Holman, P.

  Bartley, P.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Holt, A. F.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Benson, G.

  Dye, S.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Blackbum, F.

  Edelman, M.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Boardman, H.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Irving, S. (Dartford)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Fletcher, Eric

  Janner, B.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Freeman, Peter

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&S.Pncs,S.)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Burke, W. A.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Kenyon, C.

  Champion, A. J.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Clunie, J.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Lawson, C. M.

  Coldrick, W.

  Grimond, J.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hale, Leslie

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Cove, W. G.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  896

  897

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Logan, D. G.

  Parker, J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Paton, J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Peart, T. F.

  Tomney, F.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Usborne, H. C.

  McLeavy, F.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Viant, S. P.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Pursey, cmdr. H.

  Wade, D. W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Rankin, John

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mahon, S.

  Reid, William

  Watkins, T. E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rhodes, H.

  Weitzman, D.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddrsfd, E.)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  West, 0. G.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Ross, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Monslow, W.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wigg, George

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Short, E. W.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Mort, D. L.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Moss, R.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Willey, Frederick

  Moyle, A.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  O'Brien, T.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Oram, A. E.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Orbach, M.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Oswald, T.

  Steele, T.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Owen, W. J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Padley, W. E.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

  Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Question put and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  ROAD TRAFFIC [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to road traffic and the provision of parking places and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament

  (a) of any sums payable out of such moneys (whether under the said Act or other
  898
  enactments) by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to the speed limit in built-up areas, arrangements for promoting road safety by disseminating information and advice or giving practical training to road users, or the examination of vehicles;

  (b) of any other increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954;

  (c) of any increase in the sums payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1950, attributable to the repeal of the provision for modifying those Acts made by section two of the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, £c. (Tenure of Office) Act, 1937;

  and the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the said Minister under the said Act of the present Session and of any other sums which by virtue of that Act are payable into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Molson.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

SCHOOL MILK, SCOTLAND
10.12 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education Authorities (Scotland) Grant (Amendment No. 6) Regulations, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 590), dated 19th April, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, 1955, in the last Parliament, be annulled.
My hon. Friends who are supporting me and I desire to have from the Government clarification of certain points. I want to make it perfectly clear at the beginning that I am not against the provisions of these Regulations. I have always felt that meals and milk ought to be free to every child in school. However, the Government's bringing in these Regulations at this time surprises me a little. I should like the Joint Under-Secretary of State to answer these questions. How many pupils will be able to obtain free milk who are not obtaining it now? What will be the cost of providing this free milk to those pupils?
At present, I understand, all pupils in what are known as public schools in Scotland—that is, those schools which are under the control of the local education authorities—receive milk free. I understand that those schools include those schools which get their grant directly from the education authorities. What I am not clear about is this. Do pupils in schools which get their grant directly from the Department of Education receive free milk, or are they now brought in under these Regulations?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State nods, and I take it that those pupils are now getting free milk, so that these Regulations bring in now pupils from only one class of school in Scotland—the independent schools, schools which, at present, get no grant for any purpose, either from the local education authority or from the Department of Education, schools like Glasgow Academy, Fettes, and Loretto.
That is why I am surprised that the Government brought forward these Regulations. Were representations made to the Secretary of State to have these schools covered by the Regulations? If they were, by whom were they made? Were they made by the governors of the schools, or did the pupils' parents make
900
representations to the governors so that the matter might be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Were the Regulations brought forward because the parents of pupils at these schools are finding that times are more difficult than they were hitherto?
These are important questions which we on this side of the House would like to have answered tonight. I welcome the Regulations. I have always thought it wrong that in our public schools, as was the case when I was teaching in them, there were children who received free milk and children who paid for the milk. There was always a social stigma attached to those children who had received free milk.
Is it because that might be happening in the schools which are now covered by the Regulations that the Regulations have been made? Or is it that the Government, who have had to impose extra charges on meals for children in the public schools, with the result that some children are no longer able to have the meals, feel that the economic position is so good that they are able to extend this very worth-while provision of free milk?
10.18 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I beg to second the Motion.
We are entitled to ask the Government a few questions about these Regulations and their genesis. They come rather strangely from a Government whose members not long ago were attacking food subsidies and saying that the country was subsidising people who did not need to be subsidised and that that was not a proper way of helping people. Here, the Government are extending to private schools a useful subsidy which is at present confined to public schools—and in Scotland by "public schools" we really mean public schools, that is, schools which are public in every sense of the word. English Members would call these private schools "public schools." They are schools that are out-with the management and control of the education authority or even the Government themselves, apart from the inspection of the schools.
How many schools are involved? Did the schools ask for this provision and have the parents whose sons and daughters are being educated in these schools been asked to give their opinion?

901
Do they want subsidised milk? One hears so many sneers about subsidised milk. It should not be thought that we on this side of the House intend to oppose the principle. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) I remember only too well, when I started teaching in the Gorbals in 1931 or 1932, the children who received free milk. Their fathers were unemployed, they were cast aside, they were "on the parish." One could pick the children out by the suits which they were wearing.
The free milk scheme which was started in 1934 was not intended to help the children, but to get rid of surplus milk. I have had that admission in a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who writes:
"It is true that when milk was first supplied to schools at reduced prices in 1934, the immediate purpose of the arrangement was to find a useful outlet for surplus milk."
The Labour Party at that time thought, as we still think today, that all children in schools should get the milk because it is good for them and because they need it. We also think that they should get it free. We often hear the accusation made against us that in 1934 we voted against the provision of this milk for school children. What we voted against was the people having to pay for it. We thought the children should get it free.
During the war the scheme was changed, and free milk for schools was provided. The reasons for that were different from those in 1934. During the war milk was scarce and it was not provided in the schools to help the dairy farmers get rid of a surplus, but because of the nutritional policy of the Government. The Government realised that it was good for pupils in the public schools of Scotland to have free milk, so it was provided.
This question of the nutritional value policy of the Government concerns us now. We want to know why this free milk is to be given to those in private schools. Why has this beneficial and nutritional commodity which has been denied these children so long to be given to them now? Have complaints been received by the Government from the parents of children who are paying for their children at St. Chad's and suchlike places?
Mr. Ede: St. Trinian's.
Mr. Ross: St. MacTrinian's. We should like to know why the Government have now decided to give these children the benefit of free milk.
Once again, I will read from the letter of the Secretary of State on this subject:
"… the milk in schools scheme, as we know it today, was started during the war—not when milk was plentiful but when it was very scarce. The scheme was designed to play an important part in national nutritional policy, and it is on that basis that it has continued."
I assume that it is on that basis that it is now being extended to St. Trinian's, St. Chad's, Fettes College and all the others, places where it is accepted, generally speaking, that the parents would be well able to afford the one-third of a pint of milk supplied to the pupils.
I want to know from the Government why, at this time, they should find it necessary and desirable to come to this House and seek power to provide free, subsidised milk to children who are going to such establishments. There must be some reason for it. We also want to know what this will cost the country and how many children are involved? Not only are we anxious about the cost of the milk, but we want to know whether the local authorities have been consulted about the administrative facilities of doing this and how much it will cost them? Is the administrative cost to be met by a 100 per cent. grant in addition to the cost of the milk?
These are valid questions and, while we welcome the enlarging of this milk scheme to cover these children, we should, at the same time, like to know the answer to these questions.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. James McInnes: I should like to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about the local authorities being consulted. Did the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary discuss with them the question of the administrative machine for this addition to the free milk scheme? Has the Scottish Office given any undertaking to the local authorities about a 100 per cent. grant to meet the administrative costs, or, is it the intention, as is outlined in the Explanatory Note, that the purpose is to
"… extend the purposes for which the Milk Grant may be paid from the Educational (Scotland) Fund.…"?

903
Do I interpret that as meaning that in future there will be a direct payment from the Fund to the schools without encroaching on the work of local authorities, whether those schools are fee-paying, private or any other type? Is there a similar arrangement in operation in England and Wales for schools of a similar character? All these points have to be answered by the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will clarify the position for us.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would like enlightenment on the last paragraph in the second page of these Regulations. It is a legal question which I do not think the Minister could possibly answer, but we have our legal adviser here who can clear up this important point. It is headed "Citation, construction and commencement," which is rather vague, and then it continues:
"(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Education Authorities (Scotland) Grant (Amendment No. 6) Regulations, 1955. The Education Authorities (Scotland) Grant Regulations, 1948 to 1954, and these Regulations shall be construed as one."
Why should they be construed as one? What are they? How many? Could the Solicitor-General explain how many Regulations have been passed between 1948 and 1954 and exactly what they were? This rather obscure terminology should be explained adequately to people who are anxious to understand what these Regulations mean.
There is another question I want to ask. I understand that this milk is supplied in bottles. During the Election I came across a pamphlet in which a Government candidate was being boosted and it stated that his firm manufactured all the milk bottles that were distributed to the children in Scotland. That seemed to me rather a curious state of affairs. Are all the milk bottles supplied to the schools produced by a certain firm of which an hon. Member opposite happens to be a managing director?
Mr. Ross: He is no longer an hon. Member opposite.
Mr. Hughes: Have the Government considered the additional cost of the milk bottles, which certainly enters into the total cost of a meals service grant? Have they considered the additional cost
904
caused by the milk bottle monopoly in Scotland? If so, what are they going to do about it? Here is a serious statement to the effect that all the milk bottles in Scotland are cornered by a glass monopoly. Surely this is a case which the Government should submit to the Monopolies Commission.
As the Government are so keen about reducing national expenditure, I should like to know whether this matter has been drawn to their notice and what steps they propose to take to reduce the expenditure on milk bottles in order to ensure that the children and the community are not exploited by a milk bottle monopoly. We ought to probe this because it is an item of national expenditure. I should be glad if the legal point and also the question of the cost of the milk bottles could be cleared up.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. James H. Hoy: I want to raise a question dealing with administration. Different types of school receive educational grants. There are certain schools in Edinburgh, such as the merchant companies' schools, on the boards of which the local authorities have direct representation because they receive educational grants in the same way as other schools do. I understand that such schools get their milk free in the same way as the public schools do.
Other schools in an altogether different category will be included if the Regulations are passed. Certain schools like Fettes College—I would not suggest that it was the rumour that we may have a distinguished entrant to it which gave rise to the Regulations—would be included in the free milk scheme.
If schools which have difficulty and want Government grants apply for them, they have to make arrangements for representation of the local education authorities on their boards. If schools like Fettes College and Loretto are to receive these grants—they are indirect grants in support of the pupils in those schools—will there be representation for the purposes of looking after the public money which will be expended for the purpose? If there is not to be local authority representation, then I should like to know how the Government propose to make the payments. Are they to be made direct to the schools concerned? If not, how is the expenditure to be

905
checked by the Department of Education?
These seem to be questions of some importance which certainly call for a reply. I should also like to know whether such a scheme is in force in any other part of the country. Do the counterparts of these schools in England, such as Eton and Harrow—I do not know whether we could go as far as inquiring about Oxford and Cambridge—have this milk scheme? It may be that this is an innovation. We do not know, but we expect the Government to make it clear.
10.34 p.m.
Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: There seems to be a misapprehension on the part of hon. Members opposite on the subject of whether or not pupils in the schools we are discussing should have free milk or not because their parents might be able to afford to pay for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If that is not the reason, then I see no object in having raised the subject at all, because there are plenty of parents of children in public schools who could also well afford to pay for the milk received by their children but do not do so.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) need have any doubts about the expenditure being properly checked. Receipts for the money spent on milk can be produced in the ordinary way. I do not think there is any difficulty in the point.
Mr. Hoy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mistakes the point. Local authorities have direct representation upon the boards of ordinary schools to which these grants are made. All I am asking is if this is to be an exception, and if so, what responsibility is there?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would thank the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. But I should have thought that it was perfectly clear. We do not require a representative of the local authority to check what the expenditure has gone on, because there are receipts produced to the auditor. We do not require the local authority to emphasise that. I think that it is clear on both points.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I wish to make it quite clear to the
906
hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that there is no opposition to these Regulations from hon. Members on this side of the House. We believe that children should get the milk, but we wish to be assured on certain points. As has been said, the introduction of milk to the public schools in Scotland, at least, was the result of necessity. We want to be sure that the introduction of milk to these private schools is not the result of necessity which may be to some extent due to the fact that we have a Tory Government in power at present.
We all know Fettes College, one of the schools concerned, where, as has already' been hinted, there may in due course be a distinguished pupil. That is a school where the parents pay £300 a year for the education of their children. We wish to be assured that the education provided for that money will not be spoilt by the lack of a glass of milk. We are unanimous in our belief that the glass of milk ought to be provided, once, twice or even three times a day, if necessary.
I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now clear about our attitude, and that we are raising this point in order to make sure that the scheme will work well. Our attitude is purely altruistic. We are thinking of the children—[Laughter.] I am sorry that a statement of that kind should provoke laughter from hon. Gentlemen on the Tory benches. I hope that it will be noted by the public that when we were seeking to get a glass of milk per day, not for one class of child in Scotland, but for all the children in Scotland, the Tories could only sit and laugh.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I thought that these Regulations, issued by the Government, were being opposed by the Opposition.
Mr. Rankin: It seems to me that any opposition which has been manifested has come from the supporters of the Government. It is strange that they have not put their support into words, and that the only support which has been evident is a laugh. I am doubtful about the nature of that support.
There is one point on which I should like some further information. Regulation I refers to the net recognisable ex-

907
penditure incurred by an authority and states that there will be a grant
"at the rate of 100 per cent. of the net recognisable expenditure incurred by an authority…
Under the heading, "Meal Service Grant," there is a reference to education authorities. Is the word "authority" used in the same sense as it is used in Regulation 1? I ask that because in Regulation 1 it is spelt with a capital "A," while in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 3 it is spelt with a small "a." Does that mean that it is referring to the education authority or some other authority—for instance, the particular authority which controls a particular school? That is an important point, and I hope that the Joint Under Secretary will clear up that point for the benefit of my hon. Friends.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan Colonel Gomme-Duncan rose——
Mr. Rankin: I am just about to finish.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I simply want to ask what the hon. Member is getting at. He says that in Regulation 1 "authority" is spelt with a capital "A" and in sub-paragraph (c) with a small "a," but if he looks more closely he will see that in Regulation 1 it is spelt both with a capital "A" and a small "a."
Mr. Rankin: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going needlessly to confuse his own Front Bench. I am trying to confine the matter to relatively simple terms.
We are to supply this milk, but when it comes to the schools will it be served out to the boys and girls by the teachers? Glasgow education authority has a special staff for this work. There was a period when teachers had to do the work, but there is a general feeling that these useful services in schools ought not to be jobs which are added to the tasks of the teaching staff; and there is a feeling among teachers that, beneficient and necessary though it is, this is work which teachers should not be called upon to do.
Therefore, in Glasgow they have staffs of schools attendants who make it their particular duty to serve out the milk; and these staffs are paid for, and are on the strength of the education authority. I ask, therefore, how is the milk to be
908
served; are the teachers to do that work, or has there been an arrangement for the creation of staffs for this purpose? These are points to which there should be an answer; hon. Members are entitled to a reply, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to satisfy us on them.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: There are two observations I wish to make, and the first is that it must by now be evident to the House that we on this side are strongly in favour of what we think is the beneficial intention of this Statutory Instrument; but, secondly, there is some doubt as to what this Statutory Instrument means. I have long thought that these Statutory Instruments should not be couched in such language as to leave doubt about what they mean. Several good and cogent points have been made from the benches on this side about the benefits which we think will flow from this particular Statutory Instrument, but I do suggest to the Joint Under-Secretary that he should consult the Lord Advocate, or the Solicitor-General for Scotland—but, perhaps, more properly, with the Prime Minister—with a view to having these Statutory Instruments drawn in a slightly different form.
I make what I hope is a practical suggestion, and it is that these Statutory Instruments should contain, where necessary, something of the nature of a definition clause.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: And illustrations.
Mr. Hughes: I would not go as far as to say that they should be illustrated with pictures.
Some cogent points have been made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked about the meaning of Regulation 2, another hon. Member asked what "any school" means, another asked about the meaning of the phrase "at the rate of 100 per cent." I am sure the House will agree that if these Statutory Instruments have any importance—and I believe they have—they should not be left in doubt of this kind. Every phrase should be explicable to those who have to understand them and administer them. It is wrong that public authorities should be confronted with documents the meaning of

909
which is not readily appreciated, and that meaning could be put beyond doubt by the adoption of my suggestion that where necessary there should be a definition clause to define phrases concerning which doubts may arise.
I offer that suggestion to the Ministers, who expect local authorities to administer these Regulations. It is not right that local authorities should be placed in this dilemma, and I hope that the present practice will be changed.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Bence: I should not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), speaking of various schools, mentioned Oxford and Cambridge. We have been told that in certain schools it is proposed that boys, aged from 12 to 19, should each be given a daily glass of milk.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Bottles and straws.
Mr. Bence: I am given to understand that those boys are being prepared for university life at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Oxford and Cambridge. I do not know much about the Scottish Universities, but I understand that at Oxford boys, provided they are in academic dress, are entitled to demand a bottle of claret.
Mr. McInnes: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that students at Glasgow University are provided with claret?
Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I was speaking of Oxford. I do not know what they drink in Glasgow.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that if we confine ourselves to Scotland we shall get on better.
Mr. Thomas Steele: Is my hon. Friend aware that at one time at Fettes College they had beer?
Mr. Bence: Beer is very important in the British way of life. Yet we are talking of bringing them up on milk and then plunging them into university life where the common drink is beer or claret. They will be quite unfitted for that life. It is unfair to bring boys up in a
910
sheltered life and then to plunge them into this wild life of many of our universities where they drink claret. I do not know what claret is like, but it seems to me that if these boys are to have claret when they get to university, we should give them a taste of it before they get there.
I do not want to see children brought up on milk and then sent out into the world to drink claret. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, in view of this, that this is a good thing. If these boys going to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge continue to drink milk it would not be so bad, but if after 18 and 19, having lived on milk, they are then being plunged into claret and beer, the consequences may be very serious indeed. So I hope the Government will reconsider this when it comes to lads of 18 to 19 years of age, who, having a regular glass of milk and never having tasted claret or beer, go to Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow or Edinburgh, to be plunged into a circle where the daily glass of liquid refreshment is beer or claret. They will not be used to it.
10.51 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): It is useful that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has initiated this debate, because it may be that some hon. Members are under a misapprehension and it is better to clear that up at once. I note that, with one exception, hon. Members opposite have welcomed these Regulations, extending through the medium of the local education authorities the provision of free milk to all children in schools. It is a pity, of course, that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) does not believe in it. I do not know whether in Wales they plunge people into barrels of claret and beer, but in our country, so far as I know, no such immersion is part of the life.
Mr. Bence: I have since been informed that downstairs they sell stuff in a bottle called "Bristol Milk." Can the House be assured that this milk here is not Bristol Milk, because I have been told that the milk down there is not milk at all—it is sherry.
Mr. Stewart: I have never heard of Bristol Milk. What the hon. Member does in his spare time is very interesting.

911
The fact is—and I give hon. Members this absolute assurance—that this does not extend the provision of free milk to a single boy or girl in Scotland who is not now getting it. It is purely machinery, as I shall explain.
Hon. Members will recall that subsidised milk for schools was introduced about 1934. It was associated with the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), and that went on with the approval of all parties up to the outbreak of the war. At the beginning, the service was undertaken by the Agricultural Departments in England and Scotland and paid for out of their Votes. In 1940, when the Ministry of Food was formed, that Ministry took over that particular job. But, right through until 1946, it was not a free milk service. It was not until that year, under the then Government——
Mr. Ross: A "wicked" Labour Government.
Mr. Stewart: —that it became an entirely free service.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a little wrong when he said it was free from the end of the war. The credit belongs to his hon. Friends. But in the middle of the war, whereas up to then it had been confined to children in local authority schools in Scotland, it was extended on nutritional grounds to all children in all schools. So by 1946, when the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends came into power, they had a situation before them. It is interesting to note what they did. They issued a regulation in the early part of 1946, and in the usual course they sent round a circular explaining it. I am reading from the circular, dated 12th June, 1946. Paragraph 8 (a) says:
"As intimated in Circular 64 dated 28th March, 1946, the Government has decided to make school milk free of charge in all grant-aided primary and secondary schools.…"
That was in June, but just a month later, on 22nd July, 1946, the Scottish Education Department sent round another letter to the authorities saying:
"I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that the Ministry of Food have arranged that pupils under 18 years of age in full-time attendance at non-grant-aided schools are to be included in the free School Milk Scheme which begins on 6th August, 1946."
912
In other words, the Labour Government of that time extended the provision of free milk to all Scottish schools, Fettes and everywhere else. That has been the rule since 1946, and it is the rule now.
Up to last year, the servicing of milk in schools was run by the Ministry of Food. In 1949, the Public Accounts Committee presented to the House a fairly strong recommendation to the effect that since this was so much an educational service it ought to be run by the Ministry of Education and the Department of Education. We took note of that and last year a regulation was issued transferring to the Scottish education authorities the servicing of the scheme to their schools. This year, when the Secretary of State has taken over practically all the functions of the Ministry of Food in Scotland, we have cleaned the thing up and the Scottish Education Department is now taking over the last remaining section, which up to now has been operated by the Ministry of Food, the distribution of milk to non-grant-aided schools.
I repeat that this is no more than a machinery measure. Not one child who has not been getting the milk up to now will get it in future; one hopes, of course, that it will be extended.
The hon. Lady asked one or two specific questions, which I am happy to answer. She asked how many pupils there were, the cost, and so on. The number of schools in Scotland not under the management of education authorities—schools referred to in the Regulations—whose pupils will receive milk under the Regulations is 230, comprising 33,000 pupils out of a total school population of over 800,000 in Scotland, and the cost will be £61,000 a year out of the total expenditure on milk in schools in Scotland of £1½ million.
One or two hon. Members asked if the local authorities have been consulted. The answer is "yes," and they have very generously agreed to carry out their part of the scheme. In the 1946 Act local authorities were given the duty to distribute milk in schools and the power to distribute to non-grant-aided schools. We thank them both for carrying out that duty and exercising that power. I think they deserve the thanks of this House for the way in which they have agreed to do the work.

913
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) asked how the scheme was to be operated. It will be operated in these other schools exactly as it is operated in local authority schools now. In regard to bottles, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will know that each local authority is entitled, if it thinks wise, to send out inquiries as to the supply of milk and the cost and to employ the supplier it regards as the one providing the best milk, or the best service, or the cheapest service. There is nothing new here. There is no question of a monopoly. Local authorities have a right to buy from whom they like.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Under-Secretary does not quite understand the point. I do not mean the service relating to the milk bottles. I mean the actual cost of the milk bottles. The suggestion is that these Regulations cover the cost of a service which includes the cost of the milk bottles, and I am sure my local authority will be very pleased indeed, as a local authority cannot submit a question to the Monopolies Commission, if the Government would.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member can take what steps he can. This is not the occasion for raising matters relative to the Monopolies Commission. The hon. Member will no doubt exercise his ingenuity and raise this matter later. I give him the assurance that his local authority, like every other authority, is entitled to take into consideration this dread problem of the milk bottles and see that the price is right.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) asked me about administrative costs. As I have shown by the figures, this is not a very big addition to the duties of local authorities, and they have assured us that they can take it in their stride. If there is any extra work involved the cost will be reimbursed to the local authorities. The hon. Member also asked if the same kind of provision was made for England and Wales. The answer is that the children in England and Wales have enjoyed this privilege for many years, just as our children have.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was a little troubled about the definition of Regulation 2. Actually, there is nothing very difficult about it. One does not
914
have to be a lawyer to follow this. Regulation 2 (1) does what all other measures of this kind do, namely, it links this one up with its predecessor so that these Regulations should be regarded as one.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) made an interesting and, I am sure, constructive suggestion, namely, that we should have definitions. That is quite true. But, of course, these Regulations, as the hon. and learned Member knows, are linked with previous Regulations, and these previous Regulations, particularly those passed by his hon. and right hon. Friends in 1946, give these definitions. Therefore, I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at them together. In fact, Regulation 2 groups them together, and there he will find all the definitions he can reasonably ask for.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sure the Under-Secretary does not appreciate the point I made. I am quite aware that this particular Statutory Instrument is in a form which has been used for many years, but the point I made was this. I suggested he should consult his own Law Officers, though I do not think they are the proper persons to consult in this case. I am not saying that out of any disrespect for the Law Officers. I think this is a matter for the Prime Minister or for some higher authority to consider with a view to making these Statutory Instruments more explicit. The Under-Secretary agrees with the points which were made——
Mr. Speaker: We are not dealing with Statutory Instruments generally, but with the particular one before us at the moment.
Mr. Hughes: A number of cogent points were made by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair, otherwise you would have appreciated how very cogent they were. They were points which turn upon the construction of this particular Statutory Instrument, and my submission to the Under-Secretary was that these very cogent points would have been obviated, would never have been raised, in fact, if the Statutory Instrument means what we think it meant. It is because we do not know what it means that this Prayer has been moved.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Member should be happy. If he thinks it means a certain thing, let him be happy to think that—he will sleep more comfortably at night. If the hon. and learned Member should be happy. If he thinks it means a certain thing, let him be happy to think that—he will sleep more comfortably at night. If the hon. and learned Member is in doubt, he should consult the Regulations made in 1948, where he will find a front page of definitions.
The hon. Member for Leith asked about representation on school governing bodies. It has not been thought necessary for all these years by his hon. and right hon. Friends. As he well knows, the local authority, which administers this scheme in other schools, will receive from these schools, as they now receive from their own schools, accounts from the supplier and the consumer and will check the one against the other. I do not think there need be any doubt about anything going wrong in that respect. I should tell the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin)——
Hon. Members: Where is he?
Mr. Ross: Gone to look for the Secretary of State.
Mr. Stewart: I hope the hon. Member will realise that my right hon. Friend has been performing a very high and important duty for the House and the country in recent days. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member should cast any aspersions on his splendid performance of that duty.
Mr. Ross: I cast no aspersions.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Govan asked whether teachers would arrange to carry out the work involved in this scheme. Those responsible for each school will deal with it in the way they think best. The hon. Member well knows the views of the Government which he supported in 1946. The circular which that Government issued contains three paragraphs which stress the importance of the teachers' contribution to the working of the milk scheme in schools. I rather agree with the circular. For example, the then Labour Government said, and I quote from the circular:
916
"It is generally accepted that teachers are specially fitted to make a substantial contribution to the educational and social sides of the Meals Service; their association with it, in certain clearly defined ways, will ensure its greater success and may also contribute to still better relations between teachers and pupils generally."
As the hon. Member for Govan has said, as we have progressed we have found it necessary to obtain additional people to do this work in the schools, but I am sure that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North will agree that it would be a great misfortune if the teachers were to withdraw altogether from this highly important social service.
Miss Herbison: Since my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) is not here, I should make it clear that Glasgow employed a milk attendant but that the teachers in Glasgow always helped and still do so today.
Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We know that that has been and still is true.
One is delighted that the Regulations have found general acceptance in the House. I have given an assurance that the Regulations do not involve an extension but merely a change in the machinery of distribution of free milk to all children in Scotland, and I regard that as a social service of the highest order.
Mr. Steele: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to look at the Explanatory Note which accompanies these Regulations and to bear in mind, when bringing forward regulations of this kind in future, that if he had put in the Explanatory Note something of the historical background the House would have adjourned shortly after 10 p.m. It is the absence of that information in the Explanatory Note that has kept the House sitting for an hour later than would otherwise have been necessary.
Miss Herbison: In view of the explanation which has been given by the Joint Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING SITE, PITSTONE (ACQUISITION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
11.10 p.m.
Major Sir Frank Markham: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise once again the question of the compulsory order on land at Pitstone, Buckinghamshire, owned by Mr. Mark Williamson. I raised this question on 15th February last and had what appeared to me at the time to be a reasonable, although not entirely satisfactory, answer. Since then, new facts have come to light which, I think, bear out more than ever my contention that the Minister should quash this order. The reason that I am taking up the time of the House tonight is to put this definite request to the Parliamentary Secretary that this order is an unwise order and that there are certain irregularities connected with it. I ask him to use his powers and cancel the order as quickly as possible.
The House is aware that this order was made in January, 1954, and I do not intend to traverse the history of it, except again to reiterate that the public inquiry, held in April, 1954, against an objection of the then owner, was one that could only be described as a "hole-in-the-corner" business, of which the village knew nothing. It is only now that the news has at last been thoroughly well ventilated that we realise that the entire district is up against this order.
The irregularities in this particular order are, first of all, that the Ministry inspector, when he went down to the village for the public hearing, did not see, or alternatively was not shown, all alternative sites. I would ask the Minister whether anyone on the rural district council or in the Ministry drew his attention to what is probably the best site in the village, which was never seen by him.
Secondly, and indeed, the Minister made this point in his speech last February, the fact was brought forward that other sites were ruled out by the possibility of a future by-pass. Has that fact materialised? Are those other sites still ruled out by a hypothetical conjecture?
918
Now we have reached a point where the whole village, or two-thirds of the adult population of the village, has signed a petition to the Minister asking him to cancel this Order. This petition was drawn up, was engendered, not by the man whose farm is being acquired, but first of all, as I understand it, by a school manager, and secondly, by Pitstone Parish Council, which, in the past, has been entirely ignored by the authorities in putting on this order.
The Minister is aware of the terms of the petition. Summarising them briefly, they say that the site is too far from the school, church, bus routes and the village itself. Secondly, that the children will have to cross by the main road which carries a considerable amount of traffic —a point I raised in my speech of 15th February—and, thirdly, that there are far more suitable sites in another part of the village, which is unquestionably true.
The situation now, therefore, is that we have the church authorities, parish council, school managers, National Farmers' Union, and the local Press, all against this order. Every form of opinion that can be expressed by a village is against it. Meanwhile, the Wing Rural District Council, at the instigation of the Ministry, are acting as if they were the actual owners of the land, even though no effort has been made to pay for the land and there has as yet been little or no attempt on behalf of the authorities to recompense Mr. Williamson.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that on 15th February last he said:
"I understand that the compensation has not yet been settled, but there is really no reason to suppose it will be unjust. I think that it will be found that the compensation in this case will be competently and sympathetically worked out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 352.]
I do not for a moment doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary was sincere when he said that, but five months have elapsed and there has been no attempt on behalf of the authorities to settle the question of compensation. The whole case bristles with high-handedness and irregularities. I once again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to quash this order and have a new public inquiry to go through all the facts to ensure that Pitstone gets a housing site which is infinitely better than that proposed.
11.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I certainly do not begrudge my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) a second chance at this small but controversial and important issue over the proposed Pitstone housing site. He raised this matter four-and-a-half months ago, and at that time, although I was unable to meet him, I hope I was able to satisfy him that what we did was done after a full study of all the facts. He accepts—and I hope all the parties concerned accept—that a year ago we did go to very considerable lengths in order to reach a fair and right decision.
Since that time, as he has indicated tonight, public feeling has stirred, or has been stirred, and there is now a petition by residents of the village of Pitstone to the Wing Rural District Council, signed by 200 people. That petition comes before the Wing Rural District Council tomorrow morning. I do not regret the timing of the two events, my hon. and gallant Friend's debate tonight and the consideration of the petition tomorrow morning. However, it does mean that I must weigh carefully the reply I give tonight to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.
Let me first say something about the factors that he raised bearing on our earlier decision last year when we confirmed this order. I am not being stubborn about this, but after going through the papers again I can say that nothing has arisen which alters my view which I gave four-and-a-half months ago that the decision which we reached was the right decision. There is some feeling I know that there should have been a public inquiry instead of a hearing in the first place. Perhaps I might just say a word about that.
The Minister can decide whether to hold a public local inquiry or, alternatively, an informal hearing. A public local inquiry is held when the proposal is of general public interest or where a number of objections have been received. A hearing is arranged when the proposal is restricted in interest and there are few objections.
Had the petition been presented a year ago—and I stress this point to my hon.
920
and gallant Friend—we might well have had a public local inquiry instead of a hearing, but that does not mean that we should have reached a better or a different verdict. I hope I have made clear to my hon. and gallant Friend the circumstances in which there may be a public inquiry or a hearing.
My hon. and Gallant Friend tonight asked me about the alternative sites and how much attention was paid to them. It is fair to remind him that that was an issue which I answered in some detail on the previous occasion. I enumerated—I have them before me—the five alternative sites and the reasons which were held against each one.
Sir F. Markham: My hon. Friend also brought out the fact that only four were visited.
Mr. Deedes: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to say something about the visiting of the sites in a moment, because that is a point with which I shall deal.
A petition is to be presented, and I must weigh carefully what I say before the rural district council reaches its decision. Nothing we have done reduces the rights of the Wing Rural District Council or its obligation to weigh very carefully the petition from the local inhabitants. I am certainly not going to stand here and say "My right hon. Friend is right. We have given our verdict and it is the right verdict, and the Wing Rural District Council must now stick to its guns." That would be quite wrong. If the Council feels in the light of the petition that it should, after all these months, decide not to carry on with the scheme on the particular site, there is nothing in what we have said or done which prevents it from doing so. I hope it will approach the petition which it will consider tomorrow without prejudice and with an open mind.
Let me remind my hon. and gallant Friend what we were asked to do. We were not asked to say—here I come to the point about the site—"This is the only available or the best site for the houses in the village of Pitstone." It may not be the best site. We were asked whether on the facts as known at the time—this was the question before us—the Wing Rural District Council had made out a sufficiently strong case to justify confirmation of the order. On those

921
grounds we gave our verdict, which I still maintain was the right one, and we took full account of any possible hardship to the owner.
That has certainly not closed the door to the making of any fresh decision desired by the Wing Rural District Council when it has considered the petition. Of course it can weigh up far better than we can, or than we can pretend to do, the feeling among the electors of Pitstone. The petition is a matter primarily between the council and its electors.
Perhaps I should add that an order which is confirmed by my right hon. Friend is final. I have explained to my hon. and gallant Friend the circumstances in which the order was confirmed by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, who went to considerable trouble, even to a small point of detail, to try to ensure that justice was done in the confirmation of the order.
I have said that, once confirmed in that way, an order is final, but it is fair to add that I do not think that any fresh evidence has been adduced in the correspondence which has taken place in the last few weeks or in the remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend tonight. I cannot accept the petition as fresh evidence of a wrong verdict having been reached in the past. In my opinion, the petition in no way alters the validity of any of the evidence on which our inspector based his report and the verdict which was reached personally by the then Minister; but it is, of course, for the council now to decide whether or not it wishes to proceed with the scheme.
My hon. and gallant Friend will note that I have been careful to avoid, as I think I ought, any attempt to influence the Wing Rural District Council into one verdict or another tomorrow. I have tried to satisfy him that we did the job
922
we were asked to do, and that we did it fairly, and that it is now for Wing Rural District Council to take its decision on the petition which was presented to it and not to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, although we have received a copy and noted its contents.
I think that my hon. and gallant Friend would agree that it is not a good thing to interfere unduly with the processes of local democracy, when, as must be obvious to all, the local council is in touch with local feeling and so on and is much better equipped to test the weight of public feeling.
Sir F. Markham: That is my entire point. Public opinion was never given a chance to express itself because of the high-handed action of authority. This order was put in and carried through before public opinion knew about it. Democracy was never given a chance.
Mr. Deedes: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to bear in mind that a great many months have elapsed since the hearing took place—perhaps he can refresh my memory as to how many.
I hope that he is not trying to suggest to me that this is a matter which has been kept quiet in the village of Pitstone, or in the rural district, until this moment. The evidence of public opinion provided by this petition does not suggest that this has been kept quiet up till now. I repeat that we reached the decision required of us, and I sincerely believe that it was the right one. The Wing Rural District Council should now be allowed to take what, I suppose, will be the final decision without undue pressure from this quarter.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.