HC Deb 16 April 1956 vol 551 cc810-6

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, 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 of any sums payable out of such moneys (whether under the said Act or other enactments) by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to the construction, maintenance, alteration and removal (whether before or after the commencement of the said Act of the present Session) of works in the carriageway—

  1. (a) for separating different parts of the road;
  2. (b) for regulating the movement of traffic at cross-roads or other road junctions; and
  3. (c) for providing places of refuge for foot passengers;
and to the lighting, covering, fencing, and planting of such works, and the payment out of such moneys or payment into the Exchequer of any sums so payable by virtue of provisions of the said Act relating to street parking places and to traffic signs.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

9.53 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

I think it was the wish of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and his hon. Friends that I should briefly explain why this particular Bill has a second Money Resolution. I can explain it very quickly, and it is quite a proper reason.

It is that, because the Bill will have to be recommitted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when it comes back to the House for Report and Third Reading, it is necessary that this second Money Resolution should be put down in the normal way to cover the discussions in Committee—and, of course, it will in no way prejudice that discussion on two of the new Clauses and one Amendment. Perhaps I may explain what they are.

The first of the new Clauses is a provision as to dual carriageways, roundabouts and street refuges, and, while the details of this can be explained in debate at the proper time, the Resolution is needed to cover the fact that we have found that my Ministry has not adequate powers at the moment to make these great new motorways and trunk roads. We do not have the power to set up central reservations, and there is also doubt as to our real power, for example, to put up fences on trunk roads. This is a technical matter, but it does require a Money Resolution.

The second new Clause deals with traffic signs, and gives the Minister power to direct highway authorities in special cases to put up traffic signs of an authorised type. Again, because money is involved, this has to be covered by a Money Resolution.

The third is an Amendment which gives me power of Amendment of Clause 12 of the Bill to designate parking places and to make charges to be exercised for the purpose of experiment or demonstration with regard to parking meters where no proposals are made by a local authority. This is actually to give me the same powers as are possessed by the police in London to carry out experimental traffic schemes. Those are the three Measures for which the Money Resolution is required. They are, of course, debatable.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

I do not want to debate the issues involved. I am still not clear why it is necessary to bring in a second Money Resolution. I think that the explanation is, if I understood the Minister correctly, that the Ministry, or the Treasury—I am not sure which decides the wording of the Money Resolution—made a mistake and did not draw the Money Resolution wide enough to cover the provisions which were already in the Bill when it was presented to the House and that, through a Departmental error, the Money Resolution did not cover the first two matters which the Minister mentioned.

Mr. Watkinson

I understand that this arose not from error, but rather from the vast number of Amendments which my predecessor and I accepted in Committee to make the Bill as sensible and practicable as possible.

Mr. Strauss

The provision of dual carriageways for the new roads was not a matter which arose in Committee. Even if it was, it is quite certain that, in the first place, the Money Resolution should have been drawn wide enough to deal with all these things and that apparently it was not. I therefore make the point that the Ministry was in error. It should have drawn the Money Resolution wide enough to cover not only those things which are in the Bill, but the normal and natural Amendments which would arise, and which the Committee might want to accept.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Strauss

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary disagrees. Perhaps he will give us an explanation.

If the Minister comes here in sackcloth and ashes and says, "These things have arisen; they are very technical and have been overlooked by the Department. We ask forgiveness and ask the House to agree to the Money Resolution to put things right", that is understandable and we would accept it.

We are bound to point out that not long ago the Government asked the House to agree to a second Money Resolution to the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, because the original Resolution had not been drawn wide enough. That is the sort of thing which might happen once, but which should not happen twice within so short a time. However, if those are the only things that go wrong with the Government's activities, we are quite happy. Unfortunately, more important things also go wrong.

If this is a technical mistake, or an oversight, I want to know where we are. If it is a technical oversight, we should be told. We would accept it reluctantly and tell the Government not to do it again, but at the moment the situation is not clear.

Mr. Watkinson

I will wear sackcloth and ashes, if that appeases the right hon. Gentleman. We attach great importance to the Bill, because, among other things, five thousand people a year are killed on our roads.

perhaps I should have said that these matters are new. For example, the one dealing with signs does not arise from an Amendment in Committee, but from something which we should have put into the Bill and did not. As a new Minister, finding odd things in the Bill which I wanted to see tidied up, I probably overlooked it. To that extent I am culpable, and if it helps the right hon. Gentleman for me to accept sackcloth and ashes, and wear a placatory mien, I will certainly do so.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I hope that the Minister will not feel uncomfortable in wearing the sackcloth and putting the ashes on his head, but I still do not think he has gone far enough. This is the second time within a few weeks that the Government have had to ask the House to approve a second Money Resolution on their own Bill. It lends point to what I have said on former occasions—that Money Resolutions are now drawn so tightly that when the Government want to make Amendments in their own Bill they are precluded from doing so. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Money Resolution covers something which was accepted in Committee and put into the Bill.

Mr. Watkinson

No, there were certain commitments given in Committee, partly by my predecessor and partly by myself. When I found that they were no fewer than 41 in number, a large proportion of which had found their way on to the Order Paper, it was quite natural that as a new Minister I should have gone through the whole Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have done the same. It was only in the course of that process that I found that the Money Resolution did not cover some of the commitments which I wanted to implement, perhaps not exactly in the same way as my predecessor. Therefore, I had to come to a difficult decision. I had either to give up some of these provisions, which I thought important, or ask for a second Money Resolution.

It may well be that the Money Resolution was drawn too tightly. I will not argue that. I could easily have dropped the matters which I wanted to implement and dispensed with a second Money Resolution, but I attached importance to them. I do not think there is a great matter of principle here, but if I have erred I will wear the appropriate garment. I attach great importance to securing these things, if the House of Commons will give me permission so to do when we come to them. I hope that I shall be given the Money Resolution. If the Opposition put the need for a second Money Resolution down to my innocence, I shall not mind.

Mr. Ede

The Committee will, I am sure, sympathise with the Minister. This is not his Bill and it may well be that one or two things which have appealed to him might not have appealed to his predecessor, but they might have appealed to the Opposition. One of the difficulties which we have been in, certainly in connection with the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and it would appear to some extent with this Bill, has been the fact that matters which can legitimately arise in the course of the passage of a Bill cannot be discussed in Committee because the Money Resolution is so tightly drawn that there is no elbow room. We are getting to a position where Government in these matters is almost assuming the position of a dictatorship in having a Bill drafted and then a Money Resolution so tightly drawn that any alteration in the Bill itself will be ruled out by the Chair on the ground that it is not within the Money Resolution.

It is not carrying these things that really matters when we are in Committee, but the fact that the Chairman will not allow discussion of them to begin. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper and the Chairman has to rule that while it appears to be within the scope of the Bill it is not within the scope of the Money Resolution. If we are to have Government by discussion, which I understand is the essence of parliamentary Government, we must have reasonable opportunity to discuss these matters on a big Bill like this.

I hope that the Bill will mean, as the Minister has hinted, that we shall be able to do something to stop the appalling holocaust on the roads. We are not likely to have a Bill like this every year or even every three years. We hope that when the Bill is on the Statute Book it will be a lasting Measure which will not need reviewing by the House of Commons for at least ten or fifteen years. It is, therefore, desirable that the reasonable matters which come within the scope of discussion should not be ruled out in Committee because the Money Resolution has been so tightly drawn that the Chairman says that we cannot even talk about them.

I hope that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House will take into consideration the fact that on two occasions within a couple of months the Government have had to ask for a second Money Resolution so that they might amend a Bill in particulars with which the Government themselves want to deal. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman has taken over someone else's Bill and therefore it is perhaps hardly fair to ask him to sit in sackcloth and ashes. But were he in this cold weather to wear a white sheet sufficiently thick to protect himself from the effects of the climate, that would be sufficient.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

Having listened to what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about this second Money Resolution, I should like to express my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend for having the courage, not only to alter the Bill and to make it a better Measure, but to admit his action frankly. I would far sooner have a second Money Resolution and a better Bill. I consider it a little ungenerous for the Opposition, at this stage, to criticise my right hon. Friend for his action when he has admitted that his main reason for doing so was in order to present a better Bill.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.