Sitting of 30 April 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
PETITION

  Food Subsidies
  Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by some 10,000 electors, mainly of the East Midlands area of England. This petition conveys the anxiety of the people about the effects of the cuts in food subsidies, particularly on the lower income groups, whose increased cost of living due to these cuts is not offset by relief of taxation. The petition ends with the customary Prayer:
  "Wherefore your petitioners pray that these cuts be withdrawn and measures taken to reintroduce the food subsidies which are so essential to the well-being of the people of this country, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL AVIATION

    Attachés
    Air Commodore A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he will name those employed as civil air attachés and the countries to which they are attached; and if he will increase this number, in view of the necessity of increasing the export of British aircraft.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. R. Maudling): I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those officers employed
    1428
    as civil air attachés and of the countries to which they are accredited. The answer to the second part of the Question is: "No, Sir"; measures for increasing aircraft exports are primarily the responsibility of the aircraft industry and not of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but the Ministry's overseas representatives have instructions to assist the aircraft industry so far as they can in the course of their normal duties.
    Air Commodore Harvey: In asking a supplementary question, may I, on behalf of the whole House, be allowed to congratulate my hon. Friend upon his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether, when he has had more time to consider the matter, he will bear in mind that our American friends have representatives in great numbers all over the world selling their own products of their aircraft industry; that if he will follow their example it will, I am sure, pay good dividends; and will he look at it again?
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry that my maiden answer to my hon. Friend should be rather a dusty one. The fact is that the aircraft firms and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors are well represented abroad at the moment. In the circumstances, I do not think it would be justifiable to have further attachés for this purpose.
    Following is the list:

    R. S. S. Dickinson, United States of America and Mexico.

    Air Marshal D. Colyer, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.

    G. S. Hill, Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay.

    R. M. S. Rayner, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey.

    B. G. Barnard, Iraq, Persia and the Persian Gulf.

    Policy Review
    Mr. W. R. D. Perkinsasked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will give an assurance that in all future associate agreements between independent air operators and the corporations, the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the associates will be not less favourable than those contained in agreements negotiated through

    1429
    the machinery of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport, and that all pension rights will be transferable.
    Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend is considering this important point as part of his general review of civil aviation policy.
    Mr. Perkins: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that in any future arrangements that may be made pilots will be transferred with their pension rights?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot give that assurance, but I can assure my hon. Friend that before any announcement is made of the new policy for civil aviation the Minister will consult the trade unions on the National Joint Council which are concerned.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the necessity to safeguard wages and conditions of work in factories to which independent operators sub-contract the maintenance and repair of their aircraft?
    Mr. Maudling: That seems to me to be rather another question.
    Mr. John Rankinasked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he has now concluded his review of civil air service policy.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that tomorrow the bus service recently run under the control of the nationalised service in Scotland passes into the hands of private enterprise? Can he tell us what effect this will have with regard to the displacement of the men already in the service, and if jobs are assured to them under the private enterprise company that is now taking over this nationalised service?
    Mr. Maudling: I find it a little difficult to connect the hon. Member's supplementary with the review of civil aviation policy which is now under discussion.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely all the services associated with the nationalised air transport system are part and parcel of the review of civil air policy now taking place. Can the hon. Gentleman say if there is to be a basic change and if the nationalised aircraft are to be passed over to the hands of private enterprise?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot anticipate the statement that my hon. Friend will make in due course on the general question of aircraft transport policy.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has said that the trade unions will be consulted before his hon. Friend introduces any new policy. Can he give an assurance that the House will have the opportunity of discussing this matter before the Government finally make up their minds on any definite new policy?
    Mr. Maudling: That, I think, is a matter for the Leader of the House.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how he defines "in due course"? When can we expect a statement on civil air policy?
    Mr. Maudling: As soon as a satisfactory statement can be made. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the importance of making a statement on this matter, which is complicated and important, at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. While we have been getting these assurances changes are taking place.
    Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. Should there not be some penalty, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. Member claims audience by using the words "point of order" when he is not raising a point of order?
    Mr. Speaker: Points of order are, of course, very useful to the Chair when they are points of order, but if they are not points of order, it really is abusing the Rules of the House to get in debating points.

    State Airports (Passenger Charges)
    Mr. W. J. Fieldasked the Minister of Civil Aviation under what authority the proposed charges on passengers leaving this country by air at State airports are to be imposed.
    Mr. Maudling: With effect from 1st May a charge is being imposed on the operators of international air services calculated on the number of passengers leaving this country by air from State airports. The payment of this charge will be a condition of use of the airports in accordance with Article 49 of the Air Navigation Order, 1949.

    Services, Scotland—England
    Major W. J. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what schemes have been submitted to him for approval recently for expanded summer services between Scotland and England.
    Mr. Maudling: New connections have recently been introduced by British European Airways linking Orkney and Aberdeen directly with London and Manchester, and Glasgow and Edinburgh with Manchester.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these improvements go far enough? On looking at the timetable, I was rather disappointed. May I ask my hon. Friend to make his presence felt by giving us something better?
    Mr. Maudling: The Question was: "What schemes have been submitted?" and the answer, I am afraid, is that no schemes of this nature for extending summer services have been submitted, but we shall be very glad to investigate the satisfactory or unsatisfactory nature of the services.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: While not wishing to prevent any expansion of air services in Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman take note that we on the North-East coast have nothing at all, and will he give some attention to that?
    Mr. Maudling: The position on the North-East coast, like the position in Scotland, will be constantly under the review and care of my hon. Friend.
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that something will be done for my part of the area of Scotland between Dundee, Perth and Aberdeen in the West, which is entirely without air services of any kind though these were faithfully promised by the Socialist Government.

    Helicopters (Water Tests)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what tests over water of helicopters for civil aviation have been carried out; how far these have proved satisfactory; and what further similar tests are proposed.
    Mr. Maudling: Existing civil helicopters of the single-engined type are not suitable for public transport operations
    1432
    over water and, therefore, no tests have been made. None is contemplated until a suitable type of helicopter becomes available.
    Mr. MacMillan: I am looking ahead a little. In view of the fact that islands like the Hebrides and Shetlands are places which desperately need helicopters because other aircraft are unable to land there, would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that early tests will be made as soon as a suitable type of helicopter is available?
    Mr. Maudling: I can assure the hon. Member that my hon. Friend is aware of the importance of investigating the possible use of helicopters for this service as early as is practicable.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the use of helicopters for civil aviation generally for the North of Scotland, quite apart from their use over water?
    Mr. Maudling: The use of helicopters for all civil aviation purpose is very much in the mind of the Minister at the present moment.

    Rapide Aircraft (Barra Service)
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what provision is being made to maintain a reserve supply of Rapide aircraft and spare parts until a type of aircraft suitable for such landing strips as that in the Isle of Barra is available.
    Mr. Maudling: I am not aware of any suggestion that the Rapide service to the Isle of Barra will be withdrawn.
    Mr. MacMillan: I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather missed the point. Is he aware that the Rapides are, of course, becoming exhausted both in respect of numbers and spares, and that so far no replacement is really in view that can be applied to places like the Isle of Barra and various other places dependent upon natural sand strips for landing aircraft? Can he make any statement about, or is there any investigation taking place of, the problems confronting places like the Isle of Barra, which have no replacement aircraft in prospect and where the Rapides will very likely, in the near future, have to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Maudling: The Corporation concerned have this matter very much in mind, and the hon. Member can be assured that so long as there is no suggestion—and there is not at the moment—of withdrawing this service, the Corporation will ensure that adequate and satisfactory supplies of the aircraft which are operated are available.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Civil Aviation Advisory Council have been considering this question for a number of years? We have got no further towards a solution of this problem of replacement and even the Heron, which is a possible replacement type on some of these services, is not suitable for places such as Barra.
    Can the hon. Gentleman give some assurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] I hope that it will be a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I ask you to intervene to ensure courtesy from hon. Members opposite. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the part of the Question which asked for a reserve supply of Rapide aircraft and spare parts in order to ensure the continuation of the service, for which there are no replacements at all and none contemplated?
    Mr. Maudling: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern for this very important service. The Corporation are responsible for maintaining it and, as I have said, they have considered this question of the type of aircraft very closely, and so long as they are responsible for maintaining the service they will also be responsible for maintaining adequate supplies of aircraft for that service.

    North Uist
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Minister of Civil Aviation when the regular passenger service to the Isle of North Uist will be resumed and island air mail facilities be extended to this district.
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that the cost of providing these services would be unjustifiably high in present economic circumstances.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a similar reply was very severely criticised when it was given by the previous Government—quite wrongly, I think—and while appreciating the high cost involved, may I ask him if he is
    1434
    nevertheless aware of the need to improve the air service to this island, which is by far the worst served for transport by sea or air of any of the islands in Scotland?
    Mr. Maudling: I appreciate the importance of communications to this part of the United Kingdom, but the fact is that both the high operating costs involved and the cost of bringing the airfields back into operation would, in the present circumstances, not be really justified.
    Air Commodore Harvey: On a point of order. You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that there are several Questions referring to air services as such. When hon. Members have tried to put down Questions relating to rail services and time-tables those Questions are refused. Can you tell me why Questions are allowed about air services and not about rail services?
    Mr. Speaker: The answer about rail services is that the position with regard to Questions on nationalised industries has been referred to a Select Committee, which has not yet reported, and at present a provisional system is being worked. That does not apply to these air services.

  ERITREA (GIORGIO HABTIT)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Azmatch George Habtit, for 40 years Chief in Akele Guzai Province of Eritrea, after suffering damages valued at 74,616 shillings by banditry, was on 6th July, 1951, without explanation or charge of wrongdoing, deported to forced residence at Keren in the Western Province; that he was dismissed from his Chieftainship as from 30th June, 1951, deprived of his stipend and pension, and that his land which has been recognised as his property under customary law, and by the Chika and peasants, has been passed to Ghereghier, a son of Ras Tesemma, leader of the anti-Ethiopian political party, thus leaving his family, including many minor children destitute; and whether he will give orders that this old official shall return to his home and property.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): As regards the first part of the Question, careful investigations confirmed that Giorgio Habtit was responsible for instigating repeated acts of violence between 1946 and

  1435
  1951 upon a neighbouring tribe which resulted in serious loss of life and property. The Chief Administrator therefore thought it necessary, in the interests of public safety and order, to restrict him to residence in the town of Keren in the Western Province under the powers conferred by Proclamation No. 104.
  As regards the second part of the Question, he has not been dismissed from any chieftainship; but his enforced absence necessitated the transfer of certain powers and duties respecting the allocation of land in the Damas area to other persons. He has not been deprived of any land belonging personally to him but he no longer enjoys the use of certain other lands over which he had control under his former powers. Since Habtit is a person of property, there is no question of his family being left destitute.
  As regards the third part of the Question, I am informed that the Chief Administrator now considers that the situation permits Habtit's release, which will take place on 15th May.
  Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that will be welcomed by both the man and his family? It seems to me that if he did commit such a crime he should have been tried in the proper courts and given a proper opportunity of defending himself, which apparently was denied him. If so, why were not his rights safeguarded in that way?
  Mr. Eden: I really do not think that this gentleman has had harsh treatment at all. There have been one or two rows between the tribes, in connection with which one tribe was attacked by the tribe with which the man concerned was connected, and 43 persons lost their lives in the ensuing fighting. On the whole I think it has not worked out too badly for the person mentioned in the hon. Member's Question.

  INDO-CHINA (DEFENCE)
  Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the representations from the French Government about assistance in the defence of Indo-China in the event of an invasion of that country, either direct or indirect, by China.
  Mr. Eden: Her Majesty's Government are in continuous consultation with the French Government on all matters affecting the defence of South-East Asia. If there were an aggression against Indo-China, the French Government and the Government of Vietnam would no doubt appeal to the United Nations. We have made it clear that in such an event Her Majesty's Government would not fail in their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. As I have myself stated publicly, it would create a situation no less menacing than that which the United Nations met and faced in Korea; and the United Nations would, I trust, be equally firm to resist it.
  Mr. Philips Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be received with great satisfaction?
  Mr. Peter Smithers: If the French lost hold of the key position in Indo-China, would not a most oppressive burden fall on our defences in South-East Asia, and are we not greatly indebted to the French for the sacrifices in blood and treasure which they are making?
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he understands the phrase in the Question about "indirect" invasion to mean? Is it the sort of thing that is now being done by Chiang Kai-shek's troops in Burma?
  Mr. Eden: It is hardly for me to interpret the questioner's thought. I should have thought he had in mind the sort of thing being done by the Chinese Communists in Korea.

  EUROPEAN DEFENCE (BRITISH FORCES)
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the guarantee of Her Majesty's Government to the European Defence Community involves the retention of British Defence Forces in Europe so long as the guarantee operates.
  Mr. Eden: As I informed the House on 21st April, Her Majesty's Government's commitment to provide assistance in the event of attack to all members of the European Defence Community lasts as long as the United Kingdom remains a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The disposition of defence

  1437
  forces under N.A.T.O. is a matter for agreement between the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the Governments concerned.
  Mr. Henderson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that in the White Paper on European defence it is stated that at the Foreign Ministers' Conference both he and the American Secretary of State indicated that it was the policy of both Governments to retain their Forces in Europe. Is that common policy in any way affected by the unilateral guarantee to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred?
  Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that question. No, it is not at all affected. What we stated then was that it was our policy to maintain Armed Forces on the Continent of Europe for as long as is necessary, and that pledge still stands.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Does that answer mean that our commitment will operate irrespective of whether American Forces remain in Europe under the present N.A.T.O. arrangements?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman will see that our commitment lasts as long as the commitment of N.A.T.O. lasts, and that the disposition of forces during that period is a matter for arrangement between the Supreme Allied Commander and the Governments concerned.

  JAPAN (WAR CLAIMS)
  Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that those with claims for injuries, personal losses, destruction by war damage and seizure in Japanese-occupied territory, are given precedence over repayment of Japanese bonds and accumulated interest thereon.
  Mr. Eden: The question of the resumption of payments on Japanese bonds is dealt with under Article 18 (b) of the Peace Treaty, in which Japan expresses her intention to enter into negotiations with her creditors. The procedure laid down for dealing with claims under the Treaty is quite different and the question of precedence as between the two does not, I can assure my hon. Friend, arise.
  Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the total value of goods, commodities, chattels, etc., removed from Malaya and found in Japan on its occupation by Allied troops in 1945.
  Mr. Eden: Restitution of looted property found in Japan has been proceeding since 1946 under the authority of the Supreme Commander for the allied Powers, and will continue, now that the Japanese Peace Treaty has come into force, under Article 15 (a) of the Treaty. I regret, however, that I am not in a position to give an accurate estimate of the value of Malayan property found in Japan in 1945.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend lend the great weight of his authority to urging that there shall be some acceleration of this process, which has gone on for a very long time and creates great hardship for many who suffered in Malaya?
  Mr. Eden: I should like to look into that.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Tea (Profit Margins)
    Mr. Joseph T. Priceasked the Minister of Food what are the total margins of profit per lb. on tea between the import price at British docks and the price to the consumer.
    The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): In the year ended 31st March, 1952, the average gross margin between the import price as reduced by subsidy and the retail price was about one shilling. This margin has to provide for the working costs of the blenders, packers and wholesale and retail distributors.
    Mr. Price: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman considered the company reports of some of the leading tea importers, blenders and distributors? If so, does he agree that in many cases the profits which are being realised are unreasonable and in some cases fantastic, and is he satisfied that the present price of tea can be justified?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member asked me what the profit per lb. was. I should say that the figure which I have

    1439
    given is a perfectly reasonable one when one considers that four different processes have to be covered by the shilling.

    Canned Tomatoes and Ham
    Mr. J. T. Priceasked the Minister of Food why he is increasing the tonnage of canned tomatoes and tomato juice imported into this country and reducing the tonnage of canned ham and bacon.
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member has overlooked the seasonal factor. Imports of canned tomatoes and tomato juice are being reduced as compared with last year.
    Mr. Price: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that, with the constant withdrawal of sources of real meat for the British public, even a small reduction in the sources of canned meat which supplements the rations is a serious matter? Would he not agree that people would prefer to have even a little canned meat rather than tomato juice, which is largely consumed by the American Forces in this country?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Tomato juice is an extremely popular commodity in this country. As regards meat, naturally we would rather be able to buy more, but I refuse to take any responsibility for that situation at any rate. The actual cuts in canned meat are much less extensive than in the case of the other commodities, which are about 50 per cent. in respect of canned tomatoes and 25 per cent. in respect of the juice.

    Jam (Fruit Content)
    Mr. J. T. Priceasked the Minister of Food which of his Regulations define the term full fruit standard used on jam pot labels; what sanctions he has laid down for the enforcement of such standards; and if he is satisfied that they are adequate.
    Major Lloyd George: The Food Standards (Presèrves) Order, 1944, as amended. The Order is administered by local food and drugs authorities; and the penalties that may be imposed for contraventions appear fully adequate.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Minister of Food what action
    1440
    he is taking on the recommendation of the Food Standards Committee to increase the fruit content of jam.
    Major Lloyd George: None at present. In accordance with normal practice I shall await a further report from the Committee in the light of any representations they may receive on their proposals from interested parties.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the answer will be regarded as particularly sticky, and will he pay particular attention to the fact that both fruit growers and housewives would welcome this step as there would be a closer relation between the contents and the labels on the jam jars than there is at present?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that this is a sticky subject. The procedure here is perfectly normal. The report was received on 22nd April, and the trades concerned are allowed up to 10th May to make representations. This Committee will examine those representations and then the final report will be brought to me.

    Food Imports (Standards)
    Mr. William A. Stewardasked the Minister of Food what steps he takes to ensure that the foodstuffs and meat that he imports into this country are comparable with the pre-war standards.
    Major Lloyd George: My Department tries to ensure that imports are at least up to pre-war standards of quality, by specification when buying and through inspection on arrival.
    Mr. Steward: Is the Minister satisfied that the meat is adequately inspected before shipment in order to ensure that the carcases are free from disease?
    Major Lloyd George: They are certainly inspected, and no carcase with disease would be distributed to the public in this country.

    Argentine Meat Negotiations
    Mr. Frederick Willeyasked the Minister of Food what progress has been made on the Argentine meat negotiations; and if he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd George: These negotiations are still in their preliminary stages.

    1441
    I shall make a statement at an appropriate time. Meanwhile, the House will be glad to know that, to counteract the adverse effects of last year's drought and to complete their shipments to us under the 1951 Protocol, the Argentine authorities have taken measures both to restrict the domestic consumption of meat and to prohibit sales to other countries.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that according to "The Times," this is the first time that a big delay has occurred at the beginning of the negotiations, and is it not about time that the negotiations were begun in an effective sense?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman is the last one who should make an observation like that. As a matter of fact the last negotiations took over a year.
    An Hon. Member: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not started yet.
    Major Lloyd George: Leaving out of consideration last year, when it took one year and 10 days—and for that I was not responsible—the negotiations for this year are proceeding in a perfectly normal manner compared with other years.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Can the Minister confirm that the negotiations last year were held up for many months because the Socialist Government could not supply the tin, coal and petroleum at the prices the Argentine were prepared to pay, and that the same problems faced us this year, as they were left to us by the previous Government?
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Was there not last year an unfortunate debate on meat which held up the negotiations, and for that the then Opposition were responsible?

    De-Rationing
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food which rationed foodstuffs he intends to de-ration.
    Major Lloyd George: All of them, eventually.
    Mr. Willey: While being heartened by the Minister's generalisations, may I ask if he does not appreciate that the statements he is repeatedly making in the country about de-rationing are apt to be
    1442
    very misleading, in view of the present economic position?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not take responsibility for what appears in the Press. I have not made any statement other than of this character at any time.
    Mr. Shinwell: What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by "eventually"? Does he not know that he will not be there eventually?
    Major Lloyd George: It is not so long ago since the right hon. Gentleman asked me a similar question about tea. He asked me what did I mean, and I showed him what I meant by quite recently giving him the date.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that he has made a good start as far as Scotland is concerned by de-controlling haggis last night?

    Eggs
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Minister of Food if he can now state whether eggs will be sold off the ration this year.
    Major Lloyd George: Not yet, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the poultry committee of the National Farmers' Union have recommended to his Department that unfertile eggs removed from incubators should be marketed through packing stations for sale as processed liquid; and what action he is taking on this recommendation.
    Major Lloyd George: This recommendation has not yet reached me.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Minister realise that better methods of disposing of these eggs are now supported by the National Farmers' Union, the National Federation of Grocers and Provision Dealers and responsible people generally, and how long is he going to sit on this egg problem?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if I had received a recommendation. I have not received it yet, but I shall receive it, I gather, in a few days. I shall then examine the recommendation. Although I am not unsympathetic to the idea, I cannot do anything until I receive the recommendation.
    Mr. Philips Price: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that incubated clears are all right for cake making if they are a week old, but if more than a week old they are of use only for political meetings?

    Slaughtering Facilities, Norfolk
    Mr. Denys Bullardasked the Minister of Food if he will give an assurance that the arrangements for slaughtering fat stock in Norfolk are now adequate to prevent the holding back of fat animals, particularly bacon pigs, on the farms in the event of serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and what steps he has taken to avoid a repetition of the serious hold-up which occurred in November last.
    Major Lloyd George: We are as anxious as the producers that delays should be reduced to a minimum and all possible emergency arrangements are made to increase slaughtering capacity in an infected area. But when normal movements of fat stock are interrupted, some delay may be inevitable.
    Mr. Bullard: Will the Minister bear in mind the great dislocation that is taking place in the whole of the pig industry in East Anglia because of the few bacon factories in that area, and as we hope to increase the number of pigs there will he try and improve the existing slaughterhouse facilities, some of which are extremely primitive, and will he include in his review the possibility of authorising the building of another bacon factory there?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend knows that the question of a bacon factory in East Anglia is under review at the moment. On the question of slaughterhouses, whilst some are being built at the moment, I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that in the case of a county like Norfolk, a great deal of slaughtering is done outside the county, in the Midlands, and when there are emergencies of this character it is almost impossible to deal with them adequately and completely. If that were to be done we should have to build more slaughterhouses in the country than we could possibly maintain. I might add that I fully appreciate all the considerations in this matter.

    Potato Disposal (Loss)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food what loss he estimates will be incurred by his Department in disposing of 460,000 tons of 1951 main crop potatoes for stock feeding.
    Major Lloyd George: About £3,500,000, including overheads.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister give an assurance that this really substantial loss will not be recouped by a further cut in the subsidy on some other item of staple food?
    Major Lloyd George: This is a perfectly normal procedure under the guarantee of the 1947 Act, and it has been followed by previous Governments for some years.
    Mr. Osborne: Is it not a fact that this loss is very much smaller than the loss in 1948, when Polish potatoes were imported at £26 a ton and allowed to rot completely?

    Home-Produced Meat (Freezing)
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to establish or increase refrigeration capacity in this country to store the increasing amount of home-produced meat fattened on grass.
    Major Lloyd George: Present restrictions on capital investment would prevent us from constructing new freezing plants for this purpose, but I have arranged to have some experimental work done with the limited facilities already available.
    Captain Duncan: Now that we have a proper agricultural policy can we not expect more home produced meat? Is the Minister aware that farmers, appreciating the feedingstuffs supplies' position, are feeding and fattening their cattle off grass; that, therefore, more cattle are likely to be available in the seasons of the year when grass is growing; and that is a very important question for the future of agriculture?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not think that large-scale freezing has ever been done on a commercial basis in this country before, and it represents a very big capital expenditure item. However, other steps are being taken, such

    1445
    as the holding back of cattle at the height of the autumn flush, which I hope will have a very good effect.

    Agricultural Prices Review (Cost of Living)
    Mr. Robert Crouchasked the Minister of Food how the new farm prices have affected the 1s. 6d. per week increase in food prices previously announced.
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 29th April by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Food if he will give a list of the foods that will increase in price resulting from the annual review of farm prices; and the amount of such increases in each case.
    Major Lloyd George: In making the price increases necessary to bring the food subsidy figure down to a rate of £250 million a year I have to take into account the cost of imported foods as well as the farm prices resulting from the annual review. In opening his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer listed the foods to be increased in price, and I will announce the amounts of the increases at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that most of the lower-paid population of this country are of the opinion that the policy of this Government is to bring about de-rationing by increasing prices to such an extent that the poor people will not be able to take their rations? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not de-ration at the expense of the poor people?
    Major Lloyd George: On the contrary, we have taken steps to alleviate some of the hardship. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had the same views when prices were increased early last year.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that with the continual rise in the cost of living and of rationed foodstuffs, and the increase in unemployment, many families cannot now afford to take the rations, and that the rich are getting more than they are
    1446
    entitled to? Is it not time that the Government did something about that situation?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I gave an answer last week to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), in which I said that the average increase over the whole weekly ration since last October was 2¼d. The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating slightly.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: In view of the confusion which appears to have arisen on this subject, will my right hon. and gallant Friend take steps to see that the facts are made widely known throughout the country, quite apart from publication in HANSARD?

    Bread (Flour Consumption)
    Mr. Harmar Nichollsasked the Minister of Food what is the total weekly sackage of flour used throughout the country and the proportion of this used for the baking of bread.
    Major Lloyd George: The current weekly useage of flour in the United Kingdom is about 728,000 sacks of 280 lb. Approximately 62 per cent. is used for breadmaking.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that at the existing price and existing subsidy rates many small bakers are finding it increasingly difficult to carry on business, and will he give special attention to affording them some alleviation so that they can carry on with their task?
    Major Lloyd George: I am fully aware of the difficulties that small bakeries are experiencing, and certain steps have been taken to alleviate the position. I hope that the speeding up of the payment of the subsidy will help the small bakery trade.

    Sugar
    Sir Harold Roperasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider permitting sweet coupons to be used to obtain additional sugar in lieu of sweets.
    Major Lloyd George: I regret that this is not a practicable arrangement.
    Sir H. Roper: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend hold out any hope of an increase in the sugar ration later in the year to enable housewives to make jam?
    Major Lloyd George: There would be no difficulty about getting sugar if we had the currency. The one source of supply from which we could get enough is entirely a dollar one.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not intend to de-ration sugar, at any rate this year?
    Major Lloyd George: I cannot say whether it will be this year or not, but it will be done as soon as we have cleared up the mess left by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: In view of the fact that it is possible to exchange sugar for sweets does not my right hon. and gallant Friend not think that it would be possible for us to give up our sweet ration for extra sugar?
    Major Lloyd George: In any circumstances that scheme would be bound to involve extra purchases of sugar and the administration of it would be extremely difficult. It would make the matter more complicated and cumbersome, and more difficult to get rid of eventually.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Commonwealth Forces (Transfer of British Personnel)
    Mr. Ian Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will make arrangements to permit members of Her Majesty's Forces who marry members of Commonwealth countries to transfer automatically if they so wish to the Forces of the country concerned.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): As I informed my hon. Friend on 9th April, applications from serving personnel of the British Forces to join Commonwealth Forces are considered on their merits. It would not be possible to grant applications automatically in the circumstances he mentions, as it would depend, among other things, on the willingness of the Commonwealth Governments to accept those who wish to transfer, and our ability to release them.

    Guided Missile Sites (Detection)
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he has yet laid down the spheres of responsibility as between the Service Departments for the detection of the launching sites if, and when, guided missiles are directed against this country.
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir. This responsibility will rest with the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that I asked this Question on 7th March and 27th June last year of the former Minister of Defence, and that on both occasions I was told that the matter was being examined; and that it will give a sense of confidence that at last a decision is being made?
    Mr. Birch: I am glad that the persistence of my hon. Friend has been rewarded.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is precisely because there was a careful examination that the Minister is now in a position to give a decision.

  WEST AFRICA

    Japanese Imports, Nigeria
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what basis licences are granted to the Japanese to enable them to import textile fabrics into Lagos.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The Nigerian authorities have been issuing licences to import Japanese textiles to meet the territory's essential needs. Import policy is now, however, being reviewed in the light of the balance of payments of the sterling area and the experience of the working of the Payments Agreement between the sterling area and Japan. The possibilities of increasing the exports of Lancashire textiles to the Colonies are also being urgently examined.
    Air Commodore Harvey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Japanese are copying British designs in textiles and exporting to West Africa, and that the advice given by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of

    1449
    Trade is that the industry of Lancashire should take legal action in West Africa? Will my right hon. Friend deal with this matter at the source in West Africa, because otherwise such action is very expensive and often does not work at all?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am willing to consult with the President of the Board of Trade about the appropriate measures.

    Gold Coast Civil Service (Pay)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking in respect of the claims of the white civil servants in the Gold Coast for increases in salary to meet the rising cost of living and for the retention of their expatriate allowances.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Commission appointed by my predecessor in September, 1950, to make recommendations on certain questions including the salaries of the Gold Coast Civil Service reported last August. My predecessor commended this report to the Gold Coast Government, and it has since been under consideration by a Select Committee of the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly. The Assembly adopted the Select Committee's recommendations on 23rd April and the new improved salaries are being introduced as from 1st April, 1952.
    The new scales provide for increases over existing salaries, plus present cost of living allowance, and are generally higher than those recommended by the original Commission in order to take some account of the further rise in the cost of living which has occurred since the Commission reported. I have not yet been able to consider the Select Committee's Report in full, but I understand that overseas pay has been retained except for posts at the highest levels where basic and overseas pay have been consolidated.

    Sierra Leone (Regent Chief)
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate the situation within the Small Bo tribal authority of Sierra Leone since S. Kata was appointed Regent Chief in view of the opposition to his appointment.
    Mr. Lyttelton: As I told the hon. Member in reply to a letter which he sent to me on 3rd April, the power to make
    1450
    such an appointment is vested in the Governor, who has informed me that the great majority both of the inhabitants and of the members of the tribal authority are not opposed to the Acting Chief, and that conditions generally are peaceful. In considering whether or not a commission of inquiry should be appointed, the Governor will be guided by the advice of the Executive Council, in which there is a majority of African members.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, according to the information I passed to him at least three weeks ago, the taxing authorities are having difficulty in finding males in this territory because they have all gone to other territories as a protest against the present arrangements? Will he again ask the Governor to look into this matter?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Governor is now considering whether a commission of inquiry is appropriate.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the agenda for the forthcoming conference in London on Central African Federation; when and where it will take place; and who the delegates are, both white and coloured, who will participate in it.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Conference now being held in London.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I explained its purpose in yesterday's debate. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the delegates.
  Mr. Hughes: There was one thing which the right hon. Gentleman did not explain yesterday, and I should like to ask him this question. In view of the serious differences of opinion between black and white and between Southern Rhodesia and the other two territories involved, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to implement a federation without imposing the views of a very small minority on a very large majority?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The question in no way concerns that which is on the Order Paper, and raises matters which I could not deal with by way of question and answer.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that my supplementary question in no way deals with the Question on the Order Paper. That Question deals with the agenda for the Conference, and my supplementary question deals with that too. Am I not, therefore, entitled to an answer?
  Mr. Speaker: Though the original Question on the Paper refers to the agenda, the hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled to ask a question about any conceivable subject that may appear upon it.
  Following is the list of delegates:
  Southern Rhodesia.
  The Rt. hon. Sir Godfrey Huggins, C.H., K.C.M.G., M.P.; the hon. E. C. F. Whitehead, C.M.G., O.B.E., MP; the hon J M Greenfield, Q.C., M.P.; the hon. P. B. Fletcher; Mr. R. O. Stockil, M.P.; Mr. W. H. Eastwood, M.P.; Mr. A. H. Strachan, C.B.E.; Mr. T. G. Gisborne; Mr. A. D. Evans, M.B.E.; Mr. W. F. Nicholas; Mr. J. N. N. Nkomo and Mr. J. Z. Savanhu.
  Northern Rhodesia.
  Sir Gilbert Rennie, K.C.M.G., M.C.; Mr. E. I. G. Unsworth, Q.C.; Mr. R. P. Bush, O.B.E.; Mr. R. Welensky, C.M.G., M.L.C.; Mr. G. B. Beckett, C.M.G., M.L.C.; Lieut.-Colonel E. M. Wilson, M.B.E., M.L.C.; Mr. J. S. Moffatt, O.B.E., M.L.C.; Mr. R. A. Nicholson; Mr. J. E. Coombes and Major R. T. Hungerford.
  Nyasaland.
  Sir Geoffrey Colby, K.C.M.G.; Mr. V. Fox-Strangways; Mr. M. P. Barrow, C.B.E.; Mr. G. G. S. J. Hadlow, O.B.E.; Mr. J. Marshall, O.B.E., M.C. and Mr. K. O. Shelford.
  Central African Council.
  Mr. H. N. Parry.
  United Kingdom.
  The Most hon. the Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.; the right hon. Oliver Lyttelton, D.S.O., M.C., M.P.; the right hon. A. T. Lennox-Boyd, M.P.; Mr. J. G. Foster, Q.C., M.P.; Sir Percivale Liesching, G.C.M.G., K.C.B.; Sir Thomas Lloyd, K.C.B., K.C.M.G.; Mr. G. H. Baxter, C.M.G., C.I.E.; Mr. W. L. Gorell Barnes, C.M.G.; Mr. J. B. Williams, C.M.G.; Mr. E. Melville, C.M.G.; Mr. J. P. Gibson, C.B.E.; Mr. A. W. Snelling; Mr. J. E. Marnham and Mr. R. L. D. Jasper.

  MALAYA

    Destruction of Crops
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if General Templer's threat to destroy crops in Malaya by chemical means was made with his approval.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. Destruction of crops grown for the terrorists or likely to fall into their hands is a preventive measure of which, of course, I approve.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of State last Wednesday stated that this threat, as he himself admitted, applied to all crops which might fall into the hands of the terrorists, and are we to understand quite clearly that this applies to and includes crops grown by the villagers?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Generally speaking, that is not so. Of course it depends upon the actual circumstances and it is easy to find out what crops are grown for the terrorists. Where there is doubt it is always decided in favour of the villagers.
    Mr. Rankin: Further to that point. For the benefit of the House could not the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether or not this threat is to apply, or is not to apply, to those crops which are grown for the sustenance of the villagers in Malaya?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I can give the hon. Member an unequivocal answer to that couched in general terms. The answer is "No." We have to be satisfied that they are being grown for the terrorists or in some place where the terrorists are compelling the inhabitants to grow crops for them.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is it not desirable that hon. Members of this House should give the Commander-in-Chief their support in his efforts to protect the lives of our men and in his attempts to bring this war to a successful conclusion, instead of putting down Questions on the Order Paper like this one, which only tend to destroy confidence?
    Mr. Harold Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would give the greatest possible support to the Commander-in-Chief if his Government would have the courage to give political status to the Chinese and now offer a date for independence?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That raises questions which are not concerned at all with the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Davies: It would be much more effective.

    Tanjong Malim (Collective Punishment)
    Mr. S. S. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far relief for the people of Tanjong Malim, Malaya, arising out of the curfew, has been left to charitable organisations and how far it has been undertaken by the Government; to what extent the supply of food is adequate; what attention is given to the villagers' cattle during the curfew period; and when the curfew will be lifted.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Local communal organisations provided relief for the poorer inhabitants of Tanjong Malim. It has not proved necessary for the Government to give relief. The supply of food is adequate. The 22-hour house curfew was lifted on 9th April. There is now a house curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. over the whole area and a curfew from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. in some districts. During the period of daytime curfew, arrangements were made, at the villagers' request, for cattle to be brought within the perimeter area and owners were allowed out each morning and evening to care for them.
    Mr. Awbery: While it will give some satisfaction to right-thinking people that the curfew has been withdrawn for at least some period, is the Minister aware that the period of the curfew was for 22 out of 24 hours; that people live four and five in a room and were not allowed to leave their houses to go to an outside latrine, and were fined 50 dollars for so doing—
    Mr. C. J. M. Alport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask a supplementary question which is nothing but an effort to pass on information?
    Mr. Speaker: In general, supplementary questions should be interrogatory, but I have known them used as a vehicle for imparting information. Mr. Awbery.
    Mr. Awbery: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is because of the requests of the Chinese, the Malays and the
    1454
    Indians that the curfew has been reduced by several hours?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information upon that. I only say that the curfew has been reduced—
    Mr. Awbery: At their request?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have no information that it was at their request. I only know that it has been reduced, and I would remind the hon. Member that these measures are far less severe than those taken in similar cases by our predecessors.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what have been the results of the system of collective punishment on Tanjong Malim in bringing about greater co-operation from the people; and if he will give instructions that, in future, collective punishment should not be used.
    Mr. Lyttelhon: Useful information has been received but it is as yet too soon to assess the full results of the measures taken at Tanjong Malim. I have no intention of interfering with General Templer's reasonable exercise of the discretion entrusted to him to deal with the very serious situation in Malaya.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this form of collective punishment is very repugnant to right-thinking people—
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Moral re-armament.
    Mr. Awbery: —and that this method is causing hostility against the Government among the people of Malaya? Is he doing all he can to protect the people during the period of the curfew?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The answer to the second part of the question is, "Yes." Wherever we can, we are endeavouring to improve the wire round these new villages.
    Mr. Shinwell: While it is undesirable to cause embarrassment to General Templer, who has been appointed to undertake this difficult task, will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is desirable, on the other hand, that General Templer should proceed with the utmost caution in enforcing collective punishment, which may not be at all efficacious?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that these measures are not primarily punitive. They are in the main in order to prevent rice being passed through the wire to the bandits, and also to control movement in these black spots. I repeat that they are much less severe than some measures which have been taken in the past.
    Mr. Shinwell: While I quite appreciate the difficulty, may I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand that many of us, while not wishing to cause any embarrassment to General Templer, are anxious that he should not proceed in a direction which may have very serious repercussions?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. I say freely that the use of these measures has to be confined to places where demonstrably the inhabitants are helping the terrorists against our Forces in a way they should not. They will not be applied in a wholesale manner or without careful consideration of the circumstances. I hope that re-assures the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as new collective methods by the bandits, both of mass murder and of helping their own supporters, come into operation, equally new methods have to be taken against them?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that repressive measures on a collective scale of this kind have always had the effect, not of reducing resistance to them, but of increasing it? Is he also aware that there is no war crime in history that has not been justified by the doctrine of giving unquestioning, blind support to the commander in the field?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I can accept neither suggestion of the hon. Member. I am afraid each is founded on ignorance of the circumstances.

    Police Officer (Wife's Allowance)
    Mr. Anthony Marloweasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he refuses to take any action in the case of Lieutenant Birnie of the Malayan Police who is receiving pay at married rates but refuses to pay to his wife Mrs. A. C. Birnie, Hove, the married increment
    1456
    which he is receiving; why he has failed to take steps to bring home to this officer his obligation to provide adequate main-enance for his wife out of the resources available to him; upon what grounds he justifies this misapplication of public funds; and whether, if this officer continues to appropriate to himself money intended for his wife's support, payment of such increment will be stopped.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have no jurisdiction in this matter and there has been no misapplication of public funds. Lieutenant Birnie has been paid strictly in accordance with the terms of his service as set out in his contract with the Government of the Federation of Malaya.
    The question of his allotment to his wife was brought to Lieutenant Birnie's attention by the Malayan authorities but he said that he was not prepared to increase the allotment to which his wife is entitled under their voluntary separation agreement. Any variation in the amount is a matter for mutual agreement or for the courts.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not a solitary case? There are many similar instances in which his Department is being lamentably spineless. Will he take the necessary action to bring home to the officers responsible for the support of their wives that money provided for them out of public funds is intended for that purpose?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid I can do nothing in matters over which I have no jurisdiction.

  COMMONWEALTH DEFENCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  Mr. Ronald Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon what basis and by which Colonies a Commonwealth defence contribution is paid.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Colonial territories make their main contribution towards Commonwealth defence by maintaining local forces adequate to ensure internal security and local defence, and in some cases by providing lands and services for United Kingdom Forces. This absorbs, or more than absorbs, all the funds which most territories can provide for defence, having regard to their other commitments.

  1457
  When a territory is financially able to meet these obligations and also make a contribution towards the general Commonwealth defence expenditure borne by the United Kingdom, the amount of the contribution is arrived at by discussion between the colonial Government and Her Majesty's Government. Bermuda and Hong Kong make such contributions.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  EQUAL PAY
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th May, I shall call attention to the claim for equal pay for women in Government service, and move a Resolution.
  DIVERSION OF FOODSTUFFS (BREWING INDUSTRY)
  Mr. James Hudson: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th May, I shall call attention to the diversion of foodstuffs to the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, and move a Resolution.
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th May, I shall call attention to the need for the maintenance and expansion of technical education services, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 1.—(HYDROCARBON OILS, ETC.)
    3.33 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first two Amendments on the Order Paper are unduly wide but do not quite amount to negativing the Clause. I shall, therefore, select the first Amendment, on the understanding that when the dozen or so Amendments which are designed to make exceptions are reached, those selected will not be debated at much length. I respectfully remind the Committee that, under Standing Order 45, the Chairman may put forthwith the Question that the Clause stand part if he is of the opinion that the principle of the Clause has been adequately discussed.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out subsection (1).
    I take note of what you have said. Sir Charles. It seems to be that it would be to the convenience of both sides of the Committee that we should discuss the first Amendment and should have a general debate on the subject of the petrol tax.
    We have put down the Amendment and we mean to press it, because, briefly, in our view the petrol tax, after last year's Budget, had gone high enough, and because it is extraordinary that hon. Members opposite should this year support this further increase after their repeated condemnations of the increases that we made in 1950 and 1951. In particular, the present Leader of the House fulminated at great length last year against the whole idea of raising the petrol tax at all, and I shall quote some of his remarks.
    I believe that the increases that we made in 1950 and 1951 were right at the time, on the grounds that I then gave; but for that very reason the tax had gone high enough by last year. Indeed, if the same tax is raised twice in successive years, that in itself is a good reason against further raising it in the third year. It is, at any rate, more consistent and

    1459
    logical to argue that the tax ought to have gone up from 9d. to 1s. 10½d. a gallon, but should not go further, than to argue, as do hon. Members opposite, that it never ought to have gone up from 9d. to 1s. 10½d., but should now go up from 1s. 10½d. to 2s. 6d.
    The situation is different this year in several relevant ways. First, in 1950 and 1951 we were maintaining the food subsidies in order to avoid a steep rise in the cost of living. This time, however, the Government at once push up the cost of food by cutting the food subsidies and the cost of fares by raising the petrol tax. There might have been a case—indeed. I said so before the Budget—for raising this tax to provide revenue for maintaining or increasing the food subsidies. But there is absolutely none if a cut is being made in the food subsidies at the same time.
    Secondly, there is this difference. In the previous two years we had to provide extra revenue either to cover an inflationary gap or for the sake of re-armament. Indeed, it was mainly for financing rearmament that I argued in favour of a rise in the tax a year ago. But this year, the Government did not have to do that at all, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits. In our view, the Chancellor need have raised less revenue this year, because he is both indulging in wasteful expenditure, which I will specify, and giving away some revenue unnecessarily.
    If the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks where we would obtain the revenue which he intends to get from this tax, the answer is quite clear—and this, incidentally, applies to all our proposals for tax relief and not merely to the petrol tax alone. First, we would not have added £75 or £80 million to the cost of interest paid by the Government, which is largely in addition to the receipts of banks and other lending firms, and is, in our view, quite unnecessary in order to achieve the restriction of credit which we agree to be desirable. We think that the Chancellor should stop wasting this £80 million and should stop putting this extra burden on the taxpayer in order to meet it. Secondly, we do not think that the Chancellor need have given the big tax reliefs in the Budget to people with four-figure incomes and upwards.
    1460
    Thirdly, whereas until last year the price of petrol was well below the average price abroad—and that was another of the reasons which I gave in support of the increases—the present increase of 7½d. in the tax takes the price of petrol, if anything, rather above the average retail price in other countries. I think it is a perfectly relevant argument to point out that in earlier years petrol was still cheaper here than abroad on the average. At the present price of 4s. 3d. a gallon here after the increase this year, the Government have raised it as high as in a number of European countries and, of course, a long way above that of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and North America. The average price abroad at the moment, I understand, is 3s. 9d., compared with the 4s. 3d. charged in this country.
    But we object most of all to this further steep rise in the tax this year, at a time when food prices have also been forced up by the Government, because this further action by the Chancellor will tend to push up bus fares all over the country. Is it not really rather extraordinary that at one and the same time the Chancellor raises food prices by withdrawing a subsidy, the Prime Minister sallies forth as a champion of cheap transport, and the Chancellor raises fares by pushing up the petrol tax. Perhaps, however, this is not so extraordinary in a Government which has a remarkable record of muddle in every field of administration.
    The British Road Federation, which represents a number of road and motoring organisations, thinks that the Tory Party in this matter has rather let it down. The Federation, in a letter to the Chancellor on 26th March, said that as the Conservative Party voted against the previous increases in 1950 and 1951 the Federation "not unreasonably hoped"—those are its words—that it would get some relief on this occasion. Even more pertinent, I think, the Federation goes on to say that the action of the Chancellor in raising this tax was—and I again quote their words:
    "patently inconsistent with the concern shown by the Government in its statement of last Friday."
    That was the notorious statement from Downing Street, just before the Budget
    "disclaiming any responsibility for the increase in the London fares."

    1461
    Surely we are entitled to ask: "Did the Prime Minister, when he put out this electioneering effort on 7th March, know that the Chancellor was just going to raise the petrol tax? Or alternatively, did the Chancellor, I wonder, know that the Prime Minister was launching this disingenuous statement about fares? Possibly—I do not know—it may have been Lord Cherwell who issued it without consulting the Prime Minister, or the Chancellor, or the Minister of Transport, who, of course, would not have been let into the secret at all. It came, we must remember, from Downing Street. Perhaps the truth is that we now have a Cabinet so overloaded with overlords, including one overlord specifically for public relations, that this sort of chaos is the only thing one could expect.
    While the Prime Minister was indulging in these electioneering sorties and posing as a champion of cheap fares, the Chancellor was pushing them up by this tax. For a very high proportion of the extra revenue from this tax will, in fact, be an addition to the cost of omnibus transport, of commercial transport, of agricultural production of one kind and another and of actual outright industrial production in a number of industries. The extra 7½d. will, according to my calculations—the Government can say if this is right—bring in another £51 million specifically from motor spirit, 85 per cent. of which is commercially consumed. But as much as £10 million will come from Diesel oil and about two-thirds of that represents buses and coaches and one-third goods vehicles. Of that £10 million, I understand, over £1 million will be an increase in the cost of London Transport vehicles.
    The British Road Federation again put it this way, that
    "the increased tax will prejudice the ability of London Transport to make the adjustment in London fares for which there has been such a large and determined outcry."
    Other bus services throughout the country, passenger road services, will pay £5 million or £6 million more—on Diesel oil alone, without counting ordinary motor spirit.
    3.45 p.m.
    The Public Transport Association, which also represents a number of bus associations, have stated publicly that as a result the new increase in tax will mean
    1462
    "a fresh and inevitable cycle of applications to raise fares throughout the country"
    and particularly and positively that it will cause
    "all round increases in provincial fares."
    That statement was made only last week.
    But it is not merely the transport experts who told us that this tax increase must mean higher fares. I can quote even higher authority. The present Leader of the House was very emphatic a year ago in arguing that the effect of the 4½d. increased tax would mean higher costs of transport. Indeed, he asked my right hon. Friend, who was then Chancellor,
    "Does he really think that there has been no damage to anybody and to the motoring industry in particular by the increase in the duty which was imposed last year? … Has he not heard of increased bus fares? … Has he not heard of the increased transport rates, or has he been asleep since last year?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 821.]
    The Leader of the House then told us that the rise of only 4½d. in the duty would mean an increase of ½d. per car mile in the cost of London bus traffic, and only a fraction less in the cost of buses elsewhere. This year's rise of 7½d. in the duty therefore, strangely enough, will push up costs rather more. The Leader of the House also said that the 4½d. increase would cost the Road Haulage Association £3 million this year it is going to be £5 million—British Road Services £1,500,000—this year that will be £2,500,000—and the charges, he said, would have to go up by 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. as a result. This year it means about a 3¾ per cent. further rise on the cost of the Road Haulage Association.
    The right hon. Gentleman was by no means alone among hon. Members opposite in deploring the effects of the rise of the tax last year. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, who no doubt is often consulted by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and, perhaps, even by Lord Leathers—I do not know—on these matters—said that this increased petrol tax,
    "is, in fact, a food tax, and a food tax of an onerous character which will reflect itself, without the slightest doubt, as the months go by."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 826.]
    Of course, he used that as an argument against increasing the petrol tax, but, as

    1463
    the Chancellor seemed to think in the Budget that higher food prices are a good thing, he may take that as an argument in favour of it. Then there is the Minister of Works, whom we ought not to forget, although I understand he is not much consulted about economic policy by the Chancellor at the present time. He said about the petrol tax last year:
    "As the cost of living goes up month by month, the situation becomes so dangerous that it must be wrong deliberately and as an act of Government policy to add to the cost of an item like transport which enters into the cost of re-armament both directly and indirectly through its effect upon other prices."
    He then got even more eloquent and went on:
    "Those who vote for this duty tonight will be voting for a depreciation in our money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 833.]
    So in his view if he votes for this increase tonight he will be voting, on his argument, for a depreciation in the £.
    Then there is the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) who I see is with us and who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) remarked, executed a remarkable double somersault which is surprising even for such a stern and unbending Tory as the noble Lord. He wanted the tax to go up in 1948—I think I have it right—down in 1951 and I presume he is going to support it going up again in 1952. Finally, we have the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). He threw all caution to the winds. He said, "I shall vote with great joy against this increase in the tax tonight."
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must quote me correctly. I said I should vote with great joy and great energy against it.
    Mr. Jay: I did not want to lay it on too thick. I hope that both his joy and his energy will be unconfined in voting for the tax increase this evening.
    We should remember throughout this debate that the price of petrol has, nowadays, a profound effect on transport generally, on aviation, on agriculture and on the production of certain special industries, including paint, linoleum, dyestuffs, rubber goods and so forth; and also on certain special cases such as disabled persons who use invalid chairs. When the
    1464
    tax is at a low level, it is so spread out as perhaps not to matter very greatly in this respect. That was, to some extent, the view we took two or three years ago. But when it rises to the extremely high level represented by this further jump from 1s. 10½d. to 2s. 6d., all these difficulties begin to be much more serious.
    We have put down various Amendments, which will doubtless be discussed later, referring to the possibility of help in these special cases which have been made the more acute by this year's increase. There are very serious administrative difficulties, as I very well understand, and which I have endeavoured to explain in the past, about meeting these various cases. But we have put down these Amendments because we believe that with the higher tax it is at any rate the duty of the Government and of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to scrutinise these difficulties very carefully indeed, and to make sure that we have done everything possible to meet them.
    In particular, I would commend to the attention of the hon. Gentleman a scheme which we introduced last year for giving a rebate on the export of products of industries like the paint and linoleum industry which have to pay tax on raw materials for their production. I hope he may be able to tell us that the Government have carried that further, though my information is that it has not had as extensive an effect as I hoped it would when I introduced it last year.
    But the clear issue on the main increase in the tax is this. Here is a case where the Government are deliberately and gratuitously—at the same time as they are also deliberately raising food prices—raising the cost of transport and making inevitable a new rise in fares and charges later on, even if they try to stop it when that time comes. We say that is unnecessary and, in the circumstances of this year, completely wrong. It is because Parliament can here do something concrete and effective in helping to keep down fares, instead of indulging in empty electioneering gestures and charging at windmills, like the Prime Minister, that we have put down this Amendment and intend to press it to a Division.
    Mr. W. G. Bennett: I rise with very great diffidence, because many of us on both sides of the

    1465
    Committee are much worried about this increase in the petrol tax. I should like to be assured that this is only a temporary measure, because the repercussions of this increase over the country will be devastating in their effect.
    We have been told by each Chancellor that it was a question of saving dollars, or our currency. But what is the actual effect of the imposition of any increase? It has very little effect, in fact none, on the saving of dollars and practically none on the saving of our own currency. That must be so, because 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. of the consumption is absolutely vital to the carrying on of the business of this country. The consumption by public transport, commercial undertakings, and the various other sources of national activity, amount to roughly 85 per cent. of the total consumption.
    The 15 per cent. left is all that can be affected by the increased price. That 15 per cent. includes commercial travellers and doctors, and there is no possibility at any time of saving any more than 10 per cent. on the consumption. That is proved by the figures that we have year after year, and so it does not have the effect we are told it will have. It does not save dollars or currency.
    What is the effect on the economic life of the country? At the moment we in Parliament are being harassed and bombarded by demands from public and private undertakings to be allowed to increase their charges, and these cannot be refuted. They are the effect, or the partial effect, of the last tax increase imposed by the previous Government. When we consider that, out of the 4s. 3d. charged for petrol, 2s. 6d. is duty, it must have a tremendous repercussion throughout our national life. It will cost the Glasgow Corporation another £2,000 a week or £100,000 a year. If it were possible at this moment to take off the petrol tax entirely, that is, the 2s. 6d. per gallon, the public transport undertaking in Glasgow would find their worries disappear. They would not require to put up fares at all.
    It must have been after very careful thought, therefore, that the Government have decided at this time that the tax is absolutely necessary. But we want to be assured of that. The public demand is that fares shall stay where they are. Each
    1466
    undertaking is wondering how it can make ends meet. I suggest that it is impossible to take £1,250,000 per week from the national economy and not feel the effect in every sphere of consumption of light hydrocarbon oils.
    I do not want to go into a lot of figures suggesting what might be done with the money that is involved, or to suggest that we might do something else, but I would say that we ought to be thoroughly assured that this particular tax is absolutely necessary, that it is vitally important that it should be imposed at this time, and that it will be revised at a very early date. I make that suggestion to the Chancellor.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. David J. Pryde: I am very pleased indeed to follow the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) because he has shown that in Scotland, at least, there is great antipathy towards this increase. I want to reinforce the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) who opened this discussion, but I want also to state a special case—the case of the indigenous oil production in Scotland.
    These oils are extracted from our own native oil shale measures, which stretch from Fife down through the Lothians into Peeblesshire. There are estimated reserves of 500 million tons, which may well be the saving of this country.
    Fifty years ago, the news of the laying bare of the Torbane Hill and the Drum-gray measures, carried as much significance as the news of a great oil strike in Alberta or Texas today. Names such as Oakbank, Pumpherston and West Calder were names to conjure with in Scotland, and the names of Dr. Young and James Ross were household words. These halcyon days lasted right up to 1912, when the industry felt the cold blast of foreign competition from the free gusher wells of the Middle East and America. In 1914, at the outbreak of the war, there was a slight rejuvenation of the industry, and in 1919 Scottish Oils, Ltd., was formed.
    But, by 1920, the industry was in the toils, and received a blow from which it never recovered, and here opens a sordid chapter of Scottish industrial history which is probably unequalled in industrial history in the world. No industry,

    1467
    probably, suffered so much privation as the Scottish oil industry, and no section of the industrial working class in Britain experienced such privation and vicissitudes as the workers in this industry.
    The industry has a history of courage, initiative, bravery, loyalty and devotion to that particular part of the country. Although the workers in it suffered from unemployment, and sometimes 30 per cent. of the industry was cut down, and there would be three weeks of work and one week idle, although the workers accepted the heaviest cuts in wages which operated in the whole of industry, and although 10,000 men were reduced to 5,000, they still hung on, believing in better times. When I say that 19 buses leave one of the oil towns before nine o'clock every morning, one realises just what these people have to do in order to get a living, because they have the "bump of locality" well developed. The workers in 1926 even accepted the return of the eight-hour day in order to try to get the industry going again.
    Successive Presidents of the Board of Trade and succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequer have recognised and conceded that special treatment is required for this great and essential industry. The Budgets of 1934 and 1938 gave evidence of this, and today I am asking the Chancellor to give special attention again to this particular industry. It is perfectly true to say that it is a small industry, but its by-products are very essential to the carrying on of life in this country. Not only do we produce heavy oils, but also the high octane spirit which is so necessary for this country in an emergency.
    Unemployment was such in this particular part of Scotland as late as 1949 that the then Secretary of State for Scotland issued an order under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1949, but nothing was done. Although our people are paid less than any other section of the mining community, they run the same risks as people working in the coalfield as seen at Burngrange, West Calder, where there was a terrible disaster in recent years. Still they hang on to their industry, believing that the Government will one day utilise the Distribution of Industry Act and again supply them with the necessary employment.
    1468
    These shale measures can be exploited to the great benefit of this country, because the day may come, and that not very far distant, when it will be impossible to bring oil from across the seas. Today, we are dependent on the generosity of Arab sheikhs, when we could exploit our own natural resources.
    I am, therefore, going to ask the Chancellor to see to it that these people are assured of work, because they apprehend that the operation of this Clause will cause unemployment. If we lose these men, we lose them for all time. Do not let us imagine for a moment that it will be possible to absorb them in the rearmament programme, because any rearmament work in Scotland is far away from the oil district, and if we lose these men we shall lose them to the Colonies and they will have gone away for all time, so that the oil industry in Scotland will be doomed.
    I appeal to the Chancellor to treat us a little more generously than was evinced last night, because not one contract for serge making has gone beyond the border of Scotland. I hope and trust that the Chancellor will remember that, while London may be London, Scotland is Scotland, and if we do not get justice in London, we will get it in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) in regard to the specialised industry to which he referred. Perhaps an opportunity may arise later for other how Members to refer to certain effects on certain industries, but I should like to address my remarks to the difficulty which I personally find in reconciling this further increase with what we have said on previous occasions.
    In the last three Budgets, the duty on petrol has been raised, and the effect on distribution and in the increased cost of transport has been very strongly felt throughout the country. In my own limited way, I have expressed my very strong feelings on this matter, and I am coming very strongly to the conclusion that this is a tax which it is far too easy for any Chancellor to apply, because undoubtedly it is only a question of putting up the price and a further tax will be paid from a very generous source.
    I recognise that the circumstances have changed, as indeed we all recognise, but

    1469
    we cannot get away from the fact that, by adding this further burden of the increased tax on petrol, we are putting up the cost of transport on all sides. It is approximately true to say that 80 per cent. of this burden falls upon transport generally, and that, over the last five or six years, the transport bill of any corporation has virtually doubled itself. It is now becoming a very alarming feature of the cost of any item manufactured and of delivering it to the consumer. I do not suppose there is one single industry which does not use motorised transport at some stage of its manufacturing requirements. Accordingly, this burden is shared all the way round.
    We in industry know that it is not always easy to add the actual increase to a particular item of costing. It is a question of finishing and rounding off the charge when the time comes. Sometimes a company may not pass on the whole of the extra burden it has to stand, but in many cases slightly more is put on to round off the figure. The final effect of such an increase is to add to the burden of the cost of living, and I very sincerely regret that it was found necessary in this Budget to levy this additional tax, in view of the fact that the price of petrol has been increased in the last three Budgets.
    Reference has been made to the effect of this increase on fares generally. The burden of the increase in fares has been borne mainly by London. I know that transport from London reaches out to Southend and other districts, but in my constituency of Croydon, North, people have had to bear fare increases, not of 40 per cent., but of as much as 80 and 100 per cent. I have received over 150 letters from constituents complaining of this fact.
    At some stage or other this additional burden, however one may try to alter costing, must be passed on to the public. It is essential that the Chancellor should realise that if this increase in the price of petrol has to be levied, it is something of which we want to hear the end in future years. We have reached the stage when we know that with the appearance of each successive Budget we are going to have an increase in the cost of petrol.
    If the ordinary car user finds things getting tight and difficult, he may decide to use his car a little less often. He may
    1470
    find the answer to his difficulty by using his car every two or three Sundays instead of every Sunday. But that sort of retrenchment cannot be applied in the case of transport generally, and the extra cost has to be added to the cost of articles manufactured and to general transport, and it eventually results in higher prices all round.
    I think this is a most dangerous tax. It will add to the burdens of industry, which has already experienced serious increases in its transport charges. Over the last five or six years transport has gone up out of all proportion, and therefore I should like to have a definite assurance from the Chancellor that petrol will not be further taxed in each successive Budget. On average, the cost of petrol in this country is some 20 per cent. above the cost of petrol in other countries. That is not a good thing when we are seeking export markets, because in the long run it makes competitive manufacturing more difficult.
    I am very distressed indeed that it has been found necessary to levy this increased duty. I think my own views on the matter are reasonably well known, and before the Chancellor finishes with this part of the Finance Bill I hope he will give us some assurance that this is not going to be an annual event. I feel that those of us who have spoken against this further increase have been fully justified in doing so, and, as I say, I should like to get something definite from the Chancellor regarding future policy in this particular field.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: It is significant that the two speakers on the benches opposite have opposed this increase in the Petrol Duty, but at least they are being more consistent than their right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and more honest. The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), said that the increase of the Petrol Duty had become a very easy means of raising revenue. He might have added that there is always the danger that once a tax becomes too easy to increase, it is never decreased.
    In moving this Amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), referred to the inconsistency of the Government in setting

    1471
    themselves up at the present time as protagonists in the cause for cheap fares and at the same time raising the Petrol Duty, because of its effect upon fares generally throughout the country. I believe that after Monday's debate on the question of fares, the travelling public, particularly in London, had a sense of anticlimax. They had seen the Prime Minister intervene in the question of fares and they had been given the impression that they were to be relieved of a considerable portion of the additional burden imposed upon them. But after the debate had taken place, it became quite clear that, not only was London not going to be relieved of more than a small fraction of the increased burden imposed upon it, but that in the long run fares in London would inevitably rise still further in view of the imposition of this additional fuel tax.
    What does the Government's intervention amount to as far as fares are concerned? Certain concessions are proposed regarding sub-standard fares in London which will result in a relief of only £500,000 per annum. That is what the Home Secretary stated and what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport confirmed in winding up the debate. This means that London is being extremely unfairly treated, especially in view of the fact that London will suffer most as the result of the increased Petrol Duty now being imposed.
    Under the scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal, £18,500,000 was to be taken in increased farces from the travelling public throughout the country. Of that £18,500,000, £13,500,000 was to be taken from London, and that extra burden is already being imposed on the travelling public in London. But in the rest of the country the increase, so far, has only amounted to £3 million. That increase was imposed on 1st January with the rise in the monthly returns. The travelling public outside London are now to be relieved of the balance of £2 million.
    London, therefore, is already bearing the largest portion of the increase in fares and is apparently going to suffer even more because of the very large amount of road transport used by the travelling public in the Metropolis. I consider, in view of the great increase in fares in London and in view of the additional
    1472
    burden which this tax will impose upon the travelling public in London, that this matter should be looked at again to see whether the relief proposed to be given in the rest of the country should not be applied in equal or even in greater measure to London.
    Although the Central Transport Committee has accepted the scheme proposed by the Transport Tribunal, I think that, in view of this increased tax, the matters which have been the subject of much protest in London, such as the abolition of the 4d., 7d. and 10d fares, should be reconsidered, and the imposition of the excessive increases limited to 42 per cent., as was to be the case in the rest of the country.
    It is a masterpiece of inconsistency on the part of the Government to pose as the champions of the travelling public, to intervene and give the impression that they are going to come to their relief, but to do it in very small measure and at the same time impose this duty. They can only be as ineffective as was King Canute's attempt to hold back the incoming tide. But whereas nobody could blame King Canute for failing to do so, the Government are actually encouraging the tide to come in.
    The position of the British Transport Commission is bound to worsen as a result of the imposition of these duties. It will not only deteriorate financially because of the greater charge that will be imposed through the increase in the duties on petrol and other fuel, but the Commission will also suffer through their passenger road services in the provinces, in Scotland and, of course, through London Transport. They will suffer, too, from the effect of these duties on the Road Haulage Executive, that is, on British Road Services.
    The British Road Haulage Executive will have an additional burden of £2,500,000 to meet as a result of increasing the duty by 7½d. a gallon. Last year, according to the Home Secretary on Monday, the Road Haulage Executive made an operating surplus of roughly £3 million. The imposition of these increased duties means that that operating surplus will be very largely eaten into. In other words, the British Transport Commission will lose £2,500,000 in revenue which they would otherwise have received from the Road Haulage Executive.

    1473
    Incidentally, the £3 million is not simply a contribution to central charges, as the Home Secretary suggested on Monday, implying thereby that the Road Haulage Executive was not operating at a profit last year but was only contributing its share to central charges. The £3 million which the Road Haulage Executive made last year was an operating profit and the central charge which the Executive has to meet is, in effect, a payment of dividend out of profit. The central charge results from compensation which had to be paid following the taking over of a large number of undertakings on very generous terms.
    The British Transport Commission will suffer materially from these increases in duties. If, at the same time as they lose revenue from their road haulage organisation, from London Transport and from the bus undertakings throughout the country in which they have an interest, the Government proceed with a policy of de-nationalising part of the British Transport Commission, then the burden which will be imposed on the transport user, whether he is a trader or shipper of goods or a member of the travelling public, will be one which will be extremely difficult to bear.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North, pointed out, the rise in the Petrol Duty last year brought that duty pretty well up to the limit. And the burden which the trader and the road user is being asked to carry today is one which is out of all proportion to the amount which is being spent on maintaining a safe system of roads throughout the country. It is estimated, for instance, that more than £220 million will be collected in duty on motor fuel at 2s. 6d. a gallon, plus a further £100 million a year in licence duties and Purchase Tax—a total of not less than £320 million from road users this year.
    As against that total revenue from taxation imposed on road users, only some £75 million are to be spent on the upkeep of the roads during the financial year. The Petrol Duty, if it is to be justified, would be justified if it were used for improving the road system of this country. The amount of money which is being spent on improving our roads is vastly inadequate compared to the danger which exists on those roads. If we were told that this increase was to be spent on improving
    1474
    the roads, one would be perhaps a little less emphatic in opposing it.
    The Government are behaving in a most inconsistent manner in imposing this duty. The travelling public will realise pretty soon that the pose of the Prime Minister, in particular, as one looking after their interests and intervening in this situation to bring relief to the travelling public of London was just a fraud and a deception. By the time that has come home to the people of London and the country and fares have gone up they will know how to judge the situation.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I feel a good deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has just said about the disproportion between the money exacted from road users in the form of duty on petrol, licence duty and one thing and the other, and the actual amount spent on the roads. I have always thought there was a very strong case for a very substantial reduction, or redress of that position, and I hope that before long we shall achieve it, if possible in the reorganisation of transport that is likely to take place at an early date.
    Furthermore, I do not think anybody who takes an interest in road problems and the finances of the British Transport Commission can look upon the continual elevation of the Petrol Duty with any enthusiasm whatever. I support much of what has been said on this side of the Committee about hardship caused to industry generally and to the transport industry and to road users. There are many thousands, perhaps millions, of people who have recourse to private vehicles or road public service vehicles who will have to face in due time an increase in charges.
    But I thought the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), rather beat the pistol in saying that there had been actually an increase in transport charges as a result of the latest increase in the Petrol Duty. We have been threatened by the Public Vehicle Operators' Association and other bodies concerned that they are bound to put up their charges in time; but it cannot be said that so far any transport fares in the country have gone up as a result of what the present Government have done.

    1475
    4.30 p.m.
    I plead with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in due time and season, when the financial position of the country has eased somewhat, he will make a substantial reduction in the Petrol Duty. The hon. Member for Enfield, East, talked about a limit having been reached last year. I do not know what he has in mind in his reference to a limit. Certainly petrol is still flowing into this country, and the revenue from it is still coming in. If he means that it is beginning to bear hardly on people in general, then I am with him, and I hope that there will be an early reduction.
    But this Committee is not a committee sitting on the transport industry this afternoon. We are a Committee on the Finance Bill, and we must have regard to fiscal and economic issues. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, put up a very specious case, I thought. He ignored altogether the main design of my right hon. Friend's Budget; and he ignored altogether the grand design of operations intended to redress the overseas balance of trade and to bring some order into our international currency position.
    So far as the design of the Budget is concerned, my hon. Friends who have been able to congratulate the Chancellor on being able to give tax concessions in the Income Tax range this year might not have been able to do so if the over-all amount received in the Budget had been reduced by not having an increased Petrol Duty. The fact that we have this increased Petrol Duty means that my right hon. Friend has a certain amount more money which he can give in direct taxation reductions.
    But surely the main consideration is the overseas balance of trade position. We are faced with an immense and continuing dollar and gold deficit, and one of the taxes to which it is most convenient to have recourse in redressing that situation is the Petrol Duty. Formerly that was not so much the case. Up to last year, I think that only 12½ per cent. of the tax received from petrol could be classed as saving us gold and dollars: but, thanks to the inept foreign policy pursued by the Socialist Government last year, that dollar content has now gone
    1476
    up to something like 25 or 30 per cent. The fall of Abadan is the real reason why the people of this country have this year to put up with an increased tax on petrol; and let everybody who uses the roads, and everybody who is concerned in industry who uses oil and petrol, realise that the chief architect of this year's increased tax is none other than the right hon. Member for Lewisham. South (Mr. H. Morrison). If it had not been for his futile handling of events in Persia, we should not have had the increased tax this year.
    Mr. E. G. Gooch: I wish to take the Committee away from the crowded city streets and out into the green fields; in other words, I wish to support this Amendment on agricultural grounds. One of the main problems facing the agricultural industry today is in endeavouring to bring down costs. I know I shall be reminded, because of the interest I take in this matter, that one of the mounting costs in recent years has been that of wages, but I have yet to find an hon. Gentleman on either side of the Committee who would dispute that the men who work in the industry are entitled to good wages.
    The increased Petrol Duty is a cost which should never be passed on to the agricultural and horticultural industries. I am not asking the Chancellor to put more feathers in the bed. All I am asking him to do is to deal out a fair measure of justice to the agricultural industry. I know the Committee realises that petrol is used extensively by farmers and market gardeners in tractors and similar equipment. But apart from its use as tractor fuel, it serves for use in harvesting machinery and combines, as well as for stationary engines pumping water, generating electricity, operating milking and threshing machines, and in a variety of cultivators and other mobile and stationary equipment on smallholdings.
    There were some 53,000 farm tractors and 45,000 market garden tractors operating on petrol in 1950. I cannot say how many there are today, because I understand that the census is taken every few years, and the latest figures will not be available until July, but I suggest that there are many more tractors operating on our farms today than there were in 1950.

    1477
    It is estimated that in 1952 some 62 million gallons of motor spirit will be consumed by tractors and stationary engines used by agriculturists and horticulturists in purely land operations, and 7½d. a gallon thus means a yearly cost to the industry of £1,937,500. The additional tax of 7½d. per gallon brings the total tax on motor spirit to 2s. 6d. per gallon, and the total revenue derived from purely land work will amount to £7,750,000 in a full year.
    I make the point, which I think is a fair one, that the tax on petrol was designed originally to create a fund for the construction and maintenance of roads. It was never intended to apply to the consumption of petrol on non-road operations. This principle has already been conceded, whereby petrol consumed in fishing vessels does not attract the tax. By the imposition of this tax on petrol when used in land machines, the Government have created what I regard as a very wide discrepancy between petrol and other fuels used on the land.
    This discrepancy has resulted in the taxation of engineering, and the manufacturers of tractors and agricultural machines have been concentrating on the design of engines to run on tax free fuels, and the users of tractors have, by virtue of the tax lost, what they regard as the freedom of choice. The existence of a discrepancy between the two types of fuels was acknowledged by the then Chancellor in 1950, and I should like to call attention to something he said in imposing the 9d. tax in 1950:
    "Certain agricultural operations are performed in some cases by vehicles or machines using fuel which is taxed and in other cases by vehicles or machines using an untaxed fuel. The additional duty now to be paid in respect of the former would involve a considerable extra cost to the farmer and an undue discrimination between the two types unless suitable measures were taken to offset the extra cost of running such vehicles or machines.
    I propose, therefore, that an annual grant should be paid in respect of each such vehicle or machine based on a reasonable assumption as to the average amount of taxed fuel which each type consumes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 75–6.]
    In taking that line the then Chancellor recognised the problem which would be created, and the rebate scheme to which I have referred operated, I think, for a year.
    In most progressive agricultural countries, such as Denmark, Sweden,
    1478
    Norway, Switzerland, Canada, the United States Of America, New Zealand, France and Ireland, petrol used for farm purposes is either exempt from duty altogether or given favourable tax treatment. I would not presume to speak for the National Farmers' Union, but I think that what I am saying today would have their sympathy and support. Many countries throughout the world are operating a petrol rebate scheme for the benefit of agriculturists and horticulturists. The scheme works in this way: the users of such fuel pay tax on the purchase price and then make application for a refund based on the amount consumed in non-road work.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the increased cost of petrol for agricultural work has already been taken into account in the prices fixed under the recent Price Review?
    Mr. Gooch: I am addressing my remarks through you, Wing Commander Hulbert, to the Chancellor.
    Mr. Nabarro: Surely the hon. Member can answer that question.
    Mr. Gooch: I shall be able to listen to what the Chancellor has to say when he gets up to speak. When the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is Chancellor of the Exchequer I will listen to him.
    I was talking about this rebate scheme and explaining that the users of this fuel pay the tax at the purchase price and then make application for a refund based upon the amount consumed in non-road work. The schemes in operation have apparently been so designed as to prevent abuse by the use of tax-free fuel in road vehicles. There is no doubt that similar schemes could be operated here.
    I hope that the Amendment which has been proposed so far as the use of petrol in farm machinery is concerned can be accepted. The Chancellor realises very well—as I do, living in an agricultural area—that we have to produce a lot more food. I think it can best be done by efficient methods. The increased petrol tax on farm machinery is a tax on farming efficiency, and we shall operate that tax at our peril. We cannot afford to run the risk and I hope, therefore, that the Committee will indicate their endorse-men of my view by voting for the Amendment.
    Mr. Julian Amery: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to criticise and express their disapproval of the way in which we seek to raise increased revenue; but I think it would be very gracious if they prefaced their criticisms and observations by some admission that they—or, at any rate, the late Government, which they supported—are at least in part responsible for the circumstances which oblige us to raise additional revenue.
    The need for raising such revenue arises not merely from higher prices; not merely from the fact of increased social benefits, pensions and family allowances, but also from the mistakes and blunders of the late Government which resulted either in a direct loss to the revenue or in a weakening of our sources of revenue. My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has just referred to the loss of Abadan and the effect that had on our balance of payments position, thus obliging my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to draw his Budget as he did.
    Turning for a moment to the more purely revenue aspect of the situation, I see from the returns that the increase in revenue which the Chancellor hopes to get from the petrol tax is about £65 million. It is a very large sum, but it is not so much larger than the loss in revenue to the Exchequer arising from the loss of the refinery at Abadan. It must be remembered that the Exchequer used to draw the tax on the profits of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the dividend accruing to them in shares in the company which they owned and also the Admiralty contract for petrol. It was a sum which was not very inferior to the sum it is hoped to raise by this tax.
    4.45 p.m
    I am not suggesting for a moment that the fact that one happens to lose money by losing a petrol asset in any way causes one to put a tax on petrol where it is distributed to commercial vehicles. There is no direct connection of that kind. Nevertheless, the fact that a loss of revenue arising out of the loss of a petrol asset should lead to an increase in taxation upon petrol may help to remind us and the public that weak and vacillating foreign policies inevitably lead to heavier burdens upon the masses of the people.
    Mr. Jay: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to Abadan, I should like to ask him if he is aware that the oil—temporarily, we hope—lost from Abadan is now being replaced to a considerable extent by oil from other sources in the Middle East and that the dollar content of our imports is now going down? Will he also tell us, as he never has done, whether the Conservative Party would, in the last resort, have used force to maintain our position at Abadan?
    Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman raises two very interesting points. First, he says that we are replacing the oil supplies. I was not talking about the loss of oil. I was talking about the loss of revenue incurred by the Treasury by the loss of a company which the Treasury tax and in which the Treasury has a very large share. The right hon. Gentleman also asks what I have to say about the strategic and diplomatic aspects of the question—
    The Temporary Chairman (Wing Commander Hulbert): We must not debate Abadan.
    Mr. Amery: I only wanted to say, had it been in order, that I would very gladly have debated that point.
    I regard this tax as an evil but necessary one. It is a necessary evil imposed upon us by the mistakes of the previous Government. All I would urge is that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should have the honesty, when talking about this tax in the country, to call it by what I suggest is its true name—the Abadan tax.
    Mr. J. Grimond: The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have been much encouraged so far by the speeches made from his side of the Committee, although in the last two speeches there has been a certain warmth and a measure of support, if not for the tax itself, at least for Conservative policy in regard to other events which hon. Gentlemen opposite allege have led us to this tax. However, anyone who believes that the financial situation is certainly serious and certainly requires severe measures has to meet a two-fold case. First, there is the point that the Chancellor requires the revenue, and secondly and alternatively, that the Chancellor cannot afford to go on spending so many dollars for oil.

    1481
    As to the revenue point, I am bound to say that when the Conservatives were in opposition it was their invariable answer, when they were asked how they would replace any tax which they said was a bad one, to say that it was not their business to suggest how it should be replaced. They said it was their business to criticise the proposals put forward by the Government and not to make other proposals of their own. If they were pressed absolutely to the wall, they usually fell back on the assertion that anyway £200 million, £300 million or £400 million could be saved in Government administration and the loss could be replaced from this.
    I agree with both those points of view. I do not see why I should not rely on them, but if one is to be fair I think one has to say that, rather than have this tax, if the revenue is essential it would be preferable to raise that revenue by other taxes or forgo other concessions which the Chancellor has made. I think everyone would agree that the more serious matter is the apparent loss of dollars for oil. Apparently, it was extremely serious last year. In the Economic Survey; on page 9, is given the United Kingdom balance with the dollar area, and apparently the net invisibles moved from a surplus of 14 million dollars in the first half of the year to a deficit of 283 million dollars in the second half of the year. I expect that a considerable amount of that may have been due to the oil situation.
    Anyone who accepts the position that the Budget must be drastic is bound to meet that point, therefore; but a partial answer has already been given from the Chancellor's side of the Committee. To begin with, it has been pointed out that a great deal of the petrol which is used must be used, and especially must it be used if we are to maintain and then increase our exports. In his financial statement on 29th January, the Chancellor himself admitted that
    "A good deal less than half the consumption of motor spirit is by private motorists, and not very much of this is used for pleasure motoring."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 49.]
    If this is a tax to achieve economy in the use of petrol, therefore, it will be at the expense of essential users and of industry. We have often heard it argued, and quite rightly, by the Conservative
    1482
    Party when they were in opposition that transport charges enter into every stage of production and are a considerable burden on the very goods we want to send abroad.
    Mr. Charles Pannell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor that something like half is used on ordinary motoring? I think 85 per cent. is used by the commercial user.
    Mr. Grimond: I am quoting the Chancellor.
    Mr. Pannell: He is quite wrong.
    Mr. Grimond: He may be quite wrong. What I do not think he can deny is that if the tax is to be effective in saving dollars, it can only be as a result of cutting down essential transport. Again, it has been pointed out that there is a very great discrepancy between the statements by the Government that they are anxious to keep down the fares and a tax which must have the direct effect of putting them up.
    I should like to make a comment on one remark made earlier, and that is the tendency for all increases always to be passed on in full or even a little more than in full. Some of us who believe in private enterprise are very nervous about that tendency and we wonder whether it is essential every time the tax is increased to pass the burden on in full. I do not think a case can be made out for the tax even on those two grounds—the only two grounds which can be suggested for the tax and which admittedly are strong ones.
    I should like further to refer to a point already made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) on the very serious effect which this tax will have on agriculture and on all the country districts. Those are the people who will feel the effect of this tax most heavily and most directly. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) suggested that the extra cost of petrol was taken into account in the recent price review. I agree that that may well be so, but only an over-all picture can be taken into account. In constituencies like my own, the charges are very much heavier than they will be in certain other parts of the country.
    Mr. Nabarro: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I readily confess

    1483
    that the fact that the increased Petrol Duty is taken into the calculations of the price review helps only agriculturists and does not help the horticulturists. It will have an effect in remote areas such as Orkney and Shetland, or, of course, Western Worcestershire.
    Mr. Grimond: In that case we shall look forward to the support of Western Worcestershire in the Lobby opposing this tax. If the Government are anxious to see the population in the North of Scotland maintained and to get more food from that area, then there is nothing more essential than bringing down transport charges. This tax is going in the opposite direction. Petrol is already 4s. 9d. a gallon in parts of my constituency, and it is an essential commodity before you can move at all; there is no railway, and petrol is essential to passenger carrying or any form of agricultural life in the area.
    There is an Amendment later on the Paper trying to exclude such counties from the effect of the tax. I see the very serious difficulty of doing anything like that, and the real answer is that, on balance, this is a bad tax for the country as a whole and particularly for certain areas which we are told the Government are anxious to help and into which they are already putting subsidies for certain purposes which are being more than cancelled out by rising freights. Those areas will be particularly hard hit.
    As a member of a party which the electorate, by some aberration, seldom entrusts with power, one is perhaps under a particular obligation not to vote against proposals merely because one knows they will be unpopular. After all, we could always do that. In this case, however, we feel—and we are fortified by the support which last year we had from the party opposite and which this year comes from the party on this side of the Committee—that a very powerful case has been made for saying that this increased tax will be a burden on industry, will damage our export trade and will do very great damage to the transport system of the country as a whole, and in particular, in the remoter areas.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am glad to have caught your eye, Wing Commander Hulbert, in two consecutive years rather early in the
    1484
    Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and of having had an opportunity on two consecutive years to speak on this rather controversial subject of the Petrol Duty. Already several hon. Members opposite have quoted the peroration of my speech last year, which was somewhat rumbustious in character as a result of the constant interruptions to which I was subjected by hon. Members opposite when they were seated on this side of the Committee.
    It is a fact that last year I said during my speech, in the last few words, that I should vote with joy and with energy against the increase in the Petrol Duty. My reason for saying that was that it appeared to me at the time of the Finance Bill last year that there was not the overriding need which was made out by the Government of the day to impose this additional Petrol Duty, and, at a time when inflation was still threatening, I thought the effort ought to have been made to reduce certain items of Government expenditure; and I did, during the course of the Finance Bill debate, venture to say which items of Government expenditure ought to have been reduced to provide a sum which, in revenue, would have approximately equalled the amount derived from the increased Petrol Duty.
    Before I pass to the main purpose of my speech may I make some reference to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who brought up, once again, the question of petrol prices in Western Europe. I have always taken the view that petrol prices in Britain should, if anything, be somewhat lower than those in any other Western European country, because we have immensely greater refining resources in the United Kingdom.
    Nevertheless, I want to correct the right hon. Gentleman in his statement to the general effect that our petrol prices in Britain today are consistently higher than Western European prices. That is emphatically not the case. I have the pleasure every year, if I can find the time, of motoring a few thousand miles in Western Europe to observe general economic conditions and to provide myself with suitable data for refuting the spurious arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The last time I was in Western Europe, a few months ago, the price of

    1485
    petrol in France was approximately 4s. 9d. a gallon and in Italy was over 6s. a gallon. The price of petrol in the cheapest market in Western Europe, Belgium, was a fraction under 4s. a gallon.
    On the general picture in Western Europe it is not incorrect to say that the price of petrol is higher than the increased prices in the United Kingdom. I do not advance that as an argument for increasing the Petrol Duty; I merely say that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, was incorrect in stating the contrary.
    Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman will look up the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly those on the Front Bench, he will find the refutation of all the arguments he is now adducing.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's memory is not as sound as it used to be. All he has to do if he wants to check my argument is to go into the Library and look up the prices of petrol in the various European countries.
    There is no doubt that the effect of this increased Petrol Duty will be felt slightly in every industry in the country, including the horticultural industry. I am the first to recognise that. I would not withdraw one jot from what I said last year in a similar debate on the effect on manufactured goods, on horticultural products, and so on—on the adverse effect of the increase in the Petrol Duty. But there is the undeniable fact that since last year economic conditions have very greatly changed. At this time last year, the dollar content of all the oil imports into the United Kingdom was only 12½ per cent. Today, the figure is estimated to be 27 per cent. It is true that the dollar content may now be falling very slightly, but it is still more than double what the dollar content of oil imports was at the same period last year, and the reason for that greatly increased dollar content is none other than the loss of the Abadan refinery.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite are guilty of the most gross hypocrisy when they attack my right hon. Friend for taking—not a desirable measure—but a necessary measure in discouraging the consumption of petrol in this country by
    1486
    taking one of two recourses. The recourse he has taken to discourage consumption is to put the price up; the alternative recourse, in my view, would have been to re-introduce the rationing of petrol, and that, in my considered opinion—although this view may not be shared in all parts of the Committee—would have been a far worse step, with all the inherent costs and complications, than the raising of the price of petrol to discourage consumption.
    Mr. F. Harris: How does this affect in any way the 80 per cent. used on commercial transport?
    Mr. Nabarro: By encouraging economy in the consumption of petrol and oil. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may scoff, but I have been in the happy position of being a road haulage operator for many years, and I know that as prices rise, as tax increases, as difficulties press upon the business and industrial community, the urge is for managerial executives to exercise the greatest possible efforts to economise in the consumption of such items as petrol and oil—
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: And charge for it.
    Mr. Nabarro: —and if they are successful in doing so it will benefit the national economy. The Chancellor's action in increasing the price, as an alternative to the rationing of petrol, with all the encumbrances of the bureaucratic control that would have been created—and the corruption—is, in my view, a very desirable step, and the right step.
    Let me pass for a moment to another consideration that has not been mentioned to any great extent—why we have the complaint that the increase in Petrol Duty is going to have such an adverse effect on all costs. It is true to say that since the war there has been an accelerated tendency for freight traffic to be transferred from the railways to the roads. One has only to look at the great increase in the number of C licences since 1945 to recognise that is the fact. At the end of the war there were something under 400,000 C licences in the United Kingdom. Today, there are something of the order of 720,000 C licences.

    1487
    While that may be a desirable state of affairs, a desirable development, none can deny in this Committee that the greatest single cause for the great increase in the number of C licences has been the inefficiency of the British railway system—the fact that manufacturers in so many different parts of the country find that they can get their goods from their factories to their destinations, or bring in their raw materials from the docks to their factories, by road haulage, using their own lorries under C licences, so much more economically and expeditiously than if the goods are transported by rail.
    It is futile for hon. Gentlemen opposite to point an accusing finger at my right hon. Friend for trying to check the ever increasing consumption of petrol for freight traffic on the roads by raising the price of petrol, when they themselves are responsible by their nationalisation Acts for the shocking state of affairs that exists on the British railway system today.
    Hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the Committee have referred to the fact that the Chancellor is raising an extra £66 million this year from the Petrol Duty. It is very desirable that he should do that and use as a complement, the incentives of Income Tax revisions to secure greater production in industry. Surely the outstanding feature of this Budget is that the great majority of skilled workers in this country and a large number of semi-skilled workers are very pleased indeed to have the opportunity of an increase in their net incomes and a reduction in the amount of P.A.Y.E. they have to pay week by week. I believe that has partly been made possible—not wholly, of course, but partly made possible—by the increased duty on petrol; and, inasmuch, it will be desirable, because it will economise in the consumption of a largely imported commodity whilst using the benefit fiscally provided for inducing greater incentive to increase production in our main industries, not the least important of which, of course, is the coal mining industry.
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has argued that the increased tax will bring in more revenue and that it will cause a substantial reduction in the consumption of petrol. If there is a substantial reduction in the
    1488
    consumption of petrol how will the Chancellor get an extra amount from the extra tax?
    Mr. Nabarro: What I said earlier was that the increased price will encourage economy in the consumption of petrol. What I have now stated, is the complementary feature—and I think that this is equally important—that the opportunity has been provided, in measure, to enable the Chancellor to provide incentives by revising the Income Tax and reducing P.A.Y.E. That is perfectly sound.
    Mr. Thomas: It is contradictory.
    Mr. Nabarro: There is no contradiction. The two are completely complementary. Had there not been this additional revenue from the Petrol Duty it is doubtful whether the incentive could have been provided, in the same measure, within the P.A.Y.E. system.
    In my view there is nothing whatever that is inconsistent between the attitude of the Members of the Conservative Party last year in opposing an increase in Petrol Duty and the attitude they take this year in supporting one. There is nothing inconsistent about it at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), is having a quiet laugh to himself. There are two right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench who are laughing, yet they were members of the guiltiest Cabinet in British history—the Cabinet that handed over the Abadan refinery. And the whole British nation will today have to pay the price for their measureless folly.
    Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I understood, Wing Commander Hulbert, that you ruled out of order the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) when he was replying to a charge about the Abadan refinery. Therefore, if we are to be debarred from replying either on that side or this, these assertions should not be bandied about.
    The Temporary Chairman: Had the hon. Gentleman continued I should certainly have called him to order.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that I was referring solely to the economic implications flowing from the loss of the Abadan refinery, whereas another hon. Gentleman earlier in the debate was

    1489
    referring to diplomatic matters? Surely it is in order to refer to the economic implications of the loss of this oil?
    The Temporary Chairman: It is in order to refer to Abadan so long as the references are to the oil position, but it is not in order to refer to Abadan to adduce political arguments.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: I am glad to have the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). If I had known that I was to do so, I should have taken the opportunity of reading in more detail what he said last year. I do not think that he has convinced the Committee of the reason for his change of attitude. He may have convinced himself; he has made a very valiant effort to do so. Whether he has succeeded in that I do not know, but certainly he has not succeeded in convincing anyone else in the Committee.
    The chief point at issue is not whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to do without the £66 million which this duty will bring in, but whether our economy can afford to have this tax. In a time of a rising cost of living, any tax which imposes a severe burden on the people and accentuates the trend is a bad tax. I should like to quote what was said by the present Minister of Works in this connection last year. I am sure that a good many Members on the Front Bench opposite rather wish that they had not said some of the things they said last year. The right hon. Gentleman said:
    "… it is wrong in conditions of rising prices to put a tax on the costs of production."
    He further said:
    "Those who vote for this duty tonight will be voting for a depreciation in our money. They will be voting to increase the cost of rearmament. And they will be voting to increase those hardships which accompany a rising cost of living, and which press most severely on those with large families and small incomes. Whatever may be the politics in this Clause, I think it must be offensive to the conscience of every one Of us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 837.]
    Perhaps the Government think that they have cured the rise in the cost of living. In "Britain Strong and Free" will be found a statement to the effect that it would be impossible to take off the food subsidies or reduce them at a time of a rising cost of living. But since the Chancellor has reduced them by £160
    1490
    million, perhaps we have to assume that the Government think that the rise in the cost of living has been stopped. But obviously no one in this country believes that, and the effect of this duty will only accentuate this rise.
    First of all, as has been said repeatedly, this duty will have a serious effect upon fares. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the present Leader of the House asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he had not heard of increased bus fares. I am quite confident that every hon. Member on the Front Bench opposite this year has heard of increased bus fares since the Prime Minister became responsible for transport. Obviously this will have an effect upon fares at a time when we are seriously considering the increases which have already been recommended.
    5.15 p.m.
    The present Leader of the House said in the debate last year:
    "I also bear in mind the consideration that road transport, surely above all else, is the life blood both of the defence programme and of industry. It is the one industry which ought not to suffer specific imposts."
    He also said:
    "I say that the need for cheap transport is paramount, and here we are deliberately forcing up its price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 824.]
    It will have a serious effect upon the price of food because of the increased costs of distribution and of production. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport last year described this as a food tax. If it was a food tax last year, then obviously it is a food tax this year. It is bound to increase the cost of food and it is bound to increase the costs of industry. It will increase the costs of industry directly, particularly those firms which are using oil; even small and medium-sized firms are in many cases using large quantities of the light hydrocarbon oils. A firm of dyers and cleaners in my own constituency uses 20,000 gallons of white spirit per year, and this duty will mean a serious increase in that firm's costs in the coming year. That can be multiplied by thousands of firms throughout the country.
    There is also an indirect increase in the costs of industry because of the increased transport rates. It will increase

    1491
    the cost of building new houses. The Government are still aiming at their target of 300,000 houses, I understand, and the increased price of petrol is bound to increase the building costs. It will also increase the cost of the distribution of coal. On whichever side of our economy we look, it means an increase in the present cost of living.
    The Coal Merchants' Federation of Great Britain estimate that for every penny per gallon cost of petrol, the cost per ton of industrial distribution is approximately three-tenths of a penny. It follows that the present tax of 1s. 10½d. represents a cost of about 7d. a ton in industrial distribution. The approximate figure for retail distribution is that for every penny per gallon cost of petrol the cost per ton is approximately half. A tax of 2s. 6d., therefore, represents 1s. 3d. a ton.
    If we consider this duty from the point of view of the cost of fares and transport generally, and the costs of food, building and fuel—in fact, from every aspect—we see that it is likely to send up the cost of living. I come back to what I said at the beginning of my speech. It is not so much a question of whether the Chancellor can afford to do without this £66 million, but rather whether our internal economy at the present time can afford to have this impost placed upon it.
    Mr. P. W. Donner: Listening to the speeches from the Opposition benches this afternoon, it is difficult to remember that it was the Labour Government which twice increased the duty on petrol. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in moving the Amendment, charged the Conservative Party with inconsistency in proposing this additional duty when last year most of us spoke against the increase in the Petrol Duty. But he did admit that much had happened since then.
    Unfortunately, owing to the rules of order, I cannot develop the argument, but I for one believe that the present increase in the Petrol Duty follows inevitably from the loss of the Abadan refineries. Indeed, at the time, I warned my own constituents that it was impossible to abandon and cast away our greatest single overseas asset without
    1492
    inflicting a deep injury upon this country and upon our people.
    This increase in the petrol tax is part of that injury. It is, as we all agree, going to increase the cost of transport and the cost of living in this country. For that reason, I should like to join with those who have already appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the hope that he will find it possible, when the balance of payments position improves, to reduce this tax which today we have unfortunately to increase.
    The fact that we have to increase it today is, in my submission, due to the actions and incapacity of the last Government. Indeed, that view is borne out and reinforced by the Economic Survey, page 15 paragraph 25, where we read:
    "Purchases of dollar oil to replace Persian oil have been costing the sterling area in this initial period over £100 million a year."
    That cost is an appreciable percentage of the drain on our gold and dollar reserves.
    On 11th March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in this House:
    "Since the main objective of the Budget is to relieve our balance of payments difficulties I must pay particular attention to a scarce product which costs us foreign exchange."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1296.]
    It is because he said that and because we must discourage consumption that some hon. Members on this side of the House have taken the view, with which I agree, that the only possible alternative was worse than increasing this tax. That alternative was to resort to rationing, which in our rural areas would be unfair and very unpopular and would, moreover, as we all know, involve the employment of 3,000 people in unproductive work. It is due to the mishandling of the Abadan story that we not only lose the oil which we got from Abadan but we lose the foreign exchange, including dollars, we earned by selling it.
    Mr. James Simmons: On a point of order. I think that you ruled, Wing Commander Hulbert, that Abadan could be mentioned from the economic point of view. The whole trend of the argument of the hon. Gentleman is on the political side of Abadan, and he has been using that argument for quite five minutes.
    The Temporary Chairman: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman and I am hoping that he will comply with my Ruling.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. Would you, Wing Commander Hulbert, please define exactly what you mean by this distinction? Apparently, hon. Members are entitled to refer to anything connected with oil but they must not get involved in politics. It is very difficult to talk about oil without getting involved in politics.
    The Temporary Chairman: My Ruling was that hon. Members should confine their argument about Abadan and relate it, as far as possible, to oil and the economic situation. It would be quite out of order to discuss military or political events.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: To give the specific figures which arise from the loss of Abadan is surely a quite essential economic aspect but not political.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Do I understand that it would be out of order for any hon. Member to refer to the causes of the loss of Abadan?
    The Temporary Chairman: It would not be in order to refer to the cause of the loss of Abadan, but the consequences thereof may be referred to.
    Mr. Donner: I was trying to keep within the Rules of order which you laid down, Mr. Hulbert. For once in my life, I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), when he said that it is very difficult to discuss this matter of economics without also impinging upon politics. I will do my best not to do so.
    I was saying that when we lost the oil of Abadan we also lost the foreign exchange, including dollars, which the sale of that oil brought us, forcing us to purchase dollar oil to an extent which the Economic Survey calculates to amount in value to £100 million a year in the initial period. It follows that it is impossible to view the loss of 32,300,000 metric tons of Abadan oil per annum and 18,000 barrels a day of aviation spirit without realising that that loss must impinge upon the economic situation of the
    1494
    cost of living of the people of this country.
    I will, owing to the Ruling which has just been given, pursue this matter no further, beyond saying in a single sentence, that the result of what was done by the late Government at Abadan has been to injure deeply capital investment in the Colonies and to hinder colonial development. Obviously this increased Petrol Duty must discourage consumption, though it is true that the greater part of that consumption is by commercial users and not by private cars.
    If the Opposition attempt to deny—as I understand they do—that the increased duty follows inevitably from the loss of Abadan, surely they will have the candour to admit that in that case this extra amount of revenue which is now being raised does also in fact help to finance the tax reductions and pay for the increased benefits and increased social services which this Budget includes. Therefore, the Opposition to this increased duty is in fact no more than a disreputable and unedifying attack upon the increased social services.
    Mr. Dryden Brook: Are we to understand that there is no relationship between the abolition or the slashing of the food subsidies and the concessions given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he related directly, in his Budget speech, to the taking away of the food subsidies.
    Mr. Donner: I do not think that the hon. Member was listening very closely to what I said. My argument was that the increased Petrol Duty followed inevitably upon the loss of Abadan, but the hon. Member, by some form of mental gymnastics, denies the truth of that. He cannot deny that this increased Petrol Duty does help to pay for the increased social services which this Budget gives to our people.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: In being called by the Chair for the first time since the end of 1946, I find myself encouraged by the observations of two hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this debate. I refer to the hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) and to the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris). I should like to tell them that, having known the anxieties of a Government

    1495
    Whip's office on the occasion of an important vote when the majority has not been too big, I can imagine the fluttering in the dovecotes as the Government Whips listened to the two speeches to which I have referred. I look with interest to see into which Lobby the hon. Gentlemen go a little later.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, North, was honest enough to tell us that he felt that the attitude adopted by the Government in connection with the petrol tax was inconsistent with the point of view expounded from these benches by the then Opposition last year, and that he would find it difficult to reconcile it with the things he had said on that occasion. I thought about going to the Library, looking up the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and using it in this debate because I thought it was really good.
    I want to speak for a few minutes on an aspect of the problem totally different from anything which I have so far heard in the debate. I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the Financial Secretary, to reconsider the question of the imposition of this very heavy petrol tax. I know the Chancellor will say that he is only doing what his predecessors have done. In this I agree again with the hon. Member for Croydon, North, that there seems to be a great temptation for all Chancellors to increase existing taxes. I am not sure whether it is really a good thing, whether it applies to petrol or anything else.
    We must reach a stage where the tax becomes penal, and I believe that this tax has now gone beyond the limits of economic possibilities and that there will result what we have so often argued in this House, the operation of the law of diminishing returns, and the Chancellor will probably not get the revenue he expects from it.
    5.30 p.m.
    I disagree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who argued in favour of rationing. I understood that the Chancellor increased the duty on this occasion not to try to discourage petrol consumption but in order to get revenue.
    Mr. Nabarro: I did not argue in favour of rationing. I said that the Chancellor's only alternative for discouraging petrol consumption was to impose
    1496
    rationing instead of a higher price, and that I thought the higher price would be preferable.
    Mr. Wilkins: I am not making a point of it. I merely say that I thought the Chancellor increased the duty with the intention of getting revenue rather than of discouraging consumption, although that will be its effect.
    I believe we have gone beyond the limits of real economic possibilities with the duty. I am not so much worried about the effects in so far as the British Federation of Road Users or industrialists are concerned. They have a very sound case, and they have particularly good advocates in this House to put their case. I want to direct attention to the ordinary working chap, the fellow who at week-ends takes his family into the country in a seven or eight horsepower car, very much like the one which I believe is owned by the noble Lord the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton). There are many thousands of such men.
    The Chancellor has dealt that type of man a double blow. He has first knocked him on the point of the jaw by increasing his Road Fund licence duty and he has then doubled him up, as he sinks to his knees, with a blow to his solar plexus, by increasing the Petrol Duty. It is significant that no protest on behalf of these people has been made this time—I believe for the first time since the end of the war—by the two motoring organisations who cater for them.
    I am a member of the A.A., and I recall the amount of correspondence I received in recent years about the "punitive" effects of increases in the Petrol Duty by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and our late colleague Sir Stafford Cripps. It is time someone said something here to protect and assist such people, and that is one of the reasons for the Amendment.
    I want to give four personal examples, which I believe the Financial Secretary will agree cover a fair cross-section of the general public. There is an immediate relative of mine who is a maintenance fitter in a municipal omnibus garage and is, therefore, not exceedingly well remunerated. He has an eight horsepower car. He is the secretary of a church and does an enormous amount of

    1497
    work for the church in fetching and carrying visiting ministers, and so on, and meets the cost of the petrol out of his own pocket. He gave up smoking towards the end of last year very largely because of the rising cost of living, and he has now come to the point where he must say, "I am afraid that I shall now have to sell my car. I can no longer run it."
    In my constituency recently there came to see me a lady who is blind because she is as yet unable to have a cornea grafting operation. After we had discussed a question relating to that, she said, "Do you think that you can do something in the House of Commons to persuade the Chancellor not to impose the additional duty on petrol? I am blind and I have many interests, some religious and some in connection with blind organisations, and my husband takes me about in a seven horse-power car, but he will now no longer be able to run it."
    I hope I may be excused for quoting my own case. I have a 10.9 h. p. car. I find that it is necessary. Hon. Members will agree that if they want to do their job efficiently and fulfil their engagements they really need a car of some sort in which to get about. I have been a smoker for 35 years. No one enjoys a pipe of tobacco more than I do—or rather, more than I did. I have come to the conclusion that I cannot afford both smoking and a car. I have had to make a choice, and I have chosen to keep my car because I believe that it gives pleasure to the whole of the family whereas my pipe gave pleasure only to me. The Chancellor has forced me to do that, and the result is that he has lost a considerable amount of revenue from me. That type of case can be repeated over and over again.
    I want to point out to the Committee and to the Financial Secretary the unsatisfactory way in which the duty applies. I want to quote the case of a businessman friend of mine. I hope he will not mind my doing so; at all events, I shall not mention his name. He has a very high horse-powered car and his Road Fund licence duty has hitherto been £23 per annum. That will now be reduced to £12 10s.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Next year.
    Mr. Wilkins: I said that it will be reduced. Does the hon. Member suggest
    1498
    that the Chancellor is likely to withdraw his proposals? My friend's Road Fund licence duty will be reduced by 10 guineas a year. It means that he can use at least 325 gallons of petrol before really being affected by the 7½d. increase in duty.
    What it means is, that while the fellow with a seven or an eight horse-power car has had his Road Fund tax increased by £2 10s. and in addition to that, on a consumption of 325 gallons of petrol, he will be paying another £10 10s., making in all £13, the man at the other end of the scale will be getting a present of £10 10s. a year from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I hope the Financial Secretary will at least give consideration to the points that I have put. I know they are only small points and are not concerned with high policy, but they represent the point of view of the people in this country who expect their interests to be protected by the House of Commons. I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree to look at the points I have put to him. We all have to bear our share of taxation and we accept that as a fact. Our country has to be run and we have to make provision for it. We must find the money in various ways, but it behoves us in this Committee to try to consider ways and means which will inflict the least hardship upon the community in general. I commend these cases to the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) said that he had not spoken in this House since 1946. I do not know whether to congratulate him on a maiden speech, but I suppose I should not. He is an interesting example of the demi-maiden. I liked his speech very much indeed. The Committee this afternoon seems to be in a Council of State mood, since although political arguments have been thrown across the Floor, everyone has approached the subject with moderation.
    I hope hon. Members will bear with me for a few moments if I address a word or two to the Committee generally. I cannot see any point in hurling charges of inconsistency across the Floor of the House. Circumstances have forced both sides to be highly inconsistent. If we come to think about it it is rather ironic

    1499
    that the speeches that were made by Conservatives in the last Parliament are made by Socialists in this, and vice versa, though whether it is conducive to respect for the House of Commons from the public at large is another question.
    What surprises me is that no one has drawn the obvious conclusions from it. The conclusion that I draw is this: we are here engaged in trying to raise revenue, but no single tax introduced by any Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever meet with approval from the other side of the Committee or indeed from this side. Any tax is most detestable and most unpopular. The obvious moral can be stated in a very few words. Government expenditure in this country has reached such a level that if any new tax is proposed it is bound to do harm and cause hardship.
    Our attention should be directed to trying to find measures of economy, but we are up against this dilemma, that if any particular measure of economy is suggested there will be an outcry from some section of the Committee, if not from every section, against the new economy.
    Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Member aware that on this side of the Committee we would all support an economy on the National Debt interest which would save the extra £70 or £80 million which the Chancellor is seeking? Would the hon. Gentleman support that economy?
    Mr. Nicholson: No, that is not a true economy. We have to find an economy in some branch or branches of actual Government expenditure. I hope I shall be in order when I say that during the debates on the Finance Bill we ought to be impressing upon our respective Front Benches that this country is overspending its income to such an extent that any taxation is bound to be inequitable and to cause hardship. I very much fear I am out of order and I shall sit down. The sooner all sides of the Committee realise that we have got ourselves into an impossible position with regard to taxation the better it will be.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Austen Albu: I hope the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) will forgive me for not following him as to the way in which this
    1500
    money is to be spent, for it would not be in order. I notice that the hon. Member sat down rather fast when he got on to that point. I agree with him that there is something slightly ironic about this debate, and I have no doubt that those who bear the burden of this sort of taxation and particularly those who are most concerned, like the motor industry, are saying, "Plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose." All Governments find petrol a very convenient method of raising money.
    Mr. Nicholson: I hope the hon. Member will support me to this extent—calling the attention of the Government and the Committee to the very excellent report that he has produced showing how quite large sums of State expenditure can be economised on. I should like to congratulate him on that publication.
    Mr. Albu: I thank the hon. Member very much, and I hope the Government will take note of those items where they can really save money without interfering with very useful policy. It would not be in order for me to pursue this any further, but I thank the hon. Member for his kind words.
    The question of the direct level of tax on any particular commodity, particularly hydrocarbon oils, is an important matter. It is something we have to consider in relation to all other taxes. Certainly while the control of imports is still necessary there must be a control of the price of petrol. If there were no Government control of price under conditions of free competition, it might reach a higher figure than it is going to reach even when this tax is imposed. We on this side of the Committee are in agreement that the price of petrol and the price of hydrocarbon oils generally should come under Government control and should be fixed by Government decree.
    What we have to take account of are the considerations that must be borne in mind when the price is fixed as it will be fixed by this tax. If there were no tax and if there were free competition, I rather imagine that the profits that would be taken by the oil companies would be so excessive that even hon. Members on the other side of the Committee would find themselves rising to their feet to protest. We agree that part of the price the public pays for petrol should be paid

    1501
    in taxation, but when we come to the actual considerations which have to be taken into account when fixing the level of taxation and, therefore, the price of petrol, there are several points to be borne in mind, most of which have already been mentioned.
    The first was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in his opening speech, when he drew attention to the fact that the world price outside the United Kingdom is 3s. 9d. and now the average price in the United Kingdom is going to be 4s. 3d., whereas before this new tax came into operation—
    Mr. Osborne: It is higher in Europe.
    Mr. Albu: I am talking about the world price, not the Western European price. After the tax imposed last year by the Labour Government, the price was still below the world price, that is to say, 3s. 7½d.
    The other main considerations which have to be borne in mind are the necessity for the Government to raise revenue and the possibility of reducing the home consumption of an imported commodity. I should like first of all to consider for a moment whether there was, in fact, need to raise revenue and if there was, whether it was necessary to do it in this way? The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) was extremely interesting because it brought out in a homely manner what is, in fact, not only the effect of this imposition on motorists but the total effect of this Budget, taking all the impositions and the reliefs together, in regard to the distribution of income to those who are worse off and those who are better off. I would not like to try to follow him in the extremely homely examples he gave but which seemed to me to put the case very well.
    If we pass the Bill, we shall have a very considerable reduction in direct taxation and considerable increases in indirect taxation. One form of increased indirect taxation is the removal of the food subsidies and this tax which we are now considering is a further increase in indirect taxation. It is generally held that an increase in indirect taxation and reliefs in direct taxation are a form of regressive taxation and provide reliefs for the better off and additional burdens on
    1502
    those who are worse off. When one takes into account the removal of the food subsidies, and the undoubted increase in transport fares which must take place when the full effects of the tax we are discussing has been felt, then the total effects must be a substantial increase in indirect taxation.
    It has been claimed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side that the taxation has been imposed in order to raise the social services and to provide other forms of relief. I would draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the reliefs which are now given in direct taxation amount to £181 million this year and to more than £130 million in a full year and that they are practically all going to people in the higher income levels. On the other hand, in addition to the £160 million-odd increase resulting from the reduction in food subsidies and such other increases in prices as may have to take place later in food and transport, there is a further increase of £66 million due to this tax.
    My hon. Friends have already referred to the effect of the tax on the British transport Commission and other road services. The Commission has estimated that the total effects will be something like £5 million to £6 million in a year. As a representative of a London constituency, with large numbers of constituents travelling long distances from the outskirts of London to the centre, I am very concerned about the increase of more than £1 million which has to be found by the London Transport.
    I am told that the Transport Commission estimate that the increase in taxation, in steel prices and in National Insurance contributions will add to the burden on the Transport Commission alone—it is only part of the transport system of this country—about £10 million in a year. This will all have to be put on to the cost of goods and services and to the expenses of the people who are travelling to work.
    If the special classes which are being protected by the Prime Minister by his intervention in the transport discussion continue to be protected, the whole of the charges will fall on the general travelling public. This is a very important consideration when we consider how the transport charges should be allocated. Incidentally, it was Member from the other side of the Committee who referred to the fact that the public vehicle proprietors, the

    1503
    private road haulage transport contractors, have said that this tax undoubtedly will mean an increase in charges.
    I am very glad to have seen in a speech made the other day by an official of the Road Haulage Executive that, owing to the very great increase in efficiency which the Executive have been able to bring about in road haulage during the past year, they are not going to increase the charges made by nationalised road haulage. It remains to be seen what the full effect of these charges will be. I hope that the Executive will be able to continue to maintain their present charges and make the profit that they have been making at the present time.
    Hon. Members have referred to the effect of the increased charges in the many industries where oils are used as a basic raw material. I do not want to follow them in that argument, but I would ask the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I am glad to see is now coming in, whether they will see if some way can be found to exempt road passenger transport from these charges. Some of my hon. Friends have put down Amendments dealing particularly with Diesel oil. It may be that here is a way of distinguishing between the fuel that is used in road transport and road haulage and other fuels. The increase in the number of Diesel-engined vehicles is very great indeed and is continually increasing, particularly in road transport. In London it is already 100 per cent. but in many fields it is increasing both in passenger transport and in heavy road haulage.
    One other matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in regard to the use of Diesel and heavy oils on the railways.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is going a little wide of the scope of this discussion.
    Mr. Albu: I thought you said, Sir Charles, at the beginning of the debate that it would be better to deal with all these points in one debate.
    The Chairman: No; I simply pointed out that I would select the first Amendment and that the Amendments selected afterwards would not be debated at length.
    Mr. Albu: I hope I shall be able again to catch your eye because there was one point I wanted to make in particular about the effect the tax might have. This is not specifically referring to passenger transport but to Diesel-engined locomotives and to gas turbine development on the railways. There is a very considerable increase in the use of heavy oils in this way.
    The Chairman: I propose selecting the Amendment at the top of the page 597, which covers all Diesel oil.
    Mr. Albu: I shall not pursue that matter any further, Sir Charles.
    Coming back to the general argument, I think this tax might be reasonable if the country were suffering from a really gross inflation, but the Chancellor has told us that he expects that we might be getting into the reverse situation and be in danger of a slump. Artificially to raise prices by removing subsidies and increasing indirect taxation I should have thought to be a wrong policy at the present time.
    It is not necessary for me to quote words used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in last year's debate. Other hon. Members have done that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) did it very effectively on the Second Reading of the Bill. I want only to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have repeatedly voted, and particularly in 1950 and 1951, against increases in this taxation. On the whole, the tax has had a very bad reception from Government supporters and I hope that on this occasion they will support our Amendment.
    Mr. Christopher Hollis: I am glad to be following the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). I should like very much to go into this large question of the relative merits of direct and indirect taxation, and I might almost be tempted to stretch your patience, Sir Charles, to see how far I could go. If the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) were in his place, it could be even more interesting, because I have exchanged opinions with him across the Floor of the Committee on previous occasions. He has held very different views from those held by the hon. Member for Edmonton about indirect taxation.

    1505
    The hon. Member threw out the generalisation that this is a form of taxation which falls most heavily upon the poorer sections of the community. That may be true in regard to indirect taxation upon a necessary food or something like that, but whatever may be the merits and demerits of the tax that we are now discussing I should certainly have thought that that was not true of it. Admittedly an increase in the price of petrol in itself bears hardly upon every section of the community but, between the two, on the whole it bears more hardly on the rich than on the poor. Whatever else may be alleged about this tax, I should not have thought that argument was a valid one.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Albu: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? He has probably seen the figure, but 85 per cent. of the petrol is used in industry, and one presumes that most of that enters finally into the cost of consumer goods and, therefore, into the goods consumed by the mass of the people.
    Mr. Hollis: I do not think we need delay the Committee on this point. I admit it affects every person but, between the two, the products of industry on the whole are bought more by the rich people than by the poor. The hon. Member does not dispute that, does he?
    Mr. Albu: I am sorry, but I do. There are many more poor people than rich. The rich are a small part of the population.
    Mr. Hollis: But I do not think the hon. Member can say it is a tax which falls with special severity on the poor. We all admit it is a tax which everyone dislikes; in fact, everyone dislikes every tax. The point I want to explore is this. I represent a constituency which includes a large part of the suburbs of Swindon, and one of the most persistent arguments brought before me during the recent Election was that the railways must be preserved as a strategic necessity—

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Whereupon The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Metropolitan Police (Borrowing) Powers Act, 1952.

  2. Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1952.

  3. Export Guarantees Act, 1952.

  4. Hydro - Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1952.

  5. Miners' Welfare Act, 1952

  6. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1952.

  And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:
  Church of England Pensions Board (Powers) Measure, 1952.

  FINANCE BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (1)—[Mr. Jay.]
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hollis: As I was saying, I happen to represent a constituency which includes a large area of the suburbs of Swindon and which has a very considerable railway vote. One of the most persistent points that was put before me again and again at meetings during the last Election, with great courtesy and force, was this. I was told that the railways were, in the first place, a strategic necessity and secondly, that they were in a bad way. Thirdly, I was told that they were in a bad way because, obviously, to some extent they had lost traffic to the roads but that they had

  1507
  lost much more traffic than they need, or should, have done on economic grounds because road transport operated at a great and unfair financial advantage over rail transport.
  I was told that the railways have to maintain their own permanent way, whereas people who journey by road travel on a road which is maintained at public expense. I pointed out that the motorist, at any rate, made his contribution in taxation by the motor tax and through the petrol tax. But while that was true, I was told, the motorist's contribution was not nearly large enough, and road transport was unfairly advantaged.
  I do not say that I agree altogether with that argument. Obviously, when we are talking about fair shares, it is very difficult always to know exactly what is a fair share; but that perfectly honour-able and coherent argument was put before me 10 or a dozen times during the course of the Election. There were only two conclusions that I could deduce from that. One was that it must be the policy of the Socialist Party to subsidise the railways, or it was not; and if it was not, it must be their policy in some way or other to make road transport more expensive—either one must be made cheaper, or the other must be made more expensive.
  We have now been told by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), that it is not the policy of the Socialist Party to subsidise nationalised industries. If that whole argument was a fair and coherent one—I am not saying whether it was, but it was put forward as such—why is it not a mere act of justice to bring road transport up to a cost which would mean that what is, according to that argument, a reasonable proportion of the nation's business would go back again on to the railways and thus the railways would be kept fully occupied, which it is necessary that they should be for strategic reasons?
  That was a perfectly coherent argument. I did not altogether accept it, although I was interested in it, but I came away with the very definite impression that that was what my Socialist friends believed. If that be so, I cannot see why there is such a fuss now at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done,
  1508
  although he has done it for quite different reasons. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend was quite right.
  Mr. Pannell: The reaction this afternoon of hon. Members opposite to the petrol tax is rather curious. I was pleased when the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), made his contribution; at least, he was consistent with a quotation I have from a speech in which I interrupted him two years ago. I do not think, however, that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who is not now in his place, is at all to be congratulated on consistency.
  As I said in a previous debate, the noble Lord spoke in 1948 in favour of an increase of 2s. or 3s. in the tax when no proposal to increase it was before the House. In 1951, the noble Lord spoke bitterly—I have a full quotation, but will not weary the Committee with it—against an increase of 4½d. This year, of course, the double somersault has been done, and for various reasons and irrelevant considerations the noble Lord on the side of the Government comes down again for the tax. I said on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill that that shows what a stern unbending Tory can do when he goes in for acrobatics. I think that is a quite fair comment. The other speech we have had in favour of this increase was from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and I would ask him to read the speech he made last year.
  The considerations today are quite different from those of last year. To support raising the tax on a commodity with a low price of about 2s. 2d., as I think it was two years ago, is very different from raising it to 4s. 2½d. Whereas last year we were pegging the food subsidies at a cost of £410 million and financing them by a tax on petrol, this year the food subsidies have been cut by £160 million and prices have been allowed to run free.
  Although my opinion on this subject is well known to my party, I think it reasonable to point out that the position last year was very different from that of this year. In case any hon. Member asks why I voted in favour of the tax in the last two years, I would say that that was the main consideration. I still have the advantage over hon. Members opposite that at least I had the grace to keep my

  1509
  mouth shut and I am not on record to be quoted.
  Everyone knows that the petrol tax is inflationary in its incidence. If a tax is put on cigarettes or a bottle of whisky—that may interest hon. Members opposite far more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—it interests my hon. Friends as well, but I am trying to get points of agreement—the matter is finished with. But when a tax is put petrol it is completely inflationary. It not only affects the man travelling to work, but the distribution of foodstuffs and a series of commodities which we need. One does not have to state these cases, because they were stated with such coherence and force by hon. Members opposite last year.
  I also find a curious inconsistency here between the fact that this tax is being put on and supported, presumably, by hon. Members opposite, and the statement made by the Home Secretary on Monday on fares. When all is said and done, when we are discussing fares we must bear in mind the considerable time lag by the time procedural steps have started—the application for increase of fares and the inquiry. Those fare increases were based on the price of petrol and fuel prevailing at the time.
  Of course, we run into very different circumstances now and this tends to heighten the difficulty and start another long series of fares increases. I understood, Mr. Bowles, from the Ruling of your predecessor, that it would be possibly out of order for me to go into questions of the Diesel effects of this consideration and I will pass on to other matters, but I wish to say that, of course, it is an element in the general tax we are speaking about today and it is rather difficult to separate it.
  I think it is time petrol was looked on in this country in the same way as coal, as an element in production. I find that 2s. 6d. tax on a gallon for Diesel oil is equal to a £25 tax on a ton of coal. That would mean on the "Flying Scotsman," running to Edinburgh, a tax of £213—£1 per passenger. It seems that road transport is a reasonable milch cow for successive Chancellors, but it is no use hon. Members opposite saying that transport is unaffected by these considerations; they are so much on the record.
  The right hon. Member who led for the Opposition last year, the present
  1510
  Leader of the House, rather sneered at Front Bench Members on our side and indicated that we had a pool of private cars and did not have to use taxis. He went on to refer to the increase in provincial bus rates and things of that sort. It is very difficult to sort out the many pages of quotations one has on this subject but, bearing in mind that we had a debate on Monday evening which ended with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport speaking, it is reasonable to refer to the remarkable contribution he made to our debates last year. He suggested that this was a food tax and went on to say that it was more than that—the tax on petrol was a contribution towards the sacred cow of the Socialists, British Railways, and an attempt to drive traffic off the roads. That was the sort of contribution we had then.
  It is not only a matter affecting London with which we are concerned, but a matter applying all over the country. There are so many pages of quotations I could use, but I am trying to hurry along. [Laughter.] It is a matter for hilarity, but if hon. Members had taken the trouble to read their own speeches, they would have laughed at the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Kidderminster.
  Sir Edward Boyle: For the sake of the feelings of the hon. Member and the time of the House, could we have the quotations circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Pannell: That is quite fair, but one has to put them in as evidence and one has to hold them here because one has been waiting to see these hon. Members rise this afternoon.
  If we consider the position of London transport, we find the same sort of thing as in the City of Leeds, which has an estimated deficit at the end of March, 1952, of £322,000. That deficit was based on the old price of petrol and, of course, last year the Elections were largely fought in Leeds on the question of transport fares. Wherever we look we find there are fares applications, and no one really believes that the Government have pushed off the increase of fares by the political manœuvre we saw on Monday, because someone has to pay for those increases in the long run, and they will fall not only on fares, but on foodstuffs and

  1511
  similar things. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) wants all the quotations in a compressed form, he need only read my speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  What are hon. Members going to do tonight? Presumably they will go into the Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "What you did last year."] I stated the very different circumstances last year. But they will go into the Lobby to put up the price of fares and of foodstuffs. I believe it was the late Earl Lloyd-George who said that they would go into the Lobby like dumb driven cattle. That is an understatement, because cattle are bovine, silly, stupid and obstinate. The hon. Gentlemen opposite represent a far faster type of animal. I believe that, as followers of "Rab," they are rabbits—reactionary rabbits—and that they will go into the Lobby in one big scuttle—a scuttle away from the smell of petrol fumes. It will show that their platitudinous attitude in the last two debates when they were in opposition, and their pranks and platitudes in opposition, were merely show, and the blatant ballyhoo and bombast so characteristic of the back-sliders opposite.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Osborne: I cannot hope to compete with the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) in his comic turn, and I should like to bring the Committee back for a moment or two to the tax we are considering. I do not think it does us any good to bandy the speeches of last year, for I, like the hon. Member for Leeds, West was silent last year and nothing can be quoted against me. Speeches can be quoted from both sides of the Committee, but it does not help us.
  This tax cannot be judged in isolation. It is part of the general Budget statement. I would remind hon. Members of a fact which from the tone of the debate this afternoon, one might think had been forgotten. This Budget is in a sense an emergency Budget. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have acknowledged the existence of the crisis we were facing. The nation was over-spending at over £500 million a year and our very employment and bread were in danger. That is the situation which this tax is assisting to put right, and I would ask
  1512
  hon. Members to remember that background when they consider this proposal.
  We all agree that taxes are unpopular and we wish that there were no taxes. Some people would choose some form of tax to be taken off and some another, but we could have a marvellous holiday if there were no taxes at all. However, considering the present financial background which we all admit, I would ask hon. Members what alternative they would propose to meet this emergency? The former Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year:
  "I have repeatedly said that the standard of living"—
  that is, of the people of this country—
  "would have to fall."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 357.]
  Let me repeat that statement.
  "I have repeatedly said"—
  said the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather in the line of thought of Sir Stafford Cripps, for which I respect him—
  "that the standard of living would have to fall."
  We have to face the reality of that cruel situation and this is one of the necessary steps that the Chancellor so often and so courageously forecast. I have one or two quotations of his rather leaner and hungry colleague—if I may say that about the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Not hungry.
  Mr. Osborne: Speaking from memory, I think it was in May on the Committee stage of the last Socialist Finance Bill, and, defending the re-armament programme against the Bevanites at that time, the previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury said re-armament could not be completed without lowering the standard of life of our people. Let us admit that this does involve lowering that standard. If hon. Members opposite do not, they are fooling our people and trying to get cheap votes at the local elections by going away from the facts which previously they admitted existed.
  But if hon. Members opposite do not like this form of taxation, or the lowering of the standard of life, what alternative do they choose? Would they rather have a more severe cut in the social services, and if so, where? Would they

  1513
  rather have the whole of the food subsidies removed, or a cut in old age pensions? They admit the crisis is there. This is one of the necessary steps which the former Chancellor said must be taken to meet the crisis. The only point I wish to make is that to look at this tax in isolation is to fool ourselves and to be unjust to the people of this country.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: I wish to bring the discussion back to agriculture and illustrate the effect that increasing the petrol tax will have, and will continue to have, on the mechanisation of agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. There are about 350,000 tractors in the country and approximately one quarter of them are driven by petrol. Considering the advances which have been made, particularly in the last few years, regarding Diesel tractors, this is a very high proportion, but there are two explanations. One is not very serious, but is an illustration of the initiative and enterprise of the farmers of our country.
  It will be remembered that during the war a new petrol-driven tractor was produced. It was popular among farmers because they found that if they got one and put it away in their barn and did not use it, they could convert the petrol coupons which they got for it to other purposes. There was a rush to buy this particular tractor which was at least satisfying to the sales manager of the company producing it, and which was stopped only by the introduction of coloured petrol.
  The other reason, which is much more serious and important, is that the petrol-driven tractor is efficient. It has a higher ratio of efficiency than the tractor driven by paraffin vaporising oil. The draw-bar power is greater and its high thermal efficiency is undoubted. It is more economic, because the amount of lubricating oil used is not so great as with the paraffin vapourising oil-driven tractor.
  The cost of running these petrol tractors has now become prohibitive, with the result that the small farmers, who, it is said, are now being recouped for these increased prices by the new price review—a statement which we are quite incapable of checking, because we have not yet seen the details on which the farm prices have been awarded and will doubtless have to wait another three weeks for
  1514
  them—these small farmers are finding that the costs are really quite prohibitive.
  I should like to give the Committee some examples. I assume that a petrol-driven Ferguson tractor, which is used very largely by small farmers, is operated for 10 hours a day for five days a week, and, on the basis of the petrol tax being 2s. 6d., it costs in a year £325 in tax, which is the equivalent of another driver, who never drives the tractor but who is on the wages list. That means £6 5s. a week in tax for running a tractor of this kind, and the recent increase of 7½d. in the tax on petrol amounts to £80 a year or 30s. a week in additional taxation.
  With what result? With the result that the sale of petrol-driven tractors, which have a higher efficiency and should be encouraged, is being depressed, and that agriculture has to turn over to paraffin vapourising machines, which are not so competent. The result is that a premium is being placed on inefficiency and more work is being put on the driver of the tractor, and this is a burden which the small farmer, trying desperately to increase his productivity, is finding a very serious one.
  The small farmer is also dependent on stationary engines, of which there are hundreds of thousands throughout the country. They perform all sorts of jobs, and particularly they are used to drive milking machines, and are playing a great part in this drive for the mechanisation of agriculture. I find that 93 per cent. of these stationary engines are on small farms, and we can easily envisage the situation of a small dairy farmer who has a dozen cows, which is somewhere round the average, and who is selling 20 gallons of milk a day. Under the price review, he will get another 2s. 6d. a day for his milk, and it will cost him 7½d. more, or 25 per cent. of that increase, in increased petrol tax alone. It is a burden on him, and it is unthinkable that it should be forced upon him at this particular time. He cannot turn over these stationary engines to other fuel. So it goes on right through farming and agricultural machinery generally.
  I wish now to refer to the combine harvester, and I have two of them. I have one with a 12-foot cut and another with a 8 ft. 6 in. cut, and they do approximately the same job in the same time.

  1515
  The extra tax on each of these, on the basis of cutting 25 acres per cutter-bar-foot, is £15 12s. 6d., or over £31 for two petrol-driven combine harvesters that will not work so efficiently on any other fuel.
  This direct charge on agriculture has a double effect. It costs the industry a lot more money which it should not have to pay. I understand that the Chancellor expects to get from agriculture £2.2 million more from the oil tax this year. But it also drives the farmer, and particularly the small man, to use a substitute for the petrol engine which is not as efficient and effective as the petrol-driven machine. At a time when manufacturers are trying to standardise the production of tractor motors so as to use them either in motor cars or tractors, their efforts are being frustrated, because the farmers are being driven into using second-best alternatives.
  It is for these reasons, and because I know that the Chancellor has the interests of agriculture so much at heart, that I ask him to look at this matter again, in order to see if some more attention cannot be given to the situation of the smaller farmer and some assistance given to relieve him of this unnecessary burden.
  6.45 p.m.
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor to what I think is an alternative method which we might consider in connection with this petrol tax. It is a lot to ask the Chancellor to give way when he has given a great deal of thought to the matter, but, nevertheless, last year, we said that this tax was going to put up the cost of living, and there is no doubt that it will. I did not speak in the debate last year, but I shared the views that were held at that time.
  There is no doubt that, if we have this tax on industry and on transport, it will increase the cost of living. I know that the Chancellor has his difficulties, now that we are not getting any oil from the Abadan refineries—we have heard about that in full measure—and that he has to save dollars and raise money to pay for the social services which the country wants and for which hon. Gentlemen opposite press so strongly. But why put up the cost of living by imposing this tax on transport and industry?
  1516
  Could not my right hon. Friend allow, with reasonable safeguards which the Treasury would soon be able to devise, a method whereby industry might claim back either the whole or a portion of the tax against the receipts for the amount of petrol which they have bought? The public would then pay the tax on pleasure petrol, and industry would get a rebate on the petrol used for necessities. Such a method would also obviate the necessity of a return to red and white petrol, which would be deplorable. I feel that the Chancellor, with his ingenuity, could easily find some way of allowing such a rebate.
  I should also like to see some concession made in regard to the use of hydrocarbon oils in the cleaning industry, because the new tax will increase the cost of every article which is cleaned in this country. We want to save our clothes, and avoid having to buy clothes more often, because we are trying to economise in this country today, but if we put this tax on dry cleaning it will mean that people will not be able to have their clothes cleaned as often as they have been doing, and we all know that clothes deteriorate if allowed to remain dirty, and that grit and other matter wears away the wool.
  If we cannot find a way of alleviating the burden of this tax on that industry, we shall be contributing towards a rise in the cost of living, and I would invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he replies to the discussion, to try to find a way of compromising or removing this tax from this industry, while leaving it to apply to all pleasure petrol.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I have listened with some interest to the cross-debate that has been going on, and I have noted how one side of the Committee has reminded the other of what was said and the arguments used during the debate on the last Budget. Fortunately or unfortunately, as hon. Members may look at it, I cannot say that I either spoke or voted one way or the other in that debate, because I was not in this House.
  I was, however, in this House between 1945 and 1950, and I was very interested to note then how the Opposition tried to

  1517
  extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the maximum of concessions concerning the things in which they were primarily interested. If I do not touch at length on the question of fares, it is not because I am not very much interested in the matter. As a matter of fact, during my recent connection with Post Office workers, I was particularly struck by the hardship which the imposition of higher fares is bound to have on the cost of living of the men and women in that great public service, especially those on the basic scales and those on the lower incremental scales.
  There is no doubt that in due course the transport authorities, the omnibus companies, and others will inevitably be bound to increase their fares as a result of this higher taxation. I am perfectly satisfied—and I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides are also—that we have practically reached the limit of what we can enforce upon men and women by way of higher travelling costs. I think we are all satisfied that we have reached a point where real hardship is being imposed owing to these increased fares.
  I know of young people in the outer London area who have to travel to London every day to work, and I know that higher fares are imposing great hardship on them. They are having to go without some of the essential things in life in order to pay the increases. Having said that, I will leave the question of the Petrol Duty in relation to fares and make one or two suggestions in connection with the light hydro-carbon oils used in industrial processes.
  In referring to this subject, I want to mention a deputation and talks I have had with representatives of the interested trade unions and with managements of a number of industries in my constituency, who have assured me that they will come up against very real difficulties if this increase to taxation is imposed upon them. One of the industries concerned is the rubber proofing industry which uses such oils a good deal in its rubber solutions, and so on. Another firm is connected with the paint and varnish industry. The representatives of both these firms and of the trade unions concerned assure me that if this taxation is imposed it will result almost inevitably in unemployment in their industries.
  1518
  I know that the Chancellor is fully aware of the situation in Lancashire, and there is no need for me to develop at any length the position of industry in that county. As far as textiles are concerned, we have had a tremendous increase in unemployment in my constituency. The Chancellor knows of certain firms in that area who are being hard put to it to retain anything like a skeleton staff in their establishments.
  We have had a debate on the broad issue of textiles, but the point I want to put to the Chancellor this afternoon is that I hope he is not going to make it difficult for some of the smaller firms in that area to carry on. Some of them are trying their utmost at the present time to retain staff, although, because of the deterioration in trade, they could very well dispense with their services. But they are trying, nevertheless, because of the peculiar unemployment situation in Lancashire, to retain their employees in the hope that better times will come.
  There are three arguments which I want to adduce in support of the suggestion that the Chancellor might like to have another look at this question of light hydrocarbon oils. I understand that quite a number of Government contracts are already involved in come of these industries, and we are not unhopeful that there will be many more which will come within the ambit of the £20 to £25 million about which the Chancellor was talking in regard to the defence programme.
  It seems to me that, if imposed, this tax will act as a sort of boomerang. The country will not only be paying it on the ordinary materials produced, but also on Government contracts. In the second place, I am assured that there will be a tremendous adverse effect on the home market. As the Chancellor knows, the pipelines in Lancashire are very full indeed, and although many of the manufacturers are trying to sell at under cost price at the present time they are still finding great difficulty in getting rid of their goods.
  Therefore, even from the point of view of the home market, it seems to me that there is a case for a review of the matter. But more important, possibly, is the fact that our industries will be up against almost impossible competition in the field of exports unless something is done about

  1519
  this tax. In a pamphlet which has been sent to me, and which I have discussed with representatives of the firms I have already mentioned, it is stated that most other countries with whom we are in competition regarding rubber proofing, paints and varnish, and so on, have already given very substantial remissions of tax in order to allow their industries to compete much more favourably with our industries in the international market.
  The pamphlet says:
  "It is significant that Italy and Western Germany, now recovering their economic freedom and capacity to compete with the United Kingdom in overseas markets, have both granted a preferential rate of duty on light oils used by their industries."
  The fact that these countries have taken this step at the first opportunity demonstrates the importance they attach to the freeing of their industries from unnecessary impediments. Not only have countries in Europe and Scandinavia done this, but I understand that many of our Commonwealth countries have done exactly the same thing.
  Therefore, for those three considerations—Government contracts, the home market, and, above all, our competition in foreign markets—I feel that I am reasonable and rational in making my suggestion to the Chancellor. I always feel sorry for Chancellors, whatever their political colour, because they have to find the money, and everybody wants them to find it in a way which will not affect them. But the imposition of this tax will accentuate still further the rising cost of living of our people, and I feel certain that the Chancellor would not wish to do that.
  As I said at the beginning of my speech, there comes a point where some of these things defeat the very object that he has in mind. I feel certain that this increase in the Petrol Duty is of that nature, and, therefore, I ask the Chancellor to review in whole or in part these proposals in his Budget in the interest of the industries to which I have referred.
  7.0 p.m.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior - Palmer: Before coming to the question of the increase in the Petrol Duty, I want to answer one or two of the points put forward by hon. Members opposite. It was only on Monday that we had a
  1520
  debate on transport and fares, and hon. Members were saying that something must be done to prevent road transport, both of freight and passengers, from competing unfairly and unduly with the railway. Will not this duty do exactly that?
  Those who travel by roads at fares very much cheaper than those which prevail on the railway must realise that buses and lorries are having their permanent way kept for them. Admittedly they pay their ordinary licence duty, but that is an infinitesimal amount compared with the cost of upkeep of roads and bridges. Vehicles on the roads also have all their signalling and traffic control done for them free of charge and it must be realised that they should bear some of the burden of our present adverse balance and their customers should not grumble too much.
  I am not absolutely certain, but I think that one can travel from Newcastle to London on a passenger bus for approximately half the fare on the railway. I say "approximately" because I am not going to be tied to my figures. Even if road passengers had to pay something a little nearer to the railway fare than half they would still not be doing too badly.
  One of the reasons my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave for the increased Petrol Duty was the need to economise in dollars and to reduce the import of petrol to this country. I very much wonder whether that is really a valid argument. By how much will petrol be cut? There may be some cutting down on pleasure motoring but if that were eradicated altogether it would represent in terms of petrol a virtual drop in the ocean; and road transport must go on. This duty will not cut down the number of buses and lorries, and therefore I cannot see that it will mean much saving of petrol which comes from the dollar market.
  It is the same old story of dealing in isolation with one aspect of our problem. There is a vast problem to be solved and we have gone a certain way towards solving it. But we have not yet heard on either side of the Committee what is the real solution. I am not an economist nor have I financial brain, but I hope this country will produce a big enough financial brain to solve this obvious problem of the vicious circle of wages and prices chasing each

  1521
  other. I have not known a single Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said, "We will cut into the circle by this means" and then broadcast to the people of the country and told them what he is doing.
  These palliatives are of no use. We are suffering from an acute disease—it may be appendicitis or something worse—and we are taking aspirins for it. I admit that this Budget was brought in very soon after my party came into power. It is a short-term emergency Budget but in the long run, and as a long-term measure, I hope that we shall have from this side of the Committee some proposal that really will solve our problem. I am certain that the workers and managers in industry would do anything provided they could see an end to it and see the light over the hill again.
  If the Chancellor got up and said, "Do this, and in three years time we shall be square" he would have everybody with him. Incentives are all right in certain industries but it is no use providing a man with an incentive if he knows that the raw materials are not available or that the warehouses are filling up, and that his employer, despite the best will in the world, will have to reduce his salary. It is no use asking the girls to work another half-hour during lunch time in those conditions.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): The hon. and gallant Member is going rather wide of the Petrol Duty.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg your pardon, Mr. Bowles. I quite agree, but the Petrol Duty is part and parcel of this big problem.
  Mr. John Taylor: This debate differs from many others through which I have sat in the hope of catching the Chairman's eye inasmuch as in other debates previous speakers have always dealt with points that I proposed to deal with and have made them one after the other. In this debate the contrary has happened. So many points have arisen that successive speakers have had increasing material on which to speak. But I must resist the temptation of dealing with the general points and confine myself reluctantly—though perhaps I should say gladly—to the small point of the effect of this duty upon the native oil industry of this country.
  1522
  It has been mentioned already by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), who shares with me the representation of the two constituencies which house our native oil industry. It is a remarkable industry which has had many setbacks and has survived fierce and often unfair competition, and has been subjected to many kicks, some of them in the teeth. Any less resilient industry would have folded up in the face of its repeated difficulties.
  We should be grateful that the industry has survived so sturdily today and I am honoured to put up a small plea for special consideration and protection for it. Most of this country's shale oil mines are in my constituency. Hon. Members who have travelled over the Forth Bridge will have seen flat-topped red hills which are like miniature editions of Table Mountain except for their colour. They mark the shale mines. Oil was being produced from them 100 years ago, eight years before the first oil well came into production in Pennsylvania. Production in America almost killed our native shale industry because of importation from the much more prolific American oil wells.
  Now I ask the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer to recognise the poetic justice of protecting this industry and, if possible, nurturing and developing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles had other things to say about its history. I am more concerned with the figures of its present production, which is about 1,500,000 tons, from which in 1951 we produced about 105,000 tons of crude petroleum and about 100,000 tons of refined products.
  But this remarkable industry does not waste anything. We have heard of the economics of pig breeding in which everything is used except the squeal. The Scottish shale industry has a similar record. From its operation we run sulphuric acid works, a candle factory and a brickworks, and we are concentrating attention on motor spirit, solvent naphthas, deisel oil, paraffin wax and synthetic detergents. This country would not get any of the those commodities elsewhere without the expenditure overseas of valuable capital.
  The industry employs 4,000 of my constituents. It has moved with the times. It uses the most modern retorts; it uses electric power for drilling and for transportation

  1523
  of the shale. It has installed the most up-to-date safety devices in its winding machinery. It operates its own refinery. Yet production today is confined to only 11 shale mines. It is not my purpose in this debate to ask for expansion and development—it would be out of order if I did so—but that will perhaps come on a later occasion.
  Sir William Darling: Are those mines State-owned or are they under private enterprise?
  Mr. Taylor: I have already paid my tribute to the management of those mines. I will have a talk with the hon. Member about that point later. It is my purpose to plead for practical assistance which the Amendment standing in the names of some of my hon. Friends and of myself would give if it were agreed to. I hope that the plea has not fallen on deaf ears.
  It is a small step for the Chancellor to take. It is a concession which he could make. I believe it is possible; I do not think there is any international difficulty arising from G.A.T.T., and I think that this is a richly deserved encouragement which the Chancellor should give to this industry in my part of the country which has pioneered world oil production—this valuable national asset. In doing so he would be helping not only my constituents but the whole country.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): We have had a debate which has lasted from 3.30 this afternoon and we have listened to some 25 speakers. I think this presages well for the future progress of the Bill because the atmosphere has been one in which I think hon. Members have attempted to put forward constructive points very largely from the angle of their own constituencies or, at any rate, from the angle of their own anxieties. I shall do my best, in a short reply, to answer some of the points raised.
  Under the direction of your predecessor in the Chair a few minutes ago, Mr. Bowles, it was understood that this would be a general debate to be followed by rather shorter debates on the Amendments. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee, therefore, if we could now come to a conclusion on this general debate, because there are so
  1524
  many other points to consider. The Government are not trying to be unreasonable in launching themselves slowly on the Finance Bill in the company of the Committee, but it is reasonable to say that we should cover the whole subject of hydrocarbon oils and so forth in the course of today's sitting without keeping hon. Members too late and with proper consideration for the problems of transport and so on. If we can bring this general debate to an end fairly soon, we can then get on to the Amendments and we shall have shown people here and outside the House that we can conduct our business in the right way if we want to.
  The debate has been severely practical. There is one matter that I should like to tell the Committee first of all, and that is that I am putting on the Order Paper a very simple Motion about bringing up a particular Schedule to discuss it with the Purchase Tax Clauses. I am only giving warning of that so that hon. Members may know that when we reach that point in about 10 days' time or so, they will feel that they have been warned about it, as many of them have been privately. The sole object is to bring the whole of our discussions into one and to make it as businesslike as we can. Every opportunity must be given to hon. Member to put their own constituency points of view.
  I cannot deal with all the points raised, but may I first of all deal with the question of the shale industry, which was raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) and which was dealt with at the beginning of the debate by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). As those hon. Members will know, there is at present a preference on excise for the home industry, and I would remind them of the benign and, I believe, useful provisions of the Finance Act, 1950, namely, Section 2 (1) (a) of that Act, which permit the amendment of the margin of preference for the home industry if a case is made out. I do not on this occasion say that a case has been made out; and, in fact, despite the sincerity with which the case has been put, I would not say that the industry is in very great difficulty or danger as a result of this move, or indeed of any other.
  But I would say that if hon. Members feel genuine anxiety, and if they are so advised, they can always remind their

  1525
  friends in the industry that there is the possibility of putting their case to the Treasury and the Customs and Excise, and there is the possibility of amending the preference by Order. There is an opening for them if they feel genuinely aggrieved. I repeat that I do not think that their noble industry, which they have described with such emotion and clarity, is suffering to the extent that they imagine.
  I will come to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—our modern Cassius according to one intervention in the debate—during the course of my remarks. There are one or two other hon. Members who have raised particular points. There is, for example, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), whom I am glad to congratulate on becoming Vice-Chairman of the Norfolk Council Council. I hope that he will carry out those duties with the same distinction as we associate with him here. Then there is the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) who has the honour and dignity of living in my own constituency.
  Both hon. Members have referred to the case of agriculture. No doubt this may come up later in the evening, but I would remind the hon. Member for Deptford—as I believe he knows, since he mentioned it in the opening part of his remarks—that full account has been taken of the incidence of the rise in the cost of petrol in framing the price schedules which have been announced. That is the answer to all those who are geuninely interested, as I am myself, in the agricultural industry. I therefore believe that those machines which cut the swathes in my constituency need not be overburdened by the action which their own Member has taken.
  7.15 p.m.
  There are one or two other hon. Members who made useful interventions. I was somewhat concerned, and charmed, by the intervention of the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who said that he had not been able to speak in the House since about 1946. I can only say that a change of Government has certain advantages. The hon. Gentleman is relieved from the odium of being a Whip, and is able to take part in the deliberations in this Chamber with more freedom. I was concerned to hear that in order to
  1526
  keep his car going and to pay me the Petrol Duty, he is obliged to give up smoking, and as these two taxes are great competitors in the Revenue, I would only ask him to exercise greater moderation in both ways and to use a little less petrol and to continue smoking more heavily; then I shall feel very happy at the thought that he is not only speaking well in this Chamber but he is also contributing his due share to the Exchequer.
  The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) mentioned the railways at Swindon. I will not go into those arguments today, but there is something in the general argument that there must be an equal sharing out of burdens, if possible, between road and rail. The hon. Member for Woodside (Mr. W. G. Bennett) and one or two other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) and Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), were anxious to know what the duration of this tax is likely to be. I feel complimented to think that, in the eyes of these hon. Members, however critical they may have been on other matters, I have before me a very long tenure of office. I only hope that before my long tenure of office is concluded some adjustment can be made in this tax. If, on the other hand, by their anger my tenure of office should be in any way shortened, I shall be unable to meet them in any way.
  Hon. Members have expressed a genuine anxiety about the incidence, of the Petrol Duty, and this was summed up in a rather dramatic way by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), who did not seem to like the tax or my policy in any way at all. I would draw his attention to the very weapon to which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, referred with such disdain, namely, the Bank Rate, which he alleges is costing us £70 million a year. If he refers to that measure for the purpose of any forthcoming speech which he may make, he will realise that with its help and in other ways, some of them orthodox and some difficult, we have managed—I say this in all seriousness—greatly to improve our external sterling financial position. We have, by methods such as this, to which I will come in more detail, managed in six months to staunch the

  1527
  flow of blood which was threatening the very existence of this island, and which we must all acknowledge whatever our views may be. Therefore, when criticisms are made of the Administration, I hope it will be realised that we have tried to serve our country and that so far our efforts in this direction have been crowned with a certain amount of success.
  Why, then, was it necessary to introduce this tax? I hope that I am a healthy Chancellor of the Exchequer when I say I regard all taxation as bad. There are only different degrees of evil in the incidence of any particular levy. This particular tax has the advantage of being—and I use words which I hope are familiar to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North—thinly spread and widely borne. When the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was asked to publish his extracts from our speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I would only remind him that there is no need to quote extracts from speeches of hon. Members and right hon. Members on this side of the Committee in favour of the petrol tax; I can simply refer to the bound volumes of debates last year and I can quote from them one or two extracts of speeches from hon. Members opposite in favour of a petrol tax, although perhaps at a lower rate than this.
  I have the assurance of hon. Members opposite that this tax is good because it is thinly spread and widely borne. The real reason for having had to turn to this tax was hinted at by me before the Budget, in my two statements of November and January, and was then further alluded to in the Budget statement. It seemed to me at that time—and no argument has prevailed which has countered that view—that it would be wise to try to relieve the strain upon the oil position.
  I go back to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North—who is very helpful to me today. These are his words:
  "… some restraint on the less essential uses of an imported commodity … is necessary on the grounds of general national economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 882.]
  If that was true before the crisis which broke over this Government when we
  1528
  took office, surely it is even more true today. That is a further answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing who is anxious, together with some of his friends—and quite reasonably—about the incidence of this tax. Increased savings in our foreign exchange will result from the duty only if there is a reduction in consumption. At the same time, if we cannot get a major reduction in consumption—and it certainly did not look like it during these last Easter holidays, at any rate from the point of view of the ordinary motor car users—we can at least impose some check on future growth.
  I would remind the Committee that when I spoke in January I did consider the possibility of a rationing scheme for petrol. That was the scheme to which my distinguished and much lamented predecessor, Sir Stafford Cripps, had to resort in a period of similar crisis: but I decided, I think rightly—and I hope the public will give credit for this—not to reintroduce petrol rationing. It would not have brought in sufficient saving. It would have cost us, in administration, some 2,500 people to work it and it would probably not have brought in sufficient saving despite the great effort to work it absolutely fairly.
  Therefore, I fell back on an increase in the tax on petrol. Various hon. Gentlemen have raised the question whether there is any genuine justification for a Chancellor of the Exchequer deciding to impose an extra tax on petrol. There appears to be some misunderstanding about the precise significance of oil in the United Kingdom's balance of payment. The position is roughly this: a large part of the petrol and other light oil, and the heavy oil used in road vehicles, comes from refineries in the United Kingdom belonging to British-controlled or American-controlled companies. The balance is imported from refineries overseas, some of which are operated by British companies and others not; but all these oils, to a greater or lesser degree, cost this country some foreign exchange.
  Where the oil is refined in the United Kingdom, the foreign exchange cost arises in respect of crude oil and also in the net profits earned by the American companies, where they do the refining. With oils refined by British-controlled companies overseas there is a large element of foreign exchange involved, both

  1529
  in producing the crude oil and operating the refineries. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), in a characteristic and excellent speech, referred to the increase of dollar content in the general oil transactions. It is very difficult for me to give precise figures, but I can refer the Committee to the Economic Survey, paragraph 25 of which says:
  "Purchases of dollar oil to replace Persian oil have been costing the sterling area in this initial period over £100 million a year, the greater part of which is reflected in the United Kingdom's invisible account."
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are certain drawbacks from this which bring it down by at least £25 million, because the adjustments we used to make with the Persians are no longer made.
  It has been absolutely just for hon. Members on this side of the Committee to refer to the loss of Abadan. Leaving aside all the political aspects, the loss of Abadan from the point of view of this country has been a very good reason for approaching this tax in a more co-operative and understanding spirit than has been shown hitherto.
  The last thing I wish to say on the subject of oil—without twisting the tails of right hon. Gentlemen opposite any further on the subject of Abadan—is that any marginal placing of our purchases over and above what we are getting now, were consumption to have risen, would have fallen 100 per cent. on our foreign exchange. Our purchases from Europe are paid for 80 per cent. in gold at the present time and so there is surely a reason, on the foreign exchange front, for taking care about oil.
  In relation to the home front, hon. Members opposite have criticised the tax for various reasons connected with the cost of living and the raising of manufacturing costs. For private car users the increase will raise the cost per mile of the small car, doing about 30 miles per gallon, by ¼d. per mile. The larger car, doing 20 miles per gallon, will cost three-eights of a penny more per mile. For commercial users I calculate—and I have always tried to be fair in giving the Committee the figures—that the cost will be increased by about 3½ or 4 per cent.
  It has been said that that will automatically mean a rise in fares. I do not believe that. I know that extra costs sill be incurred because the fuel will cost more; but I am very glad to see that the
  1530
  Chairman of the Road Haulage Executive has announced that the Executive will try to keep the position as stable as possible and it is not intended to increase the rates, at any rate for the time being. That is a very statesmanlike approach by the Executive, despite the burden which I have undoubtedly put upon their shoulders. That is the right spirit in which to take this rise.
  When one reflects that, on the average, public service vehicles do about 10 miles to the gallon, so that the incidence of the increased duty works out on an average at ¾d. per vehicle per mile, I do not believe that it necessarily must mean a rise in fares or a rise in charges at the present time. At any rate, whether or not it does, I welcome the statesmanlike spirit in which the Executive have approached this matter and I hope we can all approach it in that spirit.
  Mr. Jay: The representatives of the bus organisations, on the other hand, have said that it will definitely mean a rise in fares.
  Mr. Butler: I think that is so, but I have not that particular reference with me.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the cost of petrol at home was greater than the cost abroad. I notice that last year he said that foreign costs were greater than ours, and in speaking this year he said he thought they were less. I have obtained the figures for the capitals because I do not think it is fair to take the figures in a difficult constituency like that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), where the cost is higher—and I sympathise with the hon. Member's difficulties and I feel sure that, on resuming my seat I shall have his support.
  7.30 p.m.
  The figures in the capitals are these. In London, it is approximately 4s. 2¾d. a gallon. In Brussels, it costs approximately 4s. 4d. a gallon, namely, more; in Berne, 4s. 8d. a gallon; in Paris, 5s. 7d. a gallon; in Rome, 6s. 8d. a gallon; in Oslo, 4s. 2d. a gallon—approximately the same; and in Helsinki, 4s. 11d. a gallon. The only capital where the cost is appreciably lower is Stockholm where the cost is 3s. 4d. a gallon. That is some indication that, compared with a great many

  1531
  capitals, our costs are still lower, despite this increase in the Petrol Duty.
  In the case of the United States, of course, the cost is very much less. I calculate that it comes out, at most, at 2s. 2d. a gallon. In the case of some of our Commonwealth friends overseas, like New Zealand, the cost is definitely less. For example, in Canada it would be 3s. 3d. a gallon and in Australia I calculate that it would be about 3s. 4½d. a gallon. In comparison with the figures for many other capital cities this, therefore, is not a tax the incidence of which need be feared as being dangerously heavy.
  I will refer only in passing to the tax on paint and other constituents, which will no doubt be raised in later Amendments, and I will conclude by saying that this tax is an integral part of the general scheme of the Budget—a scheme which has commended itself to the country as a whole. This tax was conceived in a spirit of national duty because I thought it had some reference to the external position, as I have tried to show it has. I hope that the human effects of this tax, which is one of the very few taxes I increased in my Budget, will not have the bad human, industrial or other results which hon. Members fear.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pleased with the progress which we have made and with the temper of the debate so far. I can assure him that so long as he gives us adequate time to discuss Amendments, and makes reasonable concessions from time to time, the temper will continue to be very good. I will also say that his proposal, as I understand it, that the Schedule to the Purchase Tax Clauses should be taken with the Clauses, is not one to which we see any objection. I must, however, point out to him that this matter of the Purchase Tax is one in which I think hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are closely interested, and I hope he will be prepared to give us plenty of time to discuss the rather large number of Amendments on the subject.
  The reception by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters of this tax has not been exactly enthusiastic. Of course, they were in a difficult position. Either
  1532
  they had to admit that they were wrong in what they said last year or they were more or less obliged to attack the Government this evening. Some of them tried to find a third way out by gymnastic contortions in which I do not think they were very successful.
  It has been said that we should not be bothered with quotations from what was said last year and that, after all, it is rather a sterile business; but I do not share that view. I think it would make things far too easy for right hon. Gentlemen if they were never to be quoted in the next year, or the year after if it comes to that—and I say that meaning all sides of the Committee. It may be that hon. Members who sit on the back benches opposite can say, "Well, after all, we may feel bound to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer but we were not responsible for this tax; there is some excuse for us." But I do not think that can be put forward as an excuse by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench.
  I do not want to go in for a long list of quotations, but I think I am entitled to a small ration here, and I propose to quote only three right hon. Gentlemen—all of them very important Members of the Government. The first is the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. Nobody can say that he was an unimportant back bencher. He led for the Conservative Party when they were the Opposition. It was even rumoured that he might become Chancellor of the Exchequer. In these circumstances it is perhaps as well for him that he did not. Nevertheless, we might have a look at what he said about this tax—and this was in 1950 when we were putting it up from only 9d. to 1s. 6d. instead of to the half-a-crown which it has now reached. He said:
  "there are massive trade reasons which make this duty thoroughly unsound. It will raise the cost of production and the cost of distribution, for example, by increasing fares all over the country and by making the transport of components within the various assembly plants in industry more expensive."
  A little later he said, and nobody will disagree with him:
  "Only by lower costs are we going to maintain even our present standard of living and break into new export markets. The exhortations are so familiar that I need hardly repeat them. It is only when it comes to action

  1533
  that these exhortations are seen to be mere words. They are mere lip-service to an idea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 228–229.]
  Mr. Osborne: That is still true.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If so, it is a little difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile it with his position of Secretary of State in this Government.
  I come to a right hon. Gentleman who must, I imagine, have been very much concerned with the decision to impose this tax—the President of the Board of Trade. It is true that he did not sit all the time, or indeed most of the time, on the Front Bench when the present Government were in Opposition. Nevertheless, he took a prominent part in debates on transport. It may be that he had the idea that he might become Minister of Transport, even if he did not know he was going to be President of the Board of Trade. What did he say? He is very flamboyant. He said:
  "We believe that the whole of this tax is unnecessary, is vicious, and is calculated to do all the things which the Chancellor, if he was a wise one, would not at present be attempting to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 269.]
  "Vicious" is a word which I notice hon. Members opposite were very fond of using in those debates, although they have not gone as far as that this afternoon. The whole tone of their speeches has been a little muted and altogether in striking contrast to what they said last year.
  I come to one other quotation, this time from the present Leader of the House. In the debate which we had last year he was leading for the Opposition, too. There could be no possible excuse that this was just an individual point of view; he was speaking for the Conservative Party at that time and his speech struck me, as I read it through, as a remarkably effective one which will well repay further examination. I cannot quote all of it, but I should like to take one passage in which he said:
  "Surely, the whole idea is that one should move goods and people about this country as cheaply as possible, and not use this industry as a source of revenue."
  He went on to say—and this is particularly interesting:
  "I know that the right hon. Gentleman argued before, 'Oh, yes, there always was a
  1534
  petrol tax.' That is true. I concede that argument, but it does not follow that we all approved of it by any manner of means."
  I thought that was rather a nasty crack at the present Prime Minister who brought it in. He went on to say:
  "There is a very big difference in the considerations which apply if we have a small tax and if we have a high tax. A very small tax in a period like that when it was originally put on, when there were great reserves of taxable capacity"—
  and we remember that phrase "reserves of taxable capacity"; it was used a good many times in our debates—
  "is quite different from putting on within 12 months 1s. 1½ a gallon when we have no reserves."
  The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by saying:
  "But we had 9d. last year … and it is the cumulative effect that matters."
  He ended his speech:
  "I do not like using the old proverb about the last straw, but the right hon. Gentleman must be sure that there is a time rapidly coming when the last straw is going to make all the difference, and perhaps he is getting to that stage now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 824–6.]
  Well, he has well passed it by now.
  I feel that we are entitled to draw attention to these statements by leading members of the Government when they were in Opposition, because it really is a bad thing for our democracy if party leaders get into the habit of saying things in opposition and then completely reversing them when they get into the Government. I can well understand that hon. Members are waiting to hear what I am going to say this time, but there is a really important difference here.
  Here are the members of the Government now supporting a higher tax when they said all those things I have quoted about a much lower tax. It is another thing, of course, for us to be accused of opposing a higher tax, and being told we are inconsistent in that. I think myself that we are perfectly justified in taking this line, because, after all, we admit, we agree, that last year the increase in taxation was justified. But that does not mean that we must accept any increase in the same tax the Government choose to put on in future years. That would be an absurd argument. What is really quite untenable is opposition which objects to a lower tax and then supports

  1535
  a higher one, and it is on this ground that we think this inconsistency really is something that must be exposed.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentlemen now think they were wrong when they made all those remarks, or whether they still admit that those consequences follow. I have been asking myself how they could possibly resolve this difficulty. Of course, one obvious matter for inquiry would be whether there had been any change in the external circumstances which would, perhaps, make rather less important the adverse—the devastating—consequences which they forecast last year and the year before. Let us look at that.
  There have been, I think, three major criticisms that have been made of this tax in the past—first, that it was damaging to our export trade; second—and this point, rather curiously, has not been referred to at all, I think, in the debate today—that it would be damaging in particular to the production of the right sort of motor car for export purposes; and third, that it was increasing the cost of living and adding to inflation.
  Well, can we really say that we do not need to worry about the export market? Is it not really the case now that we have a tougher job, because we have to increase our exports to the dollar area, than we had in the past, and, indeed, that the whole atmosphere in which our exporters have to operate is now, unfortunately, much less favourable than it was a year or two years ago? I think that that is undoubtedly the case. We have, in other words, got to face fiercer competition now than was the case in the past.
  It is sometimes argued—hon. Members have argued it here—that it would not have been a bad thing in the past had we charged more for our exports. It is, I think, true of some industries and untrue of others, but what is, I think, perfectly clear is that it is not nearly so much the case today as it was last year.
  Then, as to car design. I am bound to tell the Committee that when we were considering the Budget last year we naturally took into account the possible consequences of an increase in the Petrol Duty, and we were concerned lest the increase, or any substantial increase, would have an adverse effect on that particular point. I remember the hon. Member for
  1536
  Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, making a very powerful speech about this then—or the year before. There is a real danger there that if, in fact, the price of petrol becomes as high as this it will be extremely difficult for manufacturers to concentrate on producing the rather medium and larger sized cars which, we know, do best in the export market.
  7.45 p.m.
  As for the cost of living, I do not imagine that anybody on those benches opposite is going to say that that is a less serious problem today. It is true, of course, that the Government have more or less given up attempting to do anything about it. Indeed, by cutting the food subsidies they have, of course, deliberately increased it. But still it remains as true as it was then—indeed, truer—that an increase in the Petrol Duty, and the increase in fares which is bound to follow—whatever the right hon. Gentleman may hope for in the case of freight charges for the time being, an increase in bus fares is certain to follow—are all increasing the cost of living, and are bound to give a further fillip to the whole inflationary spiral.
  Here let me interpose this. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's answer on agriculture really met our point. The point surely is this, that by taking into account the increase in the Petrol Duty in the review of farm prices the right hon. Gentleman is putting the increase in petrol directly on the food prices. That is, in fact, what he is doing. Whereas, of course, if he had offered the farmers some concession as is suggested in the Amendment, they would not have made such a large increase in food prices.
  I referred just now to the problem of fares, and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, too, have spoken on that matter. I should like to ask the Chancellor, if he can, even at this hour, to say something in reply to a question I want to put to him about something that appeared in the Press recently—in the "News Chronicle" on 29th April. There was a story on the front page that the Government intend not only to impose this increase in the Petrol Duty but also to oblige the road haulage business to pay a further charge or levy.

  1537
  Now, this is really a matter of considerable importance to those engaged in the business, and it really is going a bit far, if there is to be another levy on top of the Petrol Tax—the increase in which has been defended by some hon. Members opposite, rather curiously, with exactly the opposite arguments to those they used over here, as being something which has helped to get the balance right between road and rail. What I want to know is whether there is anything in this story relating to the Government's transport policy that there is to be a further levy on road haulage. Would the Chancellor like to say anything on that, because I know, in fact, there is great anxiety about it? Indeed, it is of interest to those concerned and to the consuming public as a whole that their minds should be put to rest at the earliest possible moment. Would he care to deny the story?
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I have nothing to say, except that the Committee—and the House at a later date—must await the publication of the Government's policy.
  Mr. Gaitskell: So it means really that on top of the Petrol Duty there is to be a further levy on road haulage and that the consuming public must pay something more in addition?
  Mr. Butler: I have told the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the Committee—and the House at a later date—must await the publication of the Government's policy and get the facts. I can make no further observation now.
  Mr. Gaitskell: All I can say is that that answer is very, very far from reassuring anybody.
  I turn to two arguments which the Government have put in defence of this tax. First, the argument based on Abadan. I am bound to say that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was defending his Budget and this particular tax on rather different lines from those with which he defended it in the Budget itself, because what he said—and it was before the words quoted by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner)—was this:
  "I now come to some major proposals. While budgeting for a large surplus I yet wish to finance certain important changes which the Government conceive to be in the interest"—
  and so on. In other words, it is quite obvious that what he had in mind in his
  1538
  Petrol Duty in the Budget was revision in the Income Tax, and so on. At a later stage it is only after that that he then says:
  "I have only one tax increase to propose and that is on oil."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1296.]
  And then speaks about the balance of payments difficulties, but as far as he was concerned the principle reason was not the loss of Abadan. It was, of course, part of his general Budget design, and we are not concerned to discuss that in any detail. Indeed, we could not this evening, but it is obvious that that was the main reason for it and not the loss of Abadan at all.
  If it were the case that the right hon. Gentleman brought this tax in simply to reduce consumption, then the revenue he is obtaining on it is a kind of accidental by-product. If that is the case, there is even less justification for the cuts in food subsidies and other social services that were made.
  We are not yet clear whether the Chancellor expects that consumption will be reduced. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee take the view that it would not, in fact, reduce consumption except to a tiny extent, and even the argument about the dollar content was not to my mind entirely convincing. For some time there has been a dollar content in our oil here, and there has been a substantial dollar content in what one might call the marginal oil—the last 100 tons of oil which we have to buy. I think I am right in saying that that was the case before the loss of Abadan.
  As I say, one really gets no clear idea as to how much is saved and as to what this means in terms of dollars. None of us would for one moment question the importance of saving dollars, and in the absence of that and in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think the talk about Abadan is a kind of a lifebelt which the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite clutch at in order to save themselves from their appalling contradictions.
  The other argument is about the Budget generally. The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that this year it was necessary to impose this duty in order to raise revenue for defence purposes. In fact, the Budget gave away some £24 million, and there was no increase in the

  1539
  total revenue at all except what came in automatically from the existing taxes.
  Our view on this has been very well stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). We say that if, in fact, the Chancellor wanted this in order to make certain other concessions, in the first place he certainly cannot argue that this was done in order to increase the social service benefits, because when I proposed during the Budget debate that that might be done and these two things matched together—the increase in the Petrol Duty and the social services—I was told at once that no such thing could be done and that it was quite unfair. So that one goes. It is part and parcel of this general scheme of increases in indirect taxation and increases in food prices in order to finance reductions in Income Tax.
  We said—and I repeat what my right hon. Friend said—that we do not believe that the £70 million a year—and the Chancellor certainly has not denied that it will amount to this figure—that will have to be paid on the National Debt as a
  result of the rise in interest rates—[Laughter.] Somebody is laughing, but I do not think it is a laughing matter at all. What we say is that it was not necessary to impose the burden on the Exchequer in order to get the financial consequences which the Chancellor was aiming at.
  A further point is that when we analyse these Income Tax concessions we find—and this figure comes from the Chancellor himself—that £50 million of them goes to those with £1,000 a year or more, and we say that this concession to people who are already pretty well off at the expense of the users of transport is quite unjustified. The ill effects of this tax are not in dispute. We are not convinced by the case made out for it, and we shall, therefore, have great pleasure in going into the Division Lobby in support of our Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 268.

  Division No. 107.]

  AYES

  [7.53 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

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

  Fort, R.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Foster, John

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Ansthruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Channon, H.

  Gage, C. H.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cole, Norman

  Godber, J. B.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Gower, H. R.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Banks, Col. C.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Barlow, Sir John

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

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Crouch, R. F.

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Birch, Nigel

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hay, John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Black, C. W.

  Donner, P. W.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Heath, Edward

  Bossom, A. C.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Braine, B. R.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Fell, A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Finley, Graeme

  Horobin, I. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Moore, Lt.-Col, Sir Thomas

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Speir, R. M.

  Jennings, R.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

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

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Kaberry, D.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Odey, G. W.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Lambert, Hon. C.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Storey, S.

  Lambton, Viscount

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

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Osborne, C.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Partridge, E.

  Summers, G. S.

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

  Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Teeling, W.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Peyton, J. W. W.

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

  Linstead, H. N.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Pitman, I. J.

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

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Tilney, John

  Low, A. R. W.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Turton, R. H.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Eir Hugh

  Redmayne, E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Vosper, D. F.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Wellwood, W.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Athur

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Wills, G.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Maudling, R.

  Shepherd, William

  York, C.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

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

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Oakshott

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Deer, G.

  Adams, Richard

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Albu, A. H.

  Burke, W. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Carmichael, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Edelman, M.

  Baird, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Balfour, A.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Bartley, P.

  Clunie, J.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Bence, C. R.

  Coldrick, W.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Collick, P. H.

  Ewart, R.

  Benson, G.

  Cook, T. F.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Beswick, F.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Field, W. J.

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

  Cove, W. G.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Finch, H. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Follick, M.

  Boardman, H.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Foot, M. M.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.

  Daines, P.

  Forman, J. C.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

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

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Glanville, James

  1542

  1543

  Gooch, E. G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McInnes, J.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Short, E. W.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  McLeavy, F.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Grey, C. F.

  MacPherson, Malcom (Stirling)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Slater, J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Grimond, J.

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Steele, T.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Messer, F.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hastings, S.

  Monslow, W.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Moody, A. S.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

  Morley, R.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Holman, P.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Murray, J. D.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Holt, A. F.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hoy, J. H.

  O'Brien, T.

  Tomney, F.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orbach, M.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Oswald, T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Padley, W. E.

  Wade, D. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

  Wallace, H. W.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Pannell, Charles

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Weitzman, D.

  Janner, B.

  Parker, J.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

  Paton, J.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Pearson, A.

  West, D. G.

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Peart, T. F.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Porter, G.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wigg, George

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Keenan, W.

  Reeves, J.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Kenyon, C.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Kinley, J.

  Richards, R.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Ross, William

  Yates, V. F.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Royle, C.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Logan, D. G.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Arthur Allen.

  Mr. Simmons: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  "except that in the case of hydrocarbon oils used for the propulsion of invalid chairs driven by disabled persons the rate of duty shall be one shilling and tenpence halfpenny a gallon."
  I understand that with this Amendment three other Amendments which cover motor vehicles provided by the Ministry of Pensions are being considered. It relates to the invalid chairs which are known as motor-propelled tricycles, and which are used by the severely disabled, and it proposes that they should be exempted from this increase in the Petrol Duty.
  1544
  This is a non-controversial issue. The problems of the disabled, and especially of the war disabled, have always been regarded as above party political strife. Therefore, the gusty arguments of the Kidderminster kidder or the Abadan alibi of the other side of the Committee, do not enter into this issue at all. We feel that the Chancellor, unlike his diehard colleague the Minister of Health, is not desirous of taxing cripples, and so I make my plea to him with a certain amount of confidence.
  The increase in the Petrol Duty is admitted on all sides to be likely to cause inconvenience. To some people it will

  1545
  mean a sacrifice, but to the crippled and disabled ex-Service man, whose motor-propelled tricycle is the only form of locomotion, it will mean more than inconvenience or sacrifice. It will be a cruel hardship. These vehicles enable cripples to get to and from work when otherwise they would have to suffer enforced idleness. I have seen in the Press today a report of the Remploy factories, giving an indication of the amount of public money which is spent on training and rehabilitating cripples to enable them to become effective units in the industrial machine. If they get their training at those factories, and then are unable to use their motor-propelled tricycles, they are still a dead loss to the community.
  The motor-propelled tricycles are of the greatest advantage to those of our disabled who, for many years, have been bedridden or housebound. Hon. Members who have not had the experience of visiting these people cannot comprehend the dread monotony, the drab existence, that they have had to undergo. The coming of the motor-propelled tricycle and of the cars that are given by the Ministry of Pensions, opened out new vistas of life to them. They are beginning to live for the first time since their disability began.
  For these people at least it has provided an opportunity to see the world around them and get some enjoyment out of an otherwise drab existence. Many of them are unable to work and have to live on their National Insurance benefits plus any National Assistance to which they may be entitled. This tax increase is the third in a very short time. It is likely to bear heavily upon them.
  War pensioners are dealt with in one of the other Amendments. I am dealing with the motor-propelled tricycle at the moment, the users of which are in a specially disadvantageous position. It is not the 100 per cent. disabled man who is using the motor-propelled tricycle. If a man is badly disabled by multiple injuries or double amputation he will be using a car and, because of his 100 per cent. disability, is entitled to higher supplementation. The 75 to 90 per cent. disability man can only qualify for 35s. a week unemployability supplement in lieu of his earnings, and therefore this impost will be very heavy upon him.
  1546
  It is not an exaggeration to say that for these men and women the Petrol Tax is equivalent to a tax on walking, because a motor-propelled vehicle is a substitute for the use of or the actual limbs they have lost. The remission of this tax would cost the Exchequer very little. In July, 1951, there were in use 6,170 motor-propelled tricycles supplied through the Ministry of Pensions, 1,470 of which went to war pensioners and 4,700 of which were being used by National Health patients.
  These vehicles do about 70 miles to the gallon, and assuming the users travel on an average 140 miles a week, that means they use two gallons of petrol a week. I am not a financial expert. I left school when I was 14 years of age and I have never had much need to go in for mathematics, and no money to do it with. In my humble calculation, however, and subject to correction, it would cost the Exchequer well under £20,000. That is a very small price to pay for giving such an amount of happiness.
  Successive Ministers of Pensions have found implacable Treasury officials trying to dam the flow of the milk of human kindness which flows naturally from the Ministry of Pensions. I am sure that the Minister himself will be grateful to us for raising this matter tonight because it will help him as much as it will help us, and I am sure that all who are interested in the welfare of ex-Service people will feel the same.
  The Chancellor may have made up his mind once about this, but it should not be impossible for us to convince him that he might be bold enough to change his mind on this human problem. He might emulate the Minister of Pensions who, on 18th March, said:
  "I am not convinced that in the present circumstances an increase in the allowance is warranted nor would I be justified in initiating an allowance for war pensioners using motor chairs, which are maintained by the Ministry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 196.]
  8.15 p.m.
  The car allowance which was initiated by a Labour Minister of Pensions early in 1945 at £45 has been twice increased: in April, 1950, to £50 and in April, 1951, to £52 10s. Less than a month after the statement I have quoted the Minister of Pensions was able to come to the House of Commons and emulate his Labour

  1547
  predecessor in office in synchronising with the increase in the Petrol Duty a further increase in the car allowance of £4 10s. to £57.
  As I read the Regulations this is not strictly a petrol allowance at all but an allowance for maintenance and repairs. So we are coupling with our demand in respect of tricycles tonight a request that owners of cars supplied by the Ministry of Pensions should have the same concessions as those which go to users of motor-propelled tricycles. Because what was not warranted in March was done in April, and because there is such a strong humanitarian appeal, I suggest that for a mere £20,000 the disabled drivers of motor-propelled tricycles and cars might be granted this concession. I think it will represent about £3 per head per annum.
  In the debate just concluded one of my hon. Friends spoke of the reduction in the car tax on the big cars owned by rich people by £10 10s. a year. When we give that amount to some opulent or corpulent company director, can we refuse about £3 or £5 a year to those who have suffered in this way? There could be no evasion or sharp practice. These vehicles are capable of carrying only one passenger. They are distinctive. They cannot be used by anyone but a disabled person.
  From personal experience in the Ministry of Pensions of this class of user, I feel that the latest impost is the last straw that will break the camel's back as far as these people are concerned. In saying that, I am risking the ridicule of the Chancellor because he has already ridiculed this argument. I therefore most earnestly appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the absence of the Chancellor, to accept the Amendment.
  So strong is this case that, if we could have a free vote in the Committee on it we should carry the Amendment, so overwhelming would be the opinion of hon. Members. If the Chancellor finds that there are administrative difficulties about adjusting the tax, he can adopt the simple expedient of going to the Minister of Pensions and saying, "These people deserve some concession. I give you authority to put in your Estimates this year sufficient to make them a grant of £3 or £5 a year to compensate them for this increase."
  Brigadier Christopher Peto: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him a question? He was rather evasive about his arithmetic, but I understood him to say that £57 is the maintenance allowance for a car and that it travels roughly 150 miles a week. [An HON. MEMBER: "One hundred and forty."] The hon. Gentleman said it would use about two gallons a week, which comes to £25 a year approximately.
  An Hon. Member: A tricycle.
  Mr. Simmons: The hon. and gallant Member is a little confused. He is dealing with cars. I was dealing, in connection with those figures, with a motor-propelled tricycle which does 70 miles to the gallon, and I was basing my calculations on that.
  Mr. Basil Nield: I should like for a brief moment to support the case which has been so convincingly put by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), who, as we all know, has such wide experience in these matters. His plea is for a tax relief in respect of invalid chairs for disabled persons, an appeal with which, I imagine, every hon. Member will be in full agreement.
  There seem to be two substantial grounds upon which we could ask for favourable consideration of this question. The first is that the proposal seeks to help a section of the community which every hon. Member would seek to help. The second is that the loss of revenue involved, as the hon. Member pointed out, is extremely unsubstantial. The public, therefore, would lose but little; the individual would profit considerably if the concession was made.
  We all rejoiced when the Ministry of Pensions found it possible to provide these chairs and vehicles, which have made so great a difference to these unfortunate people. Much of the value of that may be lost if there is a danger of their being unable adequately to operate or maintain the vehicles. In these circumstances, I most sincerely trust that some concession, at any rate, will be forthcoming.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) has intervened. He has confirmed the view we all hold that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury must give an

  1549
  extremely good answer if he is to avoid the displeasure of the Committee. Indeed, some of his hon. Friends would find it quite impossible, if we took this matter to a Division, to vote against what we are asking for. The Committee will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), who moved the Amendment, is well qualified to ask for some concession to disabled people. He is himself disabled and has the respect of all Members.
  The point which needs to be stressed regarding the tricycles is that they have given so much happiness to people who for most of their life have not had happiness. By citing one individual case, I can illustrate the position of many of these people. The case is that of a man who as a child was severely injured in a road accident, and never did a day's work until 1942, because he was just not wanted. No one would, or could, employ him. He had his first job in 1942. Thanks to the Ministry of Labour with their Remploy factories and to the Ministry of Pensions with their tricycles, that man is today employed as regularly as anyone else. He is able to do a fine job of work, and is a credit to all who know him. He now has happiness where previously there was nothing in his life but misery. To that kind of person the additional tax represents something of a burden.
  It is useless for the Financial Secretary to profess the best will in the world and all the love and affection, and so on, but to say that the administrative difficulties are so great that our proposal cannot be accepted. No doubt he will tell us the story of people going about with special petrol chits and of the black market in these things. There is, however, a very simple alternative, as my hon. Friend suggested.
  A yearly grant could be made through the Ministry of Pensions to help to compensate the disabled for the increase in the tax. It would be an indication that we recognise these people to be in a special category. For one thing, as the Minister of Pensions will agree, most of those who are war pensioners do not get the 100 per cent. pension. They do not, therefore, get the full value, but only a percentage, of the recent increase which has been awarded. On that basis alone, there is a special case for helping these people.
  1550
  I sincerely hope that we shall not hear the story about administrative difficulties; if such things exist they can be overcome. If we can make a yearly grant and allow the Ministry of Pensions to adjust their estimates, we shall earn the regard of the whole House of Commons.
  Sir Ian Fraser: I feel sure that the whole Committee, and certainly the ex-Service men concerned, will be grateful to the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) and to his hon. Friends for putting down the Amendment.
  It was in the time of the first Government after the war—the Labour Government—that the motor cars were provided, and there went with them a substantial allowance of, I think, £50 a year—
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): £45.
  Sir I. Fraser: —to go some way towards meeting the expense of running the vehicles. In each Budget since then, hon. Members on all sides have joined together to ask the Chancellor of the day to see that the additional burden of petrol tax which fell upon the users of these motor cars was not fully met by this class of user.
  The usual formula appears to be that the Minister of Pensions refuses the suggestion when it is put in the form of a Parliamentary Question, that a little later the Chancellor says that he cannot adopt the proposal in that way but will ask the Minister to do it in another way, and that a few weeks later it is done. That practice having been so well established, it did not surprise me when my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions was able to say only the other day that it was his Ministry's intention to adopt that proposal so far as the motor cars were concerned.
  The special plea that we make tonight is that that kind of consideration be now applied to the tricycles. This has been asked for over the past three or four years, and no one was more eloquent in his pleading for it than my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood).
  There is no one whose heart is not touched by the sight of the cheerful disabled soldier in his little three-wheeled chair, going to his job or to a football match. If we give him this artificial means of locomotion, then with the rising

  1551
  costs all round we ought to do what we can to make it possible for him to afford it.
  Many of these men cannot afford five, six or seven shillings a week. That is why pleas have been made so frequently for raising the amount of the war pension. Certainly the little man in his little chair cannot afford the extra cost which the tax involves, and I hope, therefore, that this time, even if they cannot accept the Amendment, the Government will authorise the Ministry of Pensions to initiate an allowance for these men with their tricycles.
  The cost of the proposal, it has been said, would be very small, and the amount of happiness that would be given would be very great. I do not take the rather despondent view of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who expects my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to say that he cannot adopt the proposal for this, that and the other reason. I have every reason to hope that this time my hon. Friend will get up and say that he will accept it. If so, I for my part will be prepared to thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for having raised the matter, but especially—and I am sure the whole Committee agrees with me—will I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington, who in particular raised this matter year after year during the past three or four years.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Morley: I am very glad to support the eloquent appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) that some relief and assistance might be given to the users of invalid chairs.
  I think that two of the best things the Labour Government of 1945–50 did were first, to institute the Remploy factories and second, to provide disabled men and women with these chairs. Through Remploy factories many men and women have learned a simple trade, which has enabled them to earn their living, whereas otherwise they would be dependent almost all their lives on National Assistance.
  The motor-driven chairs which have been supplied have enabled these men and women not only to go to and from
  1552
  their work, which otherwise they would never have been able to do because, on account of their disabilities, very few are able to use buses or trams or ordinary means of locomotion, but also to have some small degree, at least, of social intercourse by going to see their friends and to meetings and taking part in social activities.
  I have the honour to be a vice-president, with my hon. Friend the Member for the Southampton, Test (Dr. King) of the Invalid Chairs Association of Southampton and have had the opportunity of meeting these men and women. I admire the very courageous way in which they bear their disabilities and the brave way in which they try to make the most out of their lives in spite of those very serious disabilities. I am sure that these invalid chairs have been of very great help to them.
  The increase in the petrol tax means that, on an average, their invalid chairs will cost them at least from 1s. to 2s. a week more to run. In answer to a Question the other day, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions said that the additional cost would be from one-ninth of a penny a mile to one-sixth of a penny per mile. For most of them that means an additional cost in petrol and oil of from 1s. to 2s. a week. In addition, these people suffer from the general increase in prices which both sides of the Committee admit is bound to result from the increase in the petrol tax.
  I listened to the debate on the 4½d. increase in the petrol tax last year and heard hon. Member after hon. Member on the Conservative side say that this was the most inflationary form of tax which could be conceived and that it would be bound to mean a rise in the general level of the cost of living. I am afraid it will happen again this time and, of course, it will hit these unfortunate people.
  They will be doubly hit, first, by the increase in the petrol tax and second by the increased cost of living. Most of them are earning very low wages. £4 10s. to £5 a week, and even those who have other sources of income are on a very low level. Hon. Members on all sides of the Committee must have sympathy with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill, and if this matter

  1553
  were put to a free vote not one hon Member would vote against it.
  It may be said by the Financial Secretary that there are administrative difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment. That may be so, but if so, I hope he will be able to say that if he cannot help these people in this manner he will help them through the agency of his hon. Friend by giving an annual grant to compensate them. I am sure that if he does that he will earn their gratitude and the thanks of hon. Members on all sides of the House.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may be convenient if at this stage I try to indicate the attitude of the Government towards the two Amendments which, I understand, under the Ruling of your predecessor in the Chair, Wing Commander Hulbert, we are now discussing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that it was very appropriate that these Amendments should have been put forward by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), whose familiarity with the subject at the Ministry of Pensions we all recognise. Indeed, I have good reason to know the interest he took in the subject of the provision, for disabled Service pensioners, of motor cars and of tricycles, since I corresponded with him more than once on the subject and received replies which, while always sympathetic, were sometimes satisfactory.
  The two Amendments are in the form of relieving petrol used in these vehicles from the increase in duty. It was made perfectly clear during the debate that whilst those Amendments for reasons, which I recollect moved me at one time, are in this form, no hon. Member is really very strongly attached to the form but is more concerned to be able to bring forward the point within the rules of order. In fact it has been the practice of successive Governments in dealing with this matter; if they have found it right and proper to make some variation, to make it not in the form proposed—that is by alleviation of the rate of duty—but by way of some fixed form of grant. That was the form followed, in respect of motor cars, by the last Government.
  For that reason, I do not think I need detain the Committee by pointing out the reasons why this has always been done. Obviously, a state of affairs was created
  1554
  in which a relatively small quantity of petrol was taxed by reference to its use in particular vehicles at a lower rate, it would create not merely the administrative difficulties to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred, but a great deal of trouble not only to the servants of the State in administering it, but also to the beneficiaries, who would be compelled to keep records.
  For that reason, as the Committee are aware, when this Petrol Duty was increased in the Budget of my right hon. Friend the line was taken in respect of motor cars that the proper way to deal with the matter was by way of an increased grant. As the Committee are aware, my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, on 9th April, informed the House that the grant was being raised, because of the rise in Petrol Duty, by £4 10s. a year from £52 10s. to £57 a year. In relation to the increase in duty, my hon. Friend was following substantially the line taken in the last two years by his predecesssors.
  The Committee may care to recall that when, in 1950, the duty was increased by 9d. a gallon, the allowance was increased by £5 from £45 to £50, and last year, when there was a smaller increase of 4½d. per gallon of petrol, the grant was increased by £2 10s. So this year, in respect of an increase in duty of 7½d., the grant has been increased by £4 10s. from £52 10s. to £57. In regard to the second of the two Amendments we are now discussing, I think most hon. Members will agree that that is the practical and satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
  The first Amendment relates to invalid chairs, about which there has been considerable discussion. The position with respect to these invalid chairs is that no financial grant is made. My hon. Friend issues them and, I understand, maintains them, but no financial grant has been made in respect of them at any time. My hon. Friend issues them in a dual capacity. He issues them direct to the Service disability pensioners for whom he, as Minister, is responsible; and also, as agent for the Minister of Health, he issues them to what I may describe for this purpose as civilian disability casualties.
  It is no doubt because there is no financial grant made in respect of these chairs that when the Petrol Duty was

  1555
  raised by the former Administration on the two occasions I have mentioned, in 1950 and in 1951, whereas a compensating figure was added to the grant to motor car users, no step was taken to mitigate the effect of the rise in duty upon those who use these chairs.
  I have no doubt that was the main reason, as was also the fact that these chairs do a considerably larger mileage to the gallon than does the motor car. Be that as it may, the late Government, though they could, and felt able to compensate those with motor cars, they did not take steps in respect of those with chairs.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has been examining this matter and has found it necessary to look at the two classes of persons for whom chairs are issued from different points of view. The Ministry of Pensions has power under various enactments to make cash grants in certain circumstances, and with the concurrence of the Chancellor to those for whom it is responsible. The Minister of Health has no such power and I understand would require legislation to have it.
  In those circumstances it is clearly impossible at the moment to do anything in respect of those chairs issued to the civilian disability casualties. In that respect we feel bound to adopt at present the line that was adopted by the previous Administration. But that difficulty does not arise, as I have made clear, in the case of those Service disability pensioners who are the responsibility of my hon. Friend. He has therefore decided that in all the circumstances of the case, and notwithstanding the precedent to the contrary, it would be proper to make a small grant in respect of the extra cost caused by the rise in Duty; that is to say to seek to fulfil, so far as the Service disability pensioner operating a chair is concerned, the intention of the Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) referred to the answer of my hon. Friend about the effect of this increase on the cost of operating the chairs. The figures he gave make it clear that in terms of cash the amount involved is very small. The calculation is complicated by the fact that there are two kinds of chairs, one with weather protection which, as a result of that protection, does fewer miles to the gallon—something in
  1556
  the neighbourhood of 45 to 50 miles—and one without weather protection, which, I understand, does 70 miles to the gallon.
  8.45 p.m.
  The decision to which my hon. Friend has come on behalf of the Government is that in respect of the chair with weather protection and the smaller mileage per gallon there will be an annual grant of £3 a year, and with respect to the other type an annual grant of £2 a year. That, on any reasonable calculation and in accordance with both my figures and those of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, should cover the increased cost of operating these chairs in the ordinary manner, and counterbalance the effect of the rise in the duty.
  Precise details will in due course be communicated by my hon. Friend to those concerned, and it would not be right for me to enter into details of the administrative arrangements which he proposes to make. But it is the intention that this decision should come into effect as quickly as possible, and I am sure that hon. Members with experience of the administration of the Ministry of Pensions know that that Department can move remarkably quickly in such circumstances.
  Mr. George Isaacs: It is always a pleasure to take part in debates on war pensions, because politics do not enter into them at all and everyone is anxious to do the best they can for those concerned. We do appreciate the offer which has been made and the proposal that those who use the all-weather chair should get a grant of £3 and the other chair users a grant of £2. I presume that the grant of £4 10s. already given to the users of motor cars is in anticipation of this debate and that nothing more will be given in that case.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in that assumption. As he will recall, my hon. Friend made a statement on 9th April, in which I recollect he related directly the increase in respect of motor cars to the increase in the duty in exactly the same way as was done in 1950 and 1951.
  Mr. Isaacs: I gathered that, because the Ministry of Pensions does like to anticipate the wishes of the House and to be able to move before they are pressed to do so by resolution and decision.

  1557
  I would ask for a little more information about the civilians. I know the difficulties but I would put this to the Committee. Many of these civilians were injured during their service to the country just as the soldiers were. Perhaps they were bombed, or injured while carrying on their work in a factory, and I hope that we can be told something a little more definite about them. I do not think it possible to find any gathering of people who are more cheerful than the fellows who operate these chairs. They may be invalids in their chairs, but I would not like to compete against some of them in the manoeuvres they carry out in their chairs.
  One man may have got his injury while wearing the uniform of the Crown and another while wearing an overall and working in a factory. It seems to me that it will be a little difficult to say that we will give one man something to help him along, but not give anything to the other.
  From the tone of the Financial Secretary I judged that he was not adamant about this aspect, and was not turning down the proposal. He said that there was no power, and that to obtain it would require legislation. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, if he should be able to induce his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to introduce a short Bill in this House to confer this power, we could give him a guarantee that it would have an unobstructed passage through the House.
  Here is a gift which, so far as the amount is concerned, is as much as could be expected. It is a very fair offer, but there is this disappointment about the civilians, and I would like to know there could be some ray of hope that something would be done to deal with that matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall accept this concession, and that we shall not try to divide the Committee on the Amendment. We should be especially glad if the Financial Secretary could say that he will try to devise ways and means of making this very small concession, which would be of very great value to everybody concerned.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I should respond, as far as I can, to what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject of the civilian chairs. The position is really very difficult, and the only undertaking that I can give tonight is that I will convey what the right hon.
  1558
  Gentleman and hon. Members have said to the Minister of Health; I will see that he is informed of those views.
  I think it is impossible to give any firmer commitment on this point—and I will be quite frank with the Committee—for this reason. Cash payments of this sort are payments for which the Ministry of Health has no arrangements at the moment, and it would be misleading the Committee to say that it is necessarily the case that it will be possible to overcome the real difficulties which exist. All that we can do is to say that what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the merits of the matter obviously has very great force, and I can also re-assure the Committee, so far as the Treasury are concerned, that the financial element involved is really very small indeed, and not a serious factor in the situation.
  If the Committee would be prepared to leave the matter like that, I will certainly convey what has been said to my right hon. Friend, but I do not want to mislead the Committee into the belief that it will necessarily be possible to do anything before Report stage. Very serious thought will have to be given as to the administrative steps to be taken. Such serious thought will be given, but I would not be playing fair with the Committee if I tried in one way or another to give a firm commitment as to the outcome.
  Mr. Simmons: I thank the Financial Secretary for the concession as far as the Service people are concerned. We are sorry about the others, but we have had his explanation, and we feel sure that he will express to his right hon. Friend and those responsible the deep feeling in the Committee that there should be no difference of treatment between people suffering from the same disabilities.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: Before my hon. Friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I ask the Financial Secretary whether it is too late to put down an Amendment to the National Health Service Bill, or alternatively, whether or not some such Amendment could not be put down in another place, where it would be given every facility for an easy passage? As to the administrative difficulties, could not the Minister of Pensions act as an agent in this matter, as he already acts as agent concerning wigs and other things?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All these are aspects of the matter which certainly will be considered, but the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a snap answer from this Box on whether or not it would be possible to deal with the matter in the way he has suggested. His suggestion is now on record, and that makes certain that it will be considered.
  Mr. Simmons: In view of the conciliatory attitude of the Financial Secretary, and of the manner in which we have been met part of the way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. F. Beswick: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  "except that in the case of aviation spirit supplied for the use of flying and gliding clubs duly authorised and approved by the Minister of Civil Aviation the rate of duty shall be ninepence a gallon and the Treasury may make the necessary regulations for giving effect to this exception."
  I move this Amendment with a certain amount of what I hope is justifiable optimism, and my optimism will be matched by my brevity. The case for these flying clubs has always been supported by interested and informed hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. May I just say that I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) is not here to speak to this Amendment, to which his name is attached, because he has always shown a great interest in this matter, and it is only his official duties that take him away this evening.
  On the previous occasion, a similar Amendment to this was moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney-General. As the support has come equally from both sides, I hope it will have this evening the same encouragement from the Government as it had in previous years from other Governments. The value of the flying clubs has never been in doubt in the House and the Labour Government, despite the very severe financial restrictions under which it was compelled to work after the war, contrived to do all it could to give some sympathetic encouragement to the clubs. We had the A.T.C. scholarship scheme, and the Government contrived to give a rebate of the tax which was imposed on all other users of hydrocarbon oils.
  1560
  All the arguments which applied before apply with even greater force today. The current financial stringency affects the flying clubs more severely—and I suppose it affected them earlier—than it is affecting other activities. The aggravation of their financial difficulties is probably only matched by the increasing importance, both present and potential, of the role which they play.
  People sometimes ask me why they are so important. Others ask why individuals who seek their sport in flying should receive financial encouragement more than those who turn to walking or cycling. One answer, with all respect to the cyclist, is that the aviator in time of war is probably in a position to help his country more than is the cyclist as such, although I would not like to belittle the gentleman who might have to ride a bicycle in any future war. It was so last time, and I am sure it would be the same in any future emergency.
  If we are to remain in the forefront of the peoples of the world, we have to remain in the forefront of aviation. I do not think that we can accumulate in this country too much experience in the element of the air. We cannot have too many individuals who spend time in the air, and the more experience we have and the more people who are able to spend time in the air, the more likely are we to throw up the odd individual genius who will spur us on in our progress.
  I do not want to labour these points, but in view of the small amount involved, probably less than £10,000, and in view of the potential advantages and the all-party interest and support that has been given to an Amendment of this character in previous years, I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: In a few brief words I wish to support this Amendment. Surely it is one of the vital necessities of this country that every possible encouragement and opportunity should be given to our young people to glide and fly. We all know that with rising costs everywhere, that opportunity is becoming increasingly difficult. Should help be given from the Treasury along the lines suggested in this Amendment, it will not cost the Treasury very much, but it will mean a great deal to the gliding and flying clubs many members of which are young people who have very

  1561
  little money to spend and for whom any help would be a great advantage. I very much hope the Government will see their way clear to give this help which I believe will be found of great national advantage.
  9.0 p.m.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment. The flying clubs which have been in being now for something like 27 years have done nothing but good. They provide a very fine hobby for young men and women at weekends and in the evenings. When they started it was an expensive hobby, and indeed it still is. Nevertheless, London Transport have their own flying club and many classes of people are now able to undertake this important training.
  Before the war we had the Civil Air Guard, and many people laughed at it; but when the war came its membership ran into hundreds of men who performed their flying duties gallantly on active service and in delivering aircraft under Transport Command. It paid a tremendous dividend. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that they were not all young people. There were men of over 50 years of age who did service delivering aircraft in this country.
  This is a cheap form of building up a reserve strength of pilots and it helps to spread air-mindedness amongst the pilots' children and relatives and indeed among the whole population. If ever this country had an opportunity of building up a large merchant service of the air, it is now. That building up is taking place in the United States and in Canada and we must move very rapidly indeed if we are to do the same thing in the air as we did with cargo ships at sea.
  I believe this concession will not cost the Government very much money. We are spending very large sums on defence and this movement can play a greater part in defence than is generally appreciated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will see his way clear to give this assistance.
  Mr. John Grimston: I merely rise to say how pleased I was to see in an answer to a Written Question on 4th April that my hon. Friend the
  1562
  Financial Secretary proposed to give this relief. I assure him that those of us who try to keep our hands in in civil aviation are very grateful indeed that the efforts of the flying clubs are being recognised in this way.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston) has just pointed out, I think we have already met the substance of this Amendment. Like the previous one, it is in form one to relieve the petrol actually used for this purpose and by these bodies from duty; and for the same reason as was the case on the previous Amendment it has always been thought a much more convenient way to deal with this matter by grant.
  The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), whose name actually appears first above this Amendment on the Order Paper, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th April:
  "whether he will extend the arrangements made last year to relieve the civil flying clubs of the increased Petrol Duty, so as to relieve them also of the additional duty included in this year's Budget."
  I replied, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, monosyllabically, but I hope satisfactorily:
  "Yes.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 172.]
  It is the intention of the Government to follow the procedure of last year and by way of grant to compensate the bodies referred to in the Amendment for the full increase in the Petrol Duty. The cost will be some £9,000 in the present year and £11,000 in a full year, so the figure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) gave was substantially correct. I hope that meets the point. I need only add that one very good reason for doing this is that we accept what has been said on both sides of the Committee as to the valuable purpose served by these clubs.
  Mr. Beswick: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that this subsection shall not authorise any increase in the rate of duty on diesel oil."

  1563
  This Amendment will cover a somewhat wider field than the two previous Amendments. It covers very largely the section of the transport industry in which heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles are used. It is in those fields that the compression ignition engine has found its most useful metier, and where it operates to the best advantage. At the present time there is some alarm in transport circles—more perhaps than there has been previously—with regard to this duty.
  Another factor which has caused some alarm among passenger vehicle operators is one to which I understand reference was made a few moments ago; that is the possibility of some further imposition on road transport to deal with the cost of railway tracks. The experience of road operators in relation to the money collected ostensibly for the upkeep of roads will not give them much heart to subscribe towards the railway tracks if they do not do any better than the roads have done. Quite apart from that, such an imposition would be strongly resisted as being quite unfair, and I hope that we shall hear from the Financial Secretary something which will allay to some extent the alarm which has been created.
  The effect of this Amendment would be to allay many of the fears which are felt by all sections of the community about the possibility of further increased fares due to the increased tax on fuel. Although the number of vehicles operating on Diesel engines is relatively small compared with the general run of motor vehicles, their proportionate value from the point of view of passenger and goods carrying is relatively high. For that reason we attach considerable importance to this matter and we hope the Chancellor will be able to accept this Amendment.
  Vehicles operating on Diesel oil are used mostly for heavy transport and, therefore, they involve the question of capital costs as against consumer costs. The effect of an increased Petrol Duty on consumer costs is not so permanent as a tax which has a bearing on capital costs—for example, in the case of heavy transport with all its ramifications throughout the industry, for the effect is felt for a long time, even after the tax is no longer there, because it increases the
  1564
  capital costs, the interest costs, and so on.
  I imagine that the Government do not want to do something of this nature which will have a fairly permanent effect. I can understand them saying, "We want some more money; we will put a penny on a pint of beer." One drinks the beer and that is the end of it. There is no subsequent effect. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] Well, not on one pint of beer, at any rate. We should not worry too much about that, although we might grumble about it.
  One of the things that I always opposed in connection with heavy transport was the imposition of Purchase Tax. I thought it was a bad tax on commercial vehicles because it added to the capital cost and entered very heavily into capital costs generally. In a heavy goods vehicle at the present time the fuel tax and Purchase Tax alone, with no other costs, amount to 4d. a mile. That, before one begins to meet any expenditure, is a pretty heavy imposition. I hope it will not go any further and that we might even hope to see some reduction as a result of this Amendment.
  With regard to the cost, the British Road Federation have examined this matter and they estimate that about 1,150,000 tons of Diesel oils are used for road transport. By "Diesel oils" I refer specially to Diesel oils as used in the compression ignition engines for road vehicles as against other types of heavy fuel oils. It is anticipated that this relief, if it were granted, would cost only £9½ million. That sum, as against the £60 million odd which is, I believe, the total amount to be collected from this tax, should not be a matter which is beyond the possibility of the Exchequer to meet; but the corresponding advantage would be out of all proportion, because it would be spread over those particular sections where it would be to the greatest possible advantage.
  There might be an argument with regard to some types of transport such as light delivery vans and vans of that nature. I think most people who operate them appreciate that they are not very efficient. Small parcel vans usually operate at very considerable cost and it might be argued that if they had to pay more for fuel it might tend towards economy.
  I do not think that can be said of the large major companies concerned with

  1565
  heavy transport, including the British Road Services; nor even of C licence holders of heavy goods vehicles, and certainly not of the major passenger transport undertakings, which have to keep a very careful watch upon their operating costs. Therefore, I do not think it can be said that any additional tax could reasonably lead to any further economies in their operation. I think they have done everything they possibly can in that direction.
  I would remind the Committee that the early development of the compression ignition engine was encouraged largely by the fact that the tax on fuel oils was only a penny a gallon. It remained at that figure until 1935, and that gave a tremendous impetus to the development of the compression ignition engine. The effect of that has been felt very largely on the more efficient transport systems. The efficiency of this engine is greater than that of the ordinary petrol type engine in relation to its fuel consumption.
  That is a very important point. If we want economy in fuel we should obviously be encouraging some of the types of fuel which will give the greatest economy in use. Taking a double-deck bus as an example, the average oil consumption would probably be in the neighbourhood of 10 miles a gallon on the ordinary type of operation, and rather more on long-distance operations. A similar vehicle in use before the introduction of the compression ignition engine would operate at something like seven miles to the gallon, which was thought to be a fairly good average. Sometimes it was as low as six miles a gallon, although occasionally it went up to eight. I think we can take a comparison between 10 and seven miles to the gallon as being a fair one throughout the whole range of similar types of engine of similar power output, for the compression ignition engine and the ordinary petrol type engine respectively.
  It seems to me that if we want to encourage economy in fuel we ought to do everything possible to encourage the development of the compression ignition engine, even in ranges of vehicles to which it does not at present apply. In other words, even in lighter types of vehicle, we badly need a type of engine which will give greater fuel consumption.
  9.15 p.m.
  The effect of that development would vastly offset any possible effect of a
  1566
  reduction in taxation, because it would provide what I understand is one of the things for which the Chancellor is looking—a reduction in our dollar purchases of oil. It would also help considerably in Diesel development for locomotive purposes, and that, of course, is another angle of development which ought to be encouraged. I hope it may be possible to give a further impetus to this type of development by means of a reduction in the tax from its present figure.
  I believe that in the Department there is some sort of argument going on about whether or not we want to encourage the development and the use of this type of fuel oil. It is being argued, I understand, that the development of jet engines is causing a position to arise in which there may well be a surplus of the higher octane spirits, because in the cracking of the oil the development stage is such that it throws off a number of types of fuel at different levels. It may well be that a reduction in the use of piston-engined aircraft would leave us with a surplus in that direction. I hope that that argument will not be developed, and will not be allowed to develop very far in the Department to the detriment of the further development of the compression ignition engine, which is a safer unit, has a longer life than the petrol engine, and has all the grounds for encouraging its use in the future.
  I have made, I hope, some case, as good as I may—perhaps slightly technical—for the Amendment which I have moved. I do not move it in a strictly political sense but because I believe it to be in the best interest of transport. Moreover, I believe that it is in the best interests of the future development of efficient types of vehicles which, after all, must be the desire of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: I am very pleased indeed to be able to say a word this evening about the effect of this subsection on bus fares—this time, in particular, bus fares in the second city of England and not in the first city. So much has been said tonight about the effect of the Petrol Duty on bus fares in London that I think it is about time someone drew attention to the position in Birmingham and showed exactly what is going to happen there.

  1567
  If this Amendment were accepted, it would be of enormous help to Birmingham in a situation which is becoming very difficult indeed. In the first place, the position of Birmingham city transport is as follows. Already the department are running at a considerable loss, and I have no hesitation in saying that I should have been quite as pressing on this question of Diesel oil if I had been in the last House of Commons as I am at the moment, because there is no doubt at all that it is this taxation which is making Birmingham's transport difficulties even worse.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: They used to run at a profit.
  Mr. Chapman: As I am reminded, they used to run at a profit. The position today is that the estimated deficit at 31st March, 1952—that is, only one month ago—was some £410,000. The effect of this Clause will be, because all the buses in Birmingham run exclusively on Diesel oil, to make that deficit increase by another £187,500. That means, because of the accumulating results of taxation over the last few years on Diesel oil, that in Birmingham we are going to have to face very shortly, a 10 per cent. increase in fares.
  That is an enormous figure. If the British Transport Commission had ever at one time asked for a 10 per cent. increase or more, there would have been a considerable outcry, but in Birmingham, to get the thing balanced, never mind making a profit, we shall need now something like a 10 per cent. increase. Every £200,000 is, I am told, a 3 per cent. increase, and the deficit is to be increased to about £600,000. That is an enormous burden.
  Consider my own constituency. This is the real reason I am raising the matter, because this is of particular concern to constituencies on the outskirts of the big cities. This is a tax, in effect, on the travelling public particularly in outlying areas, because they depend to an enormous extent on transport to take them into the city and, perhaps, over to the other side of it.
  It is often thought that, because I have the Austin works in my constituency, with 20,000 employees, I must have
  1568
  people converging on their place of work from quite near by. In fact, however, there are literally thousands of people who pour into those works from the other side of Birmingham, from Bromsgrove, and from all over the Midlands. They come in from the Black Country, some in special buses, some in cars, and some by the ordinary transport. At the same time, many people in my constituency go outside it to work. It is an area where there is an enormous amount of travelling. Practically no one works in his own constituency.
  What does it mean? It would not be so bad if we were facing a normal rise in transport costs and fares, but this means that in Birmingham, for example, the increased costs and fares resulting from the tax on Diesel oil will constitute a most pressing reason why the trade unions will be demanding increases in wages. And good luck to them. I have no reason at all to be saying they should not be pressing for increased wages. I do not want to be strongly partisan because I am hoping for a concession, but I am very tempted to say that no one could blame the trade unions, because the whole effect of this Budget has been to incite them to demand wage increases. There are the increased fares, the concession to taxpayers above the £1,000 limit, and the general increased difficulties of taxpayers with the lower incomes.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say when the bus company last made a profit? He did say it made a profit. In what year?
  Mr. Chapman: I have not the figures. I have only the fact that in 1951 there was a deficit of £200,000. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying that I should, therefore, be blaming the last Government too, then in this respect, at least, I agree with him.
  Birmingham is one of the areas which has got to make a considerable contribution to the export trade. We in the engineering industries have got to make up for some of the shortfall in the export of textiles, for example. What help is it going to be for this whole area to be faced with demands for increased wages and prices at a time when the sellers' market has disappeared or is finally disappearing? We are going to be faced

  1569
  with wage demands throughout the country, in the engineering industry and certainly in the whole of the Birmingham area where transport costs for the ordinary individual are going to go up, and it will cost more for them to move about this large area. That is the second factor directly inciting further wage demands.
  In the second city of the Kingdom, never mind the first, which has already been mentioned during the earlier parts of this debate, the result of the accumulated effect of this tax is to be a 10 per cent. increase in transport fares, and that will possibly be more when all the other increases which the Budget is imposing reveal their full effect. I hope Diesel oil can be exempted from the tax because it would make a considerable difference and would help not only the family budgets, but would stem some of the wage demands, and thus help to a considerable extent a very important and a very large area of this country.
  The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): This Amendment has been moved in two very reasonable, moderate and persuasive speeches, but the speakers have taken a totally different line. The first speech by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) was based upon the desirability of giving special encouragement to one type of vehicle and engine using one type of fuel as against another. The hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), put his case on rather different grounds. I should like first to refer to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Southall.
  In order to put the matter in its proper perspective, it is well to remember that this Amendment, if passed, would involve the Revenue in a loss of £9 million, a very substantial sum. It would also have the effect of giving a considerably greater advantage to passenger vehicles than to goods vehicles. In fact, of the Diesel oil—
  Mr. Pannell: As I understood it, we are considering two Amendments together. One is concerned with an exemption for Diesel oil and the other with an exemption of passenger-carrying vehicles. Is that ruled out of order, or are we doing that?
  The Chairman: No, I did not rule the first Amendment out of order. I thought the second Amendment was a wider Amendment and selected it because all
  1570
  the arguments which might have been used in support of the first Amendment could be used on the second, which covers a much wider field.
  Mr. Pannell: If that is so, the Minister of State for Economic Affairs is not quite accurate, because the Amendment moved embraced the larger issue of Diesel oil and it does not affect passenger vehicles only. In fact, some of these vehicles are interchangeable, but the point I am making is that this applies to goods vehicles as well as passenger vehicles, and if the right hon. Gentleman is putting the case that goods vehicles do not run on Diesel oil, then I think he is wrong.
  Sir A. Salter: I am going to refer to passenger vehicles later on, but at the moment I am dealing with what the hon. Member for Southall said about the desirability, as he thought, of giving special encouragement to one type of engine using Diesel oil as against petrol. When I have answered his arguments to the best of my ability, I shall come to the arguments of the hon. Member for Northfield, who was particularly concerned with passenger vehicles.
  Taking this Amendment in its full scope, and as the mover argued it, it would, as I have already said, involve a loss to the Revenue of £9 million, which is a very considerable loss indeed and more than we are prepared to face. If the Amendment were passed in this form and not in the more limited form, it would incidentally give greater advantage to passenger vehicles than to goods vehicles because a smaller proportion of goods than passenger vehicles use Diesel oil. The actual totals are that 775,000 tons of oil are used by passenger vehicles and a little less than half of that amount by goods vehicles.
  9.30 p.m.
  The case made by the hon. Gentleman was really that because Diesel engines use less oil per mile we should do something by way of a special remission to encourage that type of engine. That is a very undesirable form of encouragement. That more miles are obtained out of Diesel engines than out of petrol engines is a natural advantage which influences people in choosing the form of engine they prefer. It is one of the factors determining the proportions in which petrol and Diesel engines are built.
  Mr. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt appreciates that the capital cost of Diesel vehicles is very much higher.
  Sir A. Salter: I quite agree, but all these factors come into the calculation of the man who is choosing what sort of vehicle he will buy, and determine the proportions in which Diesel and petrol vehicles are built. Incidentally and accidentally we give some form of encouragement to the Diesel as against the petrol engine. The mere fact that the Diesel engine uses less oil per mile means that an increase in an oil tax applying to both engines alike increases that advantage. I might, if I were going to be pedantic, say that in order not to start a distorting influence we might propose to correct that advantage, but I do not develop that argument.
  It is extremely undesirable that the type of engine for one class of vehicle or another should be determined not by the real economic advantage conferred by the vehicle whose fuel gives more miles, but by the further calculation that by choosing, say, a Diesel rather than a petrol engine the purchaser and the maker would escape some tax which would otherwise be paid. That would be undesirable not only because of the revenue which would be lost, but because it would determine that Diesel engines might be chosen for work for which petrol engines would be more suitable. It would be undesirable deliberately to introduce that distorting factor into the influences which determine the design and choice of vehicles for different sorts of traffic.
  Now I will say a word or two about the arguments of the hon. Member for Northfield, who was supporting the Amendment but spoke as if he were supporting an Amendment which was not called and by which a special preference was to be given to passenger as distinct from goods vehicles. If the Amendment had been so restricted, it would have meant a smaller loss of revenue, some £6½ million instead of £9 million, but there would have been an even more indefensible form of discrimination between one class of road user and another, between those who carry goods and those who carry passengers. In general I thought practically the entire argument of the hon. Gentleman was one against the increase in tax which is introduced
  1572
  in the Budget, that is to say, the question that was debated earlier this evening and upon which the Committee has voted.
  Mr. Chapman: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I was saying that in the case of bus fares, which are a common charge for the whole community, it is really inciting wage increases and all the bad consequences that follow, whereas the general tax on petrol is to some extent a luxury tax and therefore would not have that general effect.
  Sir A. Salter: I would not agree with the hon. Member that the general tax on petrol, covering the bulk of the lorry traffic of this country, could be regarded as in any sense a luxury tax.
  Mr. Chapman: In some instances.
  Sir A. Salter: I do not think the hon. Member has made a case for discriminating between the carriage of passengers and the carriage of goods. I think his argument could be fairly described by saying that it was really addressed to the harm caused by the increase in tax which has been proposed, and was not an argument for this Amendment. It is true that if this Amendment were carried some of the revenue we are obtaining would be lost and that for certain classes of transport the burden would be somewhat reduced. Essentially, however, his argument was one against an increase in tax, and that we disposed of earlier.
  Taking the Amendment as it was proposed, it would be highly undesirable to give a special form of exemption, even apart from the loss of revenue that would involve in order deliberately to weight the scales in favour of one kind of vehicle as against another and to weight the scales against one set of manufacturers who make one type of vehicle as against those who make another.
  Mr. Pargiter: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the scales were deliberately weighted to increase the development of the compression ignition engine because it was found to be a more efficient unit and, in operation, much more economical in the use of fuel? Therefore, it would not be creating a new precedent; it would be continuing something that has already been done.
  Sir A. Salter: I do not want to go back into history beyond saying that some precedents are good and some are not so good. I do not think it would be well to add to the natural advantages which are possessed by the Diesel engine, of being able to go more miles for a given amount of oil, a further deliberate subsidy of a kind in order to encourage one type of vehicle rather than another, a type of vehicle which would not otherwise have been chosen by the user or made by the manufacturer.
  Mr. Pargiter: In my own experience users generally are anxious for a reliable lighter Diesel engine which will give them that economy in fuel which they look for so much.
  Sir A. Salter: In that case there is the natural advantage already, which is retained and which is to some extent increased inasmuch as the increase proposed in the Budget is general. I will not develop that point further except to add that the hon. Member made one mistake. He gave as one of the reasons for this Amendment that it would encourage the use of Diesel locomotives. If he meant locomotives by road, his argument is relevant. If, however, he meant locomotives on rails, as I think he did, that is not relevant because they are already exempt, and therefore this Amendment is not required to attain the end desired by the hon. Member.
  For those reasons, I should not agree with the arguments put forward by the mover of the Amendment. As regards the hon. Member for Northfield, I think that his arguments were addressed rather to a point which we have already debated and decided. I am therefore unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: Watching ice hockey on television from time to time, one is always interested in seeing during the play a number of players going off and a fresh lot of players coming on. In the last hour the players who were with us earlier have departed, and in has come the Minister of State for Economic Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, presumably to keep a fatherly eye upon his Minister of State. I have been thinking that it would have been better had the Government left the Financial Secretary with us, because we were getting on splendidly with him and, probably, the Government
  1574
  would get the Clause very much quicker had their original team been left.
  I have been rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's excursions into the technicalities of the Diesel engine versus the ordinary combustion engine. Any engineers who read what the Minister of State has had to say, will be extremely surprised that he ever ventured into those fields.
  The Government have found themselves in great difficulties lately with regard to fares. They have found themselves in great muddle and confusion, not knowing where they were going; and if Dame Rumour is to be believed, there is already one Ministerial casualty as a result. I should have thought that nothing would have been done by the right hon. Gentleman to increase fares as the Government's proposal will obviously increase them. We on this side of the Committee are helping the Government to try to get back a little of the popularity that they once had for a fleeting moment, and we are urging them to keep fares down.
  The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the buses in Birmingham. There are 1,497 Diesel-engined buses there, and the extra cost for them will be £149,700.
  Mr. Chapman: It will be £187,000.
  Mr. Robens: I will accept the higher figure. I was merely quoting the figure that has been given to me. The fact is that the increase is considerable. Obviously, fares will be affected, because there are increases in other commodities, and I am very surprised that the Government have not taken the opportunity of the get-out which we have provided in the Amendment in order to keep fares down.
  There are two other features. The Government are interested in the export trade and in encouraging agriculture. They must know that more and more goods are being conveyed to the docks for shipment by lorries driven by Diesel engines, and that this proposal will acid to the cost of transport. The Government must know that more and more in agriculture the Diesel engine is being used and that it must add to agricultural costs.
  Therefore, by not looking at this matter and examining it to see whether they can find a method of exempting Diesel oil, the Government are shutting their eyes to

  1575
  the possibility of helping the export trade, of helping the fares position, and of helping agriculture. I am surprised that they have not taken advantage of the opportunity we have given.
  9.45 p.m.
  Sir A. Salter: The hon. Member said that I had plunged into technicalities which apparently I did not understand. Will he please give one instance? He has so far said nothing which is inconsistent with what I said as regards the technical side of this question. Would he address himself to the question as to the desirability of making a distinction between the tax on Diesel oil and the tax on petrol which, after all, is the point of this Amendment?
  Mr. Robens: Apparently the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is still on the Opposition side of the Committee if he wants me to spend a great deal of time in answering those questions. I was helping him by skating over those matters into which my hon. Friends have gone in great detail. He said that a distinction is made in connection with locomotives. If he puts on his thinking cap he will find some method of making a distinction for users of Diesel oil.
  Sir A. Salter: I did not say it should be made, but I said that it could be made.
  Mr. Robens: So far as locomotive users are concerned, it is exempt.
  Sir A. Salter: But this is a distinction between road users. The Amendment desires to give a special advantage to a particular form of road vehicle as against another form of road vehicle, and surely the case for the Amendment is to show that that distinction is desirable.
  Mr. Robens: It is a pity the right hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. Of course he may not know, because he may not have read the Treasury papers today,
  that about half an hour ago a concession was given in relation to invalid tricycles. It was pointed out to us by the Financial Secretary that the Treasury could only give the concession in respect of ex-Service disabled persons using tricycles because it was only the Minister of Pensions who had power to make grants in respect of those persons and he was unable much as he would like, to give a similar concession to civilian disabled who had the use of tricycles.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has just said in relation to Diesel oil versus petrol is that his hon. Friend should not have made the concession because the concession would not be made to both kinds of people who are disabled and the only difference is that one kind were disabled in war and the other in the factories. It is not a good argument to say that I must now show the right hon. Gentleman just how to make the difference between the petrol and the Diesel engine.
  I say that Diesel oil enters very much indeed into passenger fares and for that reason and that reason alone it would be a good thing to exempt it. It enters into agriculture and for that reason and that reason alone it would be a good thing to exempt it. It enters very much into the carrying of heavy goods to the ports in connection with our export trade, and for that reason it would be worth while trying to find a method of exempting it from the duty. I regard the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman as foolish in view of what his hon. Friend has done in the Committee half an hour ago, and I propose that we should now pass to the next stage and record our objection to the reply he has made and the lack of effort to do anything in this matter, by going into the Division Lobby.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 266 Noes, 284.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES

  [9.50 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Adams, Richard

  Bartley, P.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Albu, A. H.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Bence, C. R.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Benson, G.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Beswick, F.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Ayles, W. H.

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

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Baird, J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Balfour, A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Burke, W. A.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Holt, A. F.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Proctor, W. T.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Carmichael, J.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Reeves, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Clunie, J.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Richards, R.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Coldrick, W.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Collick, P. H.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Cook, T. F.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Janner, B.

  Ross, William

  Cove, W. G.

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

  Royle, C.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jager, George (Goole)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Short, E. W.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Slater, J.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Keenan, W.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Deer, G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dodds, N. N.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Kinley, J.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Steele, T.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Edelman, M.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Swingler, S. T.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  McInnes, J.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Ewart, R.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Field, W. J.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Fienburgh, W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Finch, H. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Tomney, F.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Follick, M.

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

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Foot, M. M.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Wade, D. W.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Messer, F.

  Watkins, T. E.

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

  Mikardo, Ian

  Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Weitzman, D.

  Glanville, James

  Monslow, W.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Moody, A. S.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  West, D. G.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Morley, R.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Grey, C. F.

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

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Wigg, George

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Murray, J. D.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Grimond, J.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Hannan, W.

  Oswald, T.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Hargreaves, A.

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

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Hastings, S.

  Pannell, Charles

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Parker, J.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Paton, J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Peart, T. F.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hobson, C. R.

  Porter, G.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

  Holman, P.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Arbuthnot, John

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

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  1578

  1579

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

  Gower, H. R.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

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

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Odey, G. W.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Hay, John

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Birch, Nigel

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Orr Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Heath, Edward

  Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

  Black, C. W.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Osborne, C.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Partridge, E.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Braine, B. R.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Pilkington, Capt R. A.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Pitman, I. J.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Butcher, H. W.

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

  Remnant, Hon. P.

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

  Hurd, A. R.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Channon, H.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Jennings, R.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cole, Norman

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Russell, R. S.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Kaberry, D.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Scott, R. Donald

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

  Lambton, Viscount

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Shepherd, William

  Crouch, R. F.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

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

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

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

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Linstead, H. N.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Speir, R. M.

  Donner, P. W.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Drewe, C.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

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

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Duthie, W. S.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Storey, S.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Errol, F. J.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Fell, A.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Summers, G. S.

  Finlay, Graeme

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Teeling, W.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

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

  Fort, R.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Foster, John

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Markham, Major S. F.

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

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Gage, C. H.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Tilney, John

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Turton, R. H.

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Maudling, R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Godber, J. B.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Vaughan-Morgan. J. K.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Vosper, D. F.

  1580

  1581

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Wellwood, W.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  York, C.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Wills, G.

  The Chairman: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  Provided that as and from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, there shall be allowed from the customs duty imposed by section two of the Finance Act, 1928, a rebate of sevenpence halfpenny a gallon on the delivery for home consumption of any light oils which are used as fuel in a flying machine or in connection with the manufacture and testing of flying machines.
  is fully covered by the following one in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell).
  Mr. Robens: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  (2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to—

  (a) any white spirit; or

  (b) any light oils, other than white spirit, which are not used as fuel in mechanically propelled vehicles constructed or adapted for use on roads.

  I am glad to see the Financial Secretary back in his place, and I hope he is going to deal with this Amendment because we found him so good on the previous one. I am certain that the Government have made up their minds to accept our Amendment because if we go to a Division we shall have the support of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), all of whom expressed themselves on this matter in no uncertain terms.
  I do not propose to make a long speech on this Amendment because we have debated this matter on more than one occasion, and I know that hon. Members on this side of the House have particular points to put about particular industries. But I want to say to the Committee that the industrial use of white spirit is widespread in many industries including paint, rubber, dyeing and cleaning, boot and floor polish, gelatine
  1582
  and glue making, linoleum, wallpaper, printing ink and many others. There is a whole host of uses of white spirit in industry generally, and it is important that while we are busily engaged in an export drive, and will be for many years to come, costs should be kept down as much as possible.
  Whilst it may well be proved that the increase is small in relation to the total cost of the product, we must remember that all these small increases add up and probably make such an increase that the manufacturer loses his market abroad. Indeed, those engaged in the export trade today know full well how finely calculated their prices have to be if they are to get orders at all. We feel that with the tax now at 2s. 6d. a gallon we have reached a stage where in many cases the tax is nearly double the wholesale price of the basic raw materials used by such a wide range of industries, and that the time has come to look at this matter very seriously indeed to see whether or not it is possible at this stage to prevent this last increase being passed on to industry in this way.
  I admit that many administrative difficulties may be raised by hon. Members opposite as reasons for not doing that, but I believe it is worth examining. It is important that we should encourage all those in industry who are struggling for export markets and trying to keep down prices on the home market by saying that we will not tax further the raw materials which they use in their manufactures.
  As I have said, hon. Friends of mine will be dealing with specific industries, and, therefore, I do not want to travel over ground which they will be covering in great detail. I will end by saying that we really ought to do what we can to keep down costs, both on the export and home market, and that here is a way in which we can help those who use this spirit solely for industrial purposes in the great battle of keeping down costs.
  Mr. F. Harris: While fully agreeing with all that the right hon. Member for

  1583
  Blyth (Mr. Robens) has just said, it seems very strange when I recall that about a year ago he and his colleagues strongly resisted identical arguments which we put forward from that side of the Committee. It once again emphasises the fact that it is very necessary for any Government to appreciate the difficulties that this extra duty is placing on manufacturers for whom white spirit is in most instances the principal commodity that they use.
  In my own constituency of North Croydon we have the largest dry cleaners in the whole of the county of Surrey. They have been subjected, as have other industries, to the very heavy burden of this increased duty, which once again we are placing on their shoulders. I think everyone will agree that dry cleaning is an essential industry in modern times. This further taxation is really laying a most unfair burden upon it.
  I submit that the Petrol Duty was originally intended as a tax on fuel used in the ordinary combustion engine, and most Governments still talk about it in those terms. Therefore, it seems a greater injustice to industry that this principal commodity that the chemical and paint industries use should be yearly subjected to further increases in duty. In the last two Budgets these industries have been subject to an extra 4½d. and 7½d. a gallon on white spirit, which is indeed a very heavy burden on their manufacturing costs.
  The dry-cleaning industry has been very fair indeed with the public in trying to stabilise their charges. It was not until a short time ago that, after a long period of time, they were compelled to raise their charges in sheer desperation. We are reaching a stage where it is very difficult indeed for industries to pass on these extra charges. Therefore, I sincerely hope the Government may consider the situation and recognise that it can be met. After all, white spirit was free of coupons in the days of petrol rationing, so it cannot be very difficult administratively to separate it now from the oils which are subject to this additional duty.
  I feel that that could be achieved, and I hope the Government will recognise that it is grossly unfair to add to this burden yearly when it could never have
  1584
  been originally intended that Petrol Duty should mean an extra cost to one of the principal commodities used by an industry.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support this Amendment and I hope that in view of the support it has received already from the other side of the Committee, and no doubt the further support it will receive from other hon. Members on the Government benches, the Minister of State for Economic Affairs will be able to accept it.
  It is really monstrous that this further increase in the Petrol Duty should be applied to oil used for industrial purposes and in manufacture as distinct from use in locomotion. Is there any reason for it other than the excuse that there will be administrative difficulties in making the concession for which the Amendment asks? If, as I apprehend, that is the only reason, could there be any better authority of how to deal with administrative difficulties than the Minister of Fuel and Power himself? He had a good deal to say on this subject in the debate on the Finance Bill last year.
  It will be remembered that when this matter came up last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) made a considerable concession on this subject and moved a new Clause, which is now Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1951, designed to go some way to meet criticisms that had been made on this subject. But what did the present Minister of Fuel and Power then say about administrative difficulties?
  He pointed out, on 28th June, 1951, in c. 1591 and 1592 of the OFFICIAL REPORT that practically every other industrial country in the world including, for example, the United States, Australia, South Africa, Eire, Holland, Denmark, Norway and various other countries had found no administrative difficulty whatever in exempting from the application of an increased petrol tax those who used white spirit and other hydrocarbon oils for manufacturing purposes. He pointed out with what seemed to me to be unanswerable logic that if those other countries were able to overcome administrative difficulties we should be able to do likewise.
  He went on to say quite rightly that we had a very high standard of administration

  1585
  in these matters, but that the other countries mentioned were also well-conducted, and capable of a fair and equitable administration of rebate. It surely ought not to be beyond the wit of our efficient Civil Service to administer a system designed to exempt industrial users of these spirits for manufacturing purposes from the increasingly high burden of a tax which is designed primarily to collect revenue from those who use motor spirit for locomotive purposes.
  Are we going to hear tonight from the Financial Secretary that it is these administrative difficulties which prevent him from accepting this Amendment? Is it merely the fear that there will be some abuse if this Amendment is accepted? Have the party opposite such a poor regard for the honesty and integrity of private enterprise industrialists that they think there will be great abuse if this concession is granted? No doubt, there will always be some attempt at evasion, as there must always be, but do they really say that it is beyond their capacity to devise an efficient system which will ensure that only those who have a legitimate claim to exemption will be granted exemption?
  The Minister will be well aware that all kinds of safeguards can be applied by the Customs and Excise to prevent abuse. The safeguards which can be adopted are well known. Nobody would be entitled to claim exemption from duty unless proper certificates were given, duly supported if necessary by the company's accountants and auditors. There would be appropriate penalties for making improper statements. There would be opportunities for the Government to have access to the books of records of any companies claiming exemption from the duty under the proviso proposed by this Amendment. There would be all the paraphernalia which is now open to the Government to ensure that that rebate was only granted in cases where it might legitimately be claimed.
  I hope we shall not hear this evening that it is these administrative difficulties which prevent the Government from giving recognition to this claim for exemption which is practically the universal demand of all manufacturers using these light hydrocarbon oils—not only the dyers and cleaners, to whom reference has been
  1586
  made, but the paint manufacturers, the linoleum manufacturers and those who use light hydrocarbon oils for all kinds of rubber gloves and goods.
  10.15 p.m.
  If the Minister should feel that he cannot do anything until the administrative machinery has been worked out which would enable him to grant the concession for which this Amendments asks, might I ask him what his Department is doing about the Section that was introduced last year at the request of the Opposition—the present Government—in order to meet the case of those manufacturers who use these light hydrocarbon oils as ingredients in various articles which are used for export? It will be remembered that the Section which was introduced by my right hon. Friend last year—Section 10—was expressly designed to ensure that at any rate throughout the whole range of the export trade persons using these light hydrocarbon oils as ingredients in goods for export should be enabled to obtain a drawback.
  What use is the Minister making of that Section? It was contemplated that there would be a series of inquiries dealing with each trade, to enable them to get the benefit of the Section. My information is that no order has yet been made under the provisions of that Section. If that is so, I should like to ask why not? When will the first order be made, when will the second order be made and when will a whole series of orders be made? It is now the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that full advantage is taken of the provisions of that Section.
  Surely it was not contemplated that we should have to wait a whole year before the Treasury came forward to implement the concessions which my party introduced last year? Surely it was not contemplated that these trades should be dealt with one at a time? Surely discussion could go on simultaneously with all the trades which were expected to derive benefit from drawback? I hope that the Minister will be good enough to give us some further information on that subject.
  I do not limit my support of this Amendment to that narrow ground. I base it on the much wider ground that this is a concession which ought to be made and which ought not to be refused purely on the argument of administrative

  1587
  difficulties. If there are administrative difficulties they ought to be overcome and, as the Minister is well aware, all kinds of suggestions have been made by the industries affected to indicate how those administrative difficulties can be overcome and the various safeguards can be introduced in order to prevent any evasion if this Amendment is made.
  Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I should like to refer to the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and myself, dealing with aviation spirit supplied for use in aircraft or used in connection with the construction or testing of any engine. This evening the Financial Secretary has made a concession in respect of the flying clubs of Britain. I have never seen the reason for a tax on aviation spirits used by the airlines.
  The two national Corporations—B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C.—have for a number of years had deficits, and we have been giving money to the Corporations with one hand and taking it away with the other. It is the taxpayers' money, and there is a lot of accountancy and other work involved. Fortunately, B.O.A.C. is now out of the red, but B.E.A.C. is not yet in that happy position.
  Apart from the two Corporations, the independent operators are still fighting hard to make a living, and I suspect that many of them are having considerable losses. I wonder whether it is generally realised that, on the internal air services in this country, the first five passengers boarding an aeroplane pay their fares not to the operator but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is, the first five passengers on small aircraft flying in this country. It will be very difficult to build up the merchant fleet of the air if, perhaps, 25 per cent. of the passengers are paying their full fare to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he could not discriminate in favour of one form of transport, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend, nor, certainly, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, realise the position, because in air transport the consumption of fuel and its cost provide
  1588
  a problem which is quite different from that in the case of road vehicles.
  I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that in the air we are in a transitional stage; we are moving from pistonengined aircraft to jet engines and, as is known, jet engines use kerosene, which does not bear this tax. Within perhaps three or four years, 80 per cent. of the airliners in this country will consume kerosene. What is going to happen then? Are we to have another tax imposed on the jet airliners—a form of propulsion in which Britain is leading, building Comets for other countries and creating a great export trade? It does not make sense at all. I would refer, quite briefly, to the testing of aircraft and engines. About 60 per cent. of the aviation petrol consumed in this country is consumed in bench testing. I believe that figure has increased in the last 12 months. In 1950 the figure was 52,000 tons.
  We have in this country a very great aero-engineering industry, with highly-skilled designers and craftsmen, who last year exported about £43 million worth of equipment, not in aircraft but mainly in spare parts. I believe that if they are encouraged in the right direction our exports in the next few years may reach £150 million or £200 million a year, which means that for years afterwards we shall sell large quantities of spares both for the aeroplanes and for the engines. Through this great engineering industry we may well make up what we lose on textiles and other industries.
  I ask the Minister of State not to treat the matter lightly. It is important for the future economic position of the country. The sum of money involved is not great. At the moment it costs British European Airways £103,000 a year, and I am told that it costs independent operators £40,000 a year. It costs B.O.A.C. very little, because 99 per cent. of their flying is done out of Britain and they are exempt from tax for such flying. They pay tax on aviation fuel when flying from London to Prestwick en route to Canada and the United States, or perhaps in flying from Heathrow to Bristol.
  I ask the Minister of State to give this matter his favourable consideration because, by so doing, he will be rendering a service to this great industry, which has such brilliant prospects.
  Captain M. Hewitson: For successive years I have sought the remission of the tax on light hydrocarbon oils in so far as they affect the paint industry, and each time that I have criticised my own Front Bench, when they were on the other side of the House, I received great cheers and enthusiastic support from hon. Members opposite, including the present Front Bench, in my criticism of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Tonight, if they were, over the successive years, honest in their enthusiasm and their cheers, and if these Amendments were to go to a Division, one would naturally expect them to be in the Lobby supporting the Amendments and their cheers of the past.
  Mr. Nabarro: And the Opposition voting against them.
  Captain Hewitson: Again we shall find a promise made broken. We are getting quite used to that now, and I think that the people of the country are, too. However, tonight the Financial Secretary or the Minister of State for Economic Affairs has an opportunity of making a concession that will build up goodwill and morale in an industry which stands second to none in this country so far as good relationships go.
  This appeal is being made tonight for both the trade union and the employers' sides of the industry. We have a National Joint Council on which we discuss the whole of the problems of our industry, and if one side or the other has any difficulty, there is no hesitation in calling the two sides together to put the whole of the difficulty on the table for a commonsense solution.
  This appeal is being made to the Treasury to give some relief to this industry, which is one of the industries in which the labour cost is the lowest of all the industry's costs, and in which the cost of raw materials is the highest cost. This industry manufactures roughly 35 million gallons of paint per year. Paint that is directly exported in bulk carries a remission of duty for bulk export; but the major portion of the paint exported is not exported in bulk, but is exported on some other commodity such as motor cars, engineering products—indeed, every type of goods the export of which we are being asked from both sides of the Committee to build up. Tonight the
  1590
  Treasury has an opportunity of showing goodwill and of making an attempt to reduce the costs of a primary, basic commodity.
  Tomorrow there will be a meeting of the Joint Council of the paint industry, and tomorrow, in all probability, I think, notice will be given of a demand for an increase in wages in the paint industry to meet the rising cost of living. Here is an opportunity for the Chancellor or the Minister of State for Economic Affairs or the Financial Secretary to show some measure of goodwill to the industry that will probably have far-reaching effects tomorrow on the arguments that will be put forward. It could be a genuine effort on the part of the Treasury to lower the costs of production.
  We have been told to produce more, work harder, use new types of machines, and do all manner of things in mass production to bring down costs. An opportunity is here tonight for the giving of some assistance by the Treasury in that direction. It may be said that administrative difficulties stand in the way, but already the paint industry has submitted to the Treasury a scheme to avoid abuse and to help the administration of any scheme of rebate on light hydrocarbon oils used in the manufacture of paint.
  10.30 p.m.
  Other countries have administrative difficulties greater than ours. In America the administrative machine is not nearly as simple as ours, yet they have found ways of rebate for light hydrocarbon oils in industry. They have found means in Canada. They have found means in two countries that are just rebuilding their economic systems, Germany and Italy. Germany especially will become a competitor of ours on the world markets, and relief has already been given in the taxation of light hydrocarbon oils used in industry.
  In other countries such as Australia and South Africa tax differentials have been granted in this direction. Since the war Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway and Finland have given tax rebates on the use of light hydrocarbon oils in industry. So surely it is just a commonsense argument that we in this great country, with our great possibilities, should have a Government that will give every possible help to industry and to production for export, because it is only

  1591
  by exporting that we can live. Tonight is the opportunity. Tonight we can have some aid given to industry which will really help it.
  Ever since the original duty of 4d. a gallon was levied on light hydrocarbon oils it has not been understood. It was not meant at that time that this tax should become a burden on industry generally. It was a road tax at the beginning. Yet today we have the unhappy position that while Purchase Tax on luxury articles is 100 per cent., the tax on light hydrocarbon oils used in paint manufacture is 175 per cent. on the wholesale price. Purchase Tax is 100 per cent. on luxury fur coats and the like, but a commodity which is essential to all industry, paint, bears a tax of 175 per cent. on the basic material that goes into it.
  That is wrong. That is ridiculous. One could call it outrageous because in itself it is a demonstration that industry is not receiving very much help. I repeat: tonight presents an opportunity. We may be told that with a production of 35 million gallons per year the reduction of 1s. per gallon suggested in my Amendment would mean £1¾ million per annum rebate in tax. But already there is a rebate on bulk exports, so it ought to be something less than that figure. But even £1¾ million would be a welcome rebate to the industry, and it would be an encouragement to the country for increased production at a lower cost.
  It may be argued that we cannot afford it. But if the trade union at the meeting tomorrow serves notice for an increase in wages of a substantial character, and press for that increase, and—I repeat what I said a short while ago in the House—they will not take "No" for an answer, it will cost more than that overall per annum.
  We have given support in the trade union world to various Ministers, including the Chancellor in his appeal. We have had inside conferences and heart to heart talks to examine our difficulties, and, indeed, when the Chancellor was making his Budget speech, standing behind the Chair when he was talking of trades unions and their counsels I could feel a halo forming round my head so kind were his words and so lavish his opinion of trade union leaders.
  1592
  Here he has an opportunity to do something or to advise the Minister for Economic Affairs to do something—
  Mr. Anthony Fell: I should like to ask one question that has reference to the meeting tomorrow. What is the connection between the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment and the trade union meeting that is to take place tomorrow?
  Captain Hewitson: The meeting tomorrow is not a trade union meeting. It is a meeting of the Joint Council which embraces both sides of the industry, and consideration is to be given to the question of whether or not there should be an application for an increase in wages.
  This pernicious tax and any wage increase would mean that the price of raw materials and the costs of labour would rise, so that the finished product would also rise in cost. A substantial wage increase would mean that there would be a considerable increase in the cost of the finished product. Rising costs of labour and materials are making the position well nigh impossible for our manufacturers, who are also forced to face increasing competition from countries like Germany, whose firms get rebates to keep the cost of the product down.
  A token effort can be made by the acceptance of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has already had a conference suggesting that there should be some form of wage standstill, or if not that a toning down of wage demands. The right hon. Gentleman is still waiting for a reply to that. The right hon. Gentleman can give an example by a display of willingness on the part of the Treasury to assist this industry, but if no help is forthcoming—
  Mr. Arthur Colegate: I should like help from the hon. and gallant Gentleman to follow his argument. Is he claiming that if the Chancellor gives way on this Amendment then there will be no wage claim tomorrow?
  Captain Hewitson: It would be very wrong of me to say that if the Chancellor gives a concession tonight there will be no wage claim, and that if he does not give way we shall go to the limit. What I am suggesting is that the Chancellor should make a token effort to help an

  1593
  industry, and so strengthen the hands of the trade union leaders who are facing their own members, because they could then point to the fact that efforts were being made to keep production costs down.
  Mr. Fell: I want information on this point from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I hope that he will try to satisfy the Committee about this. When I asked him what connection there was between these two things he explained, reasonably enough, that wages plus the cost of this tax would increase the price of the product. He has answered my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) by saying that it would be wrong for him to suggest anything about what would be the result of the negotiations tomorrow. How can he then claim that there would then in fact be an increased cost because of increased wages? What is the point of this argument?
  Captain Hewitson: I wish the hon. Member would be sitting at the table tomorrow, and he would realise the point of the argument.
  I am simply trying to explain that if a gesture was made by the Treasury by way of relief to this industry, it would have a moral effect in persuading the men and women in the workshops that here was an attempt by H.M. Government to keep down the overall costs of the finished product by way of a remission of taxation. If that was made—if this gesture was given—then we, as trade union leaders, could argue that the demands from the workshop level should not be so great in order that we should give a quid pro quo towards keeping down production costs.
  Mr. Fell: The argument then, is that at this meeting, the hon. and gallant Member will say that the Treasury must act as he wishes? That is surely a bargain.
  Captain Hewitson: I would not bargain; that would be morally dishonest. If I may try to explain again, I would say that I am making an attempt to show that if the Treasury Bench made a gesture here tonight to the industry, it would show goodwill from the Government side; and, after all, goodwill is not a one-way traffic. If goodwill is shown from the Treasury Bench, then it
  1594
  can also be shown by those in the workshops of the industry as well. Paint is an example of how that can be done.
  Remissions have been given for other types of oil. It is illogical that since Diesel oil and oils for non-transport purposes were exempted from duty in October 1946, that kerosene, including vaporising oil for farm tractors, were exempted in 1947, and that light hydrocarbon oils used in the finishing industries were also exempted, that there should not be a remission of tax for this industry. We are told about the administrative difficulties, but it has not been found impossible for the administrative machine to find a means of drawback of tax for other industries; and, in view of the fact that the paint industry has put in a plan to the Treasury explaining how this can be done administratively, an effort should be made by the Treasury to implement the scheme.
  If there can be no promise tonight of any alteration, will the Financial Secretary say that he will consider the matter between now and the Report stage of the Bill? If the Treasury would do something of that description, it will help the buildup of goodwill in an industry which has become noted over the past forty years for its high standard of good industrial relationship.
  10.45 p.m.
  Sir A. Salter: We have had this evening a few samples of the great complexity of the British economic system, and incidentally, some indication of the complexity which would necessarily be attached to any system of drawback extended over the whole area of those industries using any form of light oil.
  On an earlier Amendment we dealt with a proposal for the exemption of heavy oils. Now we have an Amendment proposing, except in the case of read traffic, to give complete exemption to all light oils. To go into great detail on every industry mentioned, and still more, to go into the case of every industry involved which has not been mentioned would be difficult and lengthy. I will refer to one or two, but I think it important to have the general purpose and principle of the duty clearly in our minds.
  I do not think it can be better put than it was by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) last year. He said:

  1595
  "I fully agree that one must consider very carefully before imposing any increase in tax on any industrial material. … But the fact is that this tax on light hydrocarbon oils was never intended, as is sometime erroneously supposed, as simply a tax on road transport. Indeed the classical statement of the orthodox doctrine about this tax was enunciated by"—
  the present Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman then quoted from the present Prime Minister, who said in answer to various pleas for exemption:
  "'If you start to give these exemptions you will end by attempting to confine the burden of the Petrol Duty exclusively to the road user.'"
  Then, after quoting certain instances, the present Prime Minister said:
  "'If you did that, you would, undoubtedly, have vitiated the tax. … You will have undoubtedly destroyed the tax. …'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1951; Vol. 488, c. 884.]
  That tax brings in some £270 million—not the part affected by the present Amendment, but the tax as a whole.
  Perhaps anticipating that his remarks would be quoted, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said earlier that his argument in relation to a tax at the time when it was 1s. 10½d. was not the same as in relation to a tax at 2s. 6d. That is true, and that was a very relevant point to make when discussing the general height of this tax. But when we are looking at the reasons he gave for not giving this particular kind of relief in the form of drawbacks to other industries using light oils I cannot think his arguments of last year are substantially weakened in effect by the fact that we are now discussing a tax at 2s. 6d. a gallon instead of 1s. 10½d.
  Having said that, I am bound, in giving reasons why I am unable to accept this Amendment, to place a good deal of importance on the administrative reason to which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred. Some drawbacks are relatively easy to administer and some are much more complicated. Some would have a great deal of financial effect and in some cases it would be hardly worth while for an industrialist to claim, or perhaps just worth while, but at an expense to himself that deprives him of a large part of the benefit, and an expense which is matched, or is greater, in the case of the officials concerned in collecting the tax.
  1596
  For example, think of the complexities involved in the case of my hon. Friend, the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris)—the dry cleaners. Think of the staff required and the complexity of the system required to have inspecting officers at every dry-cleaning establishment in the country, for what is really not a very important part of their costs.
  Mr. Beswick: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how he applies this argument to the operators of aircraft, who already get a drawback in respect of aircraft that go overseas—operators who are comparatively few in number?
  Sir A. Salter: The financial advantage and the administrative simplicity are very much greater in some cases than in others. Administratively it would be easier in relation to aircraft, certainly, but this is a general Amendment which covers a vast number of cases where the difficulties would be greater and the financial advantages less.
  Mr. Beswiek: It is a general Amendment, but we are discussing also the point of one or two other Amendments, one of which is very particular. It is an Amendment which hon. Gentlemen opposite are apparently going to support with us, in the Lobby, against the Government. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not the administrative difficulties that cause him to hesitate on this case but the financial advantages. There are absolutely no financial advantages in the tax on aviation fuel, because the Government hand back what they collect in the form of subsidy.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not support us in the Lobby last time.
  Sir A. Salter: I will continue with my argument. The hon. Member for Islington, East said—it was a perfectly clear point, to which I do not profess I can give a complete answer—that other countries do this. It is quite true that in some other countries there is this drawback system; it is also true that in some of them the drawback system is administered in a rough and ready way that means, for example, depriving the great bulk of the small people of the advantages, because of the enormous administrative difficulties.

  1597
  Apart from administrative costs and difficulties both to the individual claiming drawbacks and to the officials concerned in seeing they are legitimately claimed, no amount of administrative supervision would ever be able to avoid a very considerable abuse. A number of these oils can quite easily be used, and it is very difficult to detect their use, for road traffic. Even with an expensive system of administration there would still be a good deal of abuse.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that this country cannot adopt the solution that has been found in other great industrial countries, apparently with great success and satisfaction, for overcoming this problem; and will not the Minister study the way the United States, France and Australia deal with this problem?
  Sir A. Salter: We think that, covering the whole range of these industries, in many cases it would involve a quite disproportionate amount of expense and inconvenience for the result obtained.
  Where there is a special case in which it is in the national interest that any particular form of our economy should have special encouragement—and I fully understand the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) about various forms of air transport—we do not think that, as a rule, the best way is to give special exemptions by way of drawbacks to particular taxes so that there is a whole series of half-concealed subsidies or preferences. We have had instances where a particular class of the community has had a special claim for relief of some kind and has received it in a special form. But we think the anomalies and difficulties of a general drawback system of this kind are too great to make it practicable.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are probably only 40 or 50 commercial aircraft operating in Britain? Arising from what he has said has he in mind giving them another subsidy? This small industry needs propping up if we are to make a go of it.
  Mr. Hewitson: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what some of the administrative difficulties would be?
  Sir A. Salter: I cannot go into the particular administrative system that would be required for each of the many industries that would be affected. I did not say that the administrative difficulties would be insuperable in the case that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield had in mind because I was arguing with regard to the general Amendment which, of course, refers to all industries which make use of these light oils. A drawback in the case he raised would give a strong case for extension to the whole range covered by this Amendment and I think that that method of helping that part of the economy is not really desirable for reasons which have been given and repeated by successive Governments for a long time.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North and the Member for Islington, East asked what is being done with regard to the new Section which the right hon. Gentleman introduced last year to extend the drawback in the case of exports. The preparation of drawback orders under the new provision of the Act last year for export goods where oil is used as a solvent has proved to be a very long and complicated business. By agreement with the trade interests it was arranged to deal first with the trade in certain rubber articles—gloves, raincoats and other articles where the amount of oil used is considerable. Apart from the possible exception of motor cars, oil used in paint on exported goods is such a trivial part of the cost that firms have not shown much keenness to have a drawback order.
  Discussions on this point have now reached an advanced stage and it is expected that a Treasury Order will be laid before the House very shortly affecting the goods to which I have referred—raincoats and so on. That will not necessarily be the last order, but I cannot say that the orders will ultimately cover all the goods which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he introduced this section last year. I wish I could have gone more fully into all the interesting cases put forward for the paint industry, the aircraft industry and so on, but I do not think the Committee would wish me to do so at the moment. I am afraid that for the reasons I have mentioned it is not possible for us to accept the Amendment.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: We have heard the right hon. Gentleman's answer with very considerable disappointment. I had hoped that the plea made by the hon. Gentleman for Croydon, North (Mr. Frederic Harris) would have moved him because, as in his case, I am particularly concerned with one of the dye works. So far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned it is a case of now or never. If the hon. Member will go into the Lobby against the Government on this issue, he would be surprised at the success that would attend his future efforts on this Bill, because it would indicate that he means what he says. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about last year?"] I did not speak last year, and I do not intend to speak for very long tonight because I am anxious it shall not be said that, on this particular Amendment, and the one before, the Chancellor was obstructed by this side of the Committee in trying to get Clause 1 by 11.30 tonight—a point on which we are exceedingly anxious to help him.
  This white spirit could, I would have thought, have been quite easily distinguished. It has a different flash-point from the oil used in the main for road purposes. It has a flash-point above 73 degrees Fahrenheit and a distillation range of from 140 to 200 degrees centigrade. Motor spirit has a flash point much below 73 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, I recollect at the beginning of this century what is now regarded as the valuable low flash point of this oil was regarded as a very considerable menace in homes. White spirit, in those days, sold very cheaply, and was used in lamps which had the unenviable habit of exploding and involving children clad in inflammable garments in accidents which sometimes resulted in death.
  There appears to me no reason why a quite easy physical test could not be applied to the oils covered in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I do want to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members opposite the desirability of assisting the industry that was particularly alluded to by the hon. Member for Croydon, North, because this dry cleaning industry is carried out either in white spirit or a synthetic solvent, but the greatest part of the work is cleaned in white spirit. This is a growing
  1600
  industry, due very largely to the increasing desire of people to have not too many suits of clothes and to ensure that they can present themselves at work in a reasonably clean condition.
  The number of persons in the industry in June this year was given as 42,000, nearly all of them in the white spirit using plants. Prices in the industry, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North, said, have risen by approximately only 45 per cent. over pre-war, and compared with practically every other industry in the country and every other industry concerned with clothing, this shows a very reasonable attitude on the part of the people who run the industry. If this additional tax is put on, it is quite clear there will have to be substantial increases in the amounts charged.
  There is no doubt that this tax is regarded as a petrol tax. That is what everyone calls it, and people who do not follow the matter closely are surprised to find that things like the cleaning of clothes by high flash point spirit are subject to this tax which they had regarded as a petrol tax. It is serious enough, in all conscience, as a petrol tax; but I do suggest that it is possible to distinguish between this spirit and the petrol which is used on the roads for propulsive purposes.
  To me it seems unfair and illogical to hamper this branch of industry, which, I know, endeavours to supply something which the country needs at a cost which compares with those of practically every other trade in the same category. Thus it represents a genuine effort to help the public and not to take advantage of the general rise in prices.
  I hope that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I know, has a mind which is always open to reason, will consider not merely the economic arguments which have been used, but the falsity of the argument used by the Economic Secretary—that it is impossible to distinguish between this spirit and others—which come within the range of this tax. I hope that my hon. Friends will show their dissatisfaction with the right hon. Gentleman's reply by recording their votes in the Lobby, supported by the hon. Member for Croydon, North, and others who were disappointed with the action which we took last year.
  Mr. F. Erroll: Over a number of years, now, I have heard the case of the Civil Service responsible for administering this tax put forward from the Despatch Box, first by Socialist Ministers, and now by a Conservative Minister. I can only say that the case put forward by the Conservative Minister was less convincing than that of the Socialist Minister. That is why I feel that there are real grounds for hope that next year we shall see many of the concessions introduced in the 1953 Finance Bill which we have been urging for a number of years.
  As the hour is late, I only wish to put it to my hon. Friends on this side that we should not delay the Committee but should go into the Lobby against the Amendment this year, confident that between now and a later stage we shall have time to persuade our colleagues on the Front Bench of the merits of a case which, due to many factors they have not had proper time to consider in their few months in office. I hope that they will consider our representations during the coming months.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Even at this late hour I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the decision which has been announced tonight. I do not think there is any doubt that if the Members of the Committee were able to vote tonight according to their convictions the Amendment would be carried. If hon. Members on the other side twit us with not supporting the Amendment last year, I will say that, personally, I should be satisfied if they would do tonight what I did last year. Last year, because I was opposed to this tax, I abstained from voting, and if hon. Members opposite will abstain from voting on this occasion we will carry this Amendment tonight.
  Last year I was disturbed because in my constituency, where there are very many light industries, I had had heavy correspondence on this matter; but the correspondence which I had last year from these industries is nothing compared with the correspondence which is now in my hands. I shall not delay the Committee by citing the cases which I have here, but there are cases not only of rubber industries, paint industries and dry-cleaning industries but very many
  1602
  light industries upon which both our export market and our home market depend.
  My appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite—and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is not to be content with the suggestion which has been made that this matter should be reconsidered during the next 12 months, but that it should be reconsidered between now and the Report stage, and that a concession which would be in accordance with the views of the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should be given when the Report stage is reached.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are very disappointed with the reply of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. He can plead that it was administratively impossible to meet our desires on this Amendment, but "where there's a will there's a way." The Government have recently found it administratively possible to introduce a scheme for charges in the Health Service, and that is a much bigger problem than the administrative difficulty that meets the purpose of this Amendment.
  I should like to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered the repercussions of this additional tax—even as far as the Minister of Housing and Local Government is concerned. It means that every one of the 300,000 houses that will some day go up will cost more. I should also like to say a word about its effects upon certain industries within my constituency. Probably two of the biggest users of paint are shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, which are finding growing competition from both Germany and Japan. Anything that adds to their production costs is going to make it more difficult for them to get the orders which will mean full employment in the shipbuilding yards.
  Another fact that has to be considered is that it will put up the price of paint internally and thus probably lessen demand and it means that those employed in the industry will become the less secure because of it. Many of the paint factories are situated in areas where there is no alternative employment;

  1603
  so it will not be possible to switch the manpower—as the Chancellor would like some employees to be switched—to work in connection with the re-armament programme. For those reasons I hope that the plea of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, Central (Captain Hewitson), that this
  matter will be reconsidered between now and the Report stage, will fall upon willing ears and that we shall get better news when the Report stage is reached.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 239 Noes, 254.

  Division No. 109.]

  AYES

  [11.15 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Adams, Richard

  Follick, M.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Albu, A. H.

  Foot, M. M.

  Messer, F.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Monslow, W.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Moody, A. S.

  Baird, J.

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

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Balfour, A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Morley, R.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Glanville, James

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Bence, C. R.

  Gooch, E. G.

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

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moyle, A.

  Benson, G.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Beswick, F.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Murray, J. D.

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

  Grey, C. F.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Orbach, M.

  Boardman, H.

  Grimond, J.

  Oswald, T.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Padley, W. E.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Pannell, Charles

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hannan, W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Parker, J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Peart, T. F.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Porter, G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Holman, P.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Holt, A. F.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Carmichael, J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Reeves, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Clunie, J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Coldrick, W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Ross, William

  Collick, P. H.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Royle, C.

  Cook, T. F.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Janner, B.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Short, E. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Slater, J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Deer, G.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Delargy, H. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Steele, T.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Edelman, M.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McInnes, J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Ewart, R.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Field, W. J.

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

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Tomney, F.

  Finch, H. J.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Usborne, H. C.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Wade, D. W.

  Wigg, George

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Weitzman, D.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Yates, V. F.

  West, D. G.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Horace Holmes.

  NOES

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

  Erroll, F. J.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Fell, A.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Fisher, Nigel

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Fort, R.

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

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Foster, John

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

  Gage, C. H.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marples, A. E.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Godber, J. B.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Maude, Angus

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Gower, H. R.

  Maudling, R.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Birch, Nigel

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Black, C. W.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Braine, B. R.

  Hay, John

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Heath, Edward

  Odey, G. W.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Orr, Capt, L. P. S.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Osborne, C.

  Belles, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Partridge, E.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Channon, H.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Cole, Norman

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Redmayne, M.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kaberry, D.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Robson-Brown, W.

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

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Crouch, R. F.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Russell, R. S.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Davidson, Viscountess

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

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Deedes, W. F.,

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lindsay, Martin

  Scott, R. Donald

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Shepherd, William

  Donner, P. W.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

  Low, A. R. W.

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Speir, R. M.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

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

  1606

  1607

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Tilney, John

  Wellwood, W.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Turton, R. H.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Summers, G. S.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Wills, G.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Teeling, W.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  York, C.

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

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

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

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, at the end, to add:
  (5) Any person being a cab owner to whom a cab licence has been granted by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for a motor cab under the London Cab Order, 1934, and remains valid shall be entitled to an allowance or repayment of one shilling per gallon (hereinafter referred to as "the taxicab rebate") of the duty in respect of the hydrocarbon oil purchased by him for use in supplying motive power for such motor cab:
  Provided that an application for the taxicab rebate allowed by this subsection must be made to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in such manner as the Commissioners may prescribe.
  This Amendment asks for a rebate of 1s. 0d. per gallon to the London taxicab service and the reason for it is that the service is now running at a loss. On 18th March I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was aware that by imposing an additional tax on petrol he was making it impossible for London taxi-cabs to operate without loss, and what action he was proposing to take to enable this service to continue operations. My right hon. Friend replied:
  "The additional duty will mean, in the case of a vehicle doing 15 miles to the gallon, an extra cost of ½d. per mile. I regret that it was necessary to make this increase, but I have no evidence that it will involve discontinuance of the London taxi service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 190.]
  Since my right hon. Friend answered that question a memorandum has been sent him and full evidence, supported by statistics, has been given him which shows that the London taxi-cab service was losing a ½d. a mile before the Budget and an extra ½d. a mile since the Budget announcement of an increase in the petrol tax. That means that the loss per cab per annum amounts to about £200 per year.
  It might be suggested that the loss in recent months will not occur in the summer months, but I should like to
  1608
  suggest that the peak period of some six weeks in June and July when a profit might be made will not offset a loss of 1d. per mile during the remainder of the year, a period of 46 weeks. The question therefore remains: Does the Chancellor want the taxi-cab service to exist in London? If he does not want it to exist then he has only to leave the tax as at present and the taxi-cab service in London will fade away. If he wants it to remain it is necessary for some assistance to be given.
  The suggestion that I have made in this Amendment is a practical one. There is no fear of abuse. There is control through the police licences of the taxi-cab owners and drivers. The cab mileage is known and is recorded. The miles per gallon are known and the rebate could be claimed from the Revenue at the end of the year on an auditor's certificate of the mileage done and the gallons of petrol used.
  11.30 p.m.
  It might be suggested that there would be a cost to the Exchequer of some £500,000 or £600,000 a year; but, in point of fact, that would not be the case for that is assuming that the London taxi-cab service continues to run—which it will not, unless something is done. One has to take into account the fact that new cabs are no longer coming on to the London streets to replace the old ones which are due to be taken off under police regulations. Some 1,103 cabs are due this year to leave London streets, and no new vehicles are coming on. Eighty-nine new cabs were introduced in the early weeks of this year, but the service has declined from 7,684 in 1938 to 6,162 at the beginning of this year, and is now down to 5,948.
  I give these figures to show that revenue will be lost to the Exchequer if the 1,000 new cabs, planned to replace

  1609
  the old vehicles, are not forthcoming; double Purchase Tax will be lost, and that amounts to some £500,000 at £472 a cab. So, it is quite wrong to say that £500,000 or more will be lost.
  Then, there remains the question of whether cabs are necessary in London. I suggest that they are not only desirable, but are a necessity for conveying people with heavy baggage who cannot use the Tube or bus, and who do not have a private car. They are necessary for business requirements and for overseas visitors coming to London. It is unthinkable that London should be the only great capital city without such a service, and I therefore suggest that help should be given to the London cabs and discrimination made because they are public service vehicles, specially constructed to meet police requirements and in no way comparable with private hire vehicles which can charge what they like, and which are not subject to special construction regulations.
  For these reasons, I submit that the London cab service is desirable, and necessary, and if it is to continue to operate, relief must be given; and by giving relief, there will not be a loss to the Treasury. The proposed method of granting relief would be simple. Upon the Chancellor's decision depends the life or death of the London taxi-cab service.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would perhaps be convenient if I intervened at this stage
  to say that we appreciate that there is here a very real problem. I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said about the London cab service being of very great importance to a great capital city such as ours. But his specific proposal has its reaction upon the cab services of other cities, and it is necessary to give fuller consideration to the effects of that reaction. We are anxious to consider the whole of this problem and the best method of dealing with it.
  We do, however, require a little time to give this problem the examination it deserves, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to allow us further time. I ask him to do that on the clear understanding that we realise that this is a real problem and the proper method of dealing with it needs to be considered. There is also the question of the hour, so far as this Committee is concerned. It is a little late. We have had a good example of the way the Parliamentary machine can work and it would be particularly appropriate if we could continue that to the end.
  Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the statement of the Financial Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 223.

  Division No. 110.]

  AYES

  [11.35 p.m.

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Donner, P. W.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Butcher, H. W.

  Drewe, C.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

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

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucke, Wycombe)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Erroll, F. J.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Channon, H.

  Fell, A.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Baxter, A. B.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Cole, Norman

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Fort, R.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Foster, John

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Gage, C. H.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Birch, Nigel

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gammans, L. D.

  Bishop, F. P.

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

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Black, C. W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Godber, J. B.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Braine, B. R.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Russell, R. S.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Hay, John

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Shepherd, William

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Marples, A. E.

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

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maude, Angus

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Speir, R. M.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Mellor, Sir John

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

  Horobin, I. M.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Stevens, G. P.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Nield, Basil (Chaster)

  Teeling, W.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Odey, G. W.

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

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

  Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Kaberry, D.

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

  Tilney, John

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Osborne, C.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Partridge, E.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Vesper, D. F.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

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

  Pitman, I. J.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Wellwood, W.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Redmayne, M.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Wills, G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Robertson, Sir David

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Edward Hoar.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Finch, H. J.

  Adams, Richard

  Clunie, J.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Follick, M.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Coldrick, W.

  Foot, M. M.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Collick, P. H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Baird, J.

  Cook, T. F.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Balfour, A.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Bence, C. R.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

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

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Benson, G.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Glanville, James

  Beswick, F.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

  Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grey, C. F.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Deer, G.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Boardman, H.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Grimond, J.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Edelman, M.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Hannan, W.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Carmichael, J.

  Ewart, R.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Champion, A. J.

  Field, W. J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Holman, P.

  1612

  1613

  Holt, A. F.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Houghton, Douglas

  Morley, R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Steele, T.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Murray, J. D.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Host. P. J.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  O'Brien, T.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Janner, B.

  Orbach, M.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

  Oswald, T.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Jager, George (Goole)

  Padley, W. E.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

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

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Pannell, Charles

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Parker, J.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Peart, T. F.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wallace, H. W.

  Keenan, W.

  Porter, G.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Weitzman, D.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Proctor, W. T.

  West, D. G.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Pryde, D. J.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Reeves, J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Wigg, George

  McInnes, J.

  Rhodes, H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  McLeavy, F.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Ross, William

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Royle, C.

  Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Messer, F.

  Short, E. W.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Yates, V. F.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Monslow, W.

  Slater, J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Sorenson, R. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Horace Holmes.

  Resolution agreed to.

  To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 21st April].
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the moneys so payable under the said Act of 1922.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  HOUSING [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amounts of the annual exchequer, rate fund and county council contributions under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament or into the Exchequer under any enactment, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) raising the general standard amount of the annual exchequer contributions under the said Act of 1946 in respect of houses completed after the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, to twenty-six pounds fourteen shillings;

  (b) raising the special standard amount of the said contributions to thirty-five pounds fourteen shillings;

  (c) raising the standard amount of the said contributions in the case of dwellings to which section four of the said Act of 1946 applies (other than flats described in

  1615
  the proviso to subsection (1) of that section) to a sum rising from fifty-two pounds sixteen shillings where the cost per acre of the site as developed does not exceed four thousand pounds up to sixty pounds eighteen shillings where that cost does not exceed twelve thousand pounds, and then increasing by one pound nineteen shillings for each additional two thousand pounds or part of two thousand pounds in that cost;

  (d) raising the standard amount of the said contributions in the case of flats described in the said proviso to a sum ascertained in accordance with the last foregoing paragraph plus ten pounds ten shillings;

  (e) raising to two pounds five shillings the proportional addition to the standard amount of the said contributions authorised by section thirty-eight of the Housing Act, 1949, in the case of houses to which that section applies;

  (f) amending the law relating to contributions under section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, or improvement grants under section twenty of the Housing Act, 1949;

  and any increase attributable to any provisions of 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.

  BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO CHIEFTAINSHIP)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  11.48 p.m.
  Mr. T. Driberg: I am greatly honoured by the presence here of the Prime Minister to listen to this brief Adjournment debate on a question which the House considered only just over a month ago—the sad and difficult case of Seretse Khama.
  The reason why it is necessary to raise it again tonight is that, as the House will be aware, since the last occasion on which we debated it, there has been in this country, and there still is here, a delegation from the Bamangwato Tribe, about which the Prime Minister remarked just now in one of his audible sotto voces—if that is the plural. Questions were also asked following a statement made in the House yesterday, and in another place, on the question of Seretse Khama and the delegation from the Bamangwato Tribe. In the course of his very extensive supplementary answers to those questions the
  1616
  hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations misled the House—of course, unintentionally—in two not unimportant particulars.
  I asked him a supplementary question about tribal custom with regard to consultation by a chief with the Tribe before marriage. My question was based upon the point made by the Bamangwato delegation in their submission to the Secretary of State, in which they said quite bluntly that it was not the custom of the Tribe for the chief to consult the Tribe before marriage. When I raised that in a supplementary question yesterday the hon. and learned Gentleman "shot me down" with quite a long and apparently quite a well-informed reply, in which he certainly seemed to know much more about the customs of the Bamangwato Tribe than the delegates from that Tribe themselves knew. Indeed, he said that the statements made by the delegation about the tribal custom were not correct. The only two instances they gave were the marriages of Khama III and Tshekedi. In the case of the marriage of Khama III, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was the marriage with his fourth wife and not with his principal wife which they mentioned.
  What I must now tell him, because I am sure he was genuinely not aware of this when he gave that answer, is that it is equally true of the same chief, Khama III, that when he married his first and principal wife he did not consult the Tribe. The reason why, strange as it might seem to us, the delegates were not making the strongest case they could, and were using this other example of the fourth wife, instead of the first and principal wife, was because the first wife was the mother of Seretse Khama's father—and by their standards, and according to their etiquette, there is a certain delicacy in discussing the immediate ancestors of the present chief of the Tribe. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this from me—I do not exactly understand this particular reaction of the delegation, but that is what they feel; and the fact is that there was no consultation before the marriage with the principal wife.
  The second point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman was not altogether fair—and I think the Secretary of

  1617
  State was not at all fair in another place—was in his suggestion that possibly the status of the delegation from the Tribe, at present in this country, was not above question. He rather hinted that they were not as representative of the Tribe as they might be. He added that quite recently "persons of high standing" had presented a petition to the Secretary of State's predecessor, contesting their right to speak for the Tribe. What he did not say was that there was no such approach or petition from what might be called an "anti-Seretse" party. The approach and petition referred to were simply from a group of younger men, of the same age-group as Seretse Khama—one of them his consin and a strong supporter of his—who felt they would have liked to be in the delegation, too.
  The only reason why they challenged the status or representative character of the delegation in any way was not because they thought it too strongly pro-Seretse, but because they thought it perhaps, too elderly, or at least felt that it would have been as well if some representatives of the younger people in the Tribe had been included. That is an understandable feeling, and no doubt they would have been included if it had not been necessary to limit the delegation rather strictly for reasons which have been explained—aeroplane space, expense, and so on. That is the second point on which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite fair with the House yesterday.
  But whether these particular arguments to which I have been referring were fair is not really relevant now. The question of consultation, or non-consultation, before marriage does not seem to matter very much, since it is agreed now on all sides—it was agreed yesterday again by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that a majority of the Tribe now favours Seretse's return to the chieftainship, accepts the fact that his wife is a white woman, and wants her to go back with him. That is the essential point as regards the wishes of the Tribe. Therefore, I do not think it matters very much that in the earlier stage of the proceedings they were upset by the marriage. So it is necessary to consider the future rather than the past.
  Whereas my right hon. Friend who was Secretary of State laid more stress on
  1618
  developing more democratic institutions and councils, I think it is true that the present Administration lays rather more stress on the importance of the chieftainship and native law and custom. But they are surely in an impossible dilemma, because native law and custom says that Seretse is chief, and must be, so long as he is alive, or until the Tribe itself deposes him. There is no possible alternative chief whom the Tribe will accept. The hon. and learned Gentleman has never suggested that a chief should be imposed upon them, and I suppose the hope is that if it is conveyed to the Tribe that Seretse is out for ever, its resistance will be worn down and that, perhaps in a year or two, it will agree to some alternative candidate. I think that that is an illusory hope. It is more likely that the Tribe will break up and that there will be no prospect of peace or unity within it.
  The two names sometimes mentioned are those of Keaboka, who is acting temporarily, in a sense, as chief, or fulfilling some of the functions of leadership. As the House will know, he is at present in this country as leader of the delegation. He has made it clear to hon. Members of the House that he does not wish to be chief, even if he were acceptable as such to the Tribe, which he probably is not. He regards Seretse as the rightful chief. The other name mentioned is that of Rasebolai, and here again I gather that he at one time refused to contemplate succeeding to the chieftainship. I do not know whether the Government have been, or will be, able to persuade him to accept the idea, but I do not believe that he would be acceptable to the Tribe, because he left the territory with Tshekedi, and although he has, I think, returned, he is regarded more or less as an émigré. He is not regarded as being truly a member of the Tribe at present. I should have thought, therefore, that his claims to succeed to the chieftainship were rather thin.
  Really, the only hope of securing that peace and unity within the Bamangwato Tribe which all of us in the House desire so sincerely—whatever mistakes have been made by either Government in the past—is the return of Seretse as chief, or perhaps in some nominally lower capacity in connection with the development of new democratic institutions and councils. Furthermore, apart from the situation

  1619
  within the Tribe, this would, after all, be an act of simple human justice. I contend that a great injustice has been done to two individuals—to a man and his wife.
  In parenthesis, I may perhaps dispose very briefly of what is, I think, the only demagogic argument against Seretse. On the whole, I believe that public opinion in this country is overwhelmingly in his favour. But it is sometimes said that he is, after all, a chief, and chiefs and kings and princes are not always allowed to marry whom they will. We are given the example of the Duke of Windsor. That argument is not relevant, because King Edward VIII was removed from the Throne by his own people or their own Government. It was not an alien Government which interfered. It was not the Bamangwato who came here and said: "You must get rid of the King," or the Americans or anybody else; it was a matter for the British people. I contend that the chieftainship of Seretse is a matter for the Bamangwato people.
  I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if, after all these years of evasive argument about this case, he will really "come clean" and tell us the real reasons for the ban on Seretse. We all know or suspect them; but will he tell us what happened—not in his term of office, I quite admit; and it would be quite easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make party points—about the end of July, 1949, when Seretse Khama had an interview with the High Commissioner, Sir Evelyn Baring, in the course of which Sir Evelyn Baring said to him, "You will be chief within about three weeks. Your chieftainship will be confirmed within about three weeks from now. Do not bring your wife out from England until after that, because once you are confirmed chief you can bring her to the Bamangwato, and there is nothing that Malan can do about it." That is what Sir Evelyn Baring, the High Commissioner, said to Seretse Khama at the end of July, 1949. A week or two later the whole position was changed. Different decisions were taken for reasons which I hope we shall be given tonight, and Seretse was brought back to England—as his Tribe thought, tricked into coming back to England.
  It is the shadow of Malan that is always supposed to overhang this
  1620
  problem—the shadow of the Union Government and of racial prejudice in South Africa. I do not quite know the truth about that. I wish we could get it out of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is it, as we are sometimes told privately, that it is thought to be really safer and better for the Bamangwato and the Protectorates than Malanite prejudice should not be stirred up any more on this issue, otherwise the Union Government might move in and take over these Protectorates, or apply economic sanctions to them, or something like that? If it is that, it is naked appeasement, in the worst sense of the word. One is forced to ask what the word "protectorate"means: are we the protecting power if we envisage Malan's being able to do that?
  The other alternative which is sometimes suggested privately, and rumoured, is that there is some undertaking or understanding with the South African Government, that in the event of war South Africa would send one or maybe two divisions to the Middle East, and that the bargain is that if we do not upset them too much in this or some other way they will stay with us in the event of the third world war which we all hope is not going to happen. That seems also a craven and foolish attitude, if it is true, because, after all, it would be a very poor bargain indeed to exchange an hypothetical division or two at some future date, in a war in which, in any case, South Africa would obviously not be on the other side, for any goodwill and friendship and respect we may have left among hundreds of millions of Africans throughout the continent. It would be a very bad bargain.
  I submit, therefore, that strategically and practically, as well as morally, both sides of the House have behaved quite wrongly about this case of Seretse, and I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us the real reasons for the ban, and, if possible, still to keep his mind open about reversing it.
  12.7 a.m.
  Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I think that all Members of the House have followed with great concern the story of this particular case, not only as it affects the people who have been involved, but also in so far as it affects the Tribe with which those people have

  1621
  been concerned. Decisions were made some months ago by the late Government which have led quite logically to the decision made by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations within the last few weeks, and it seems to me to be totally wrong at the present time that hon. Gentlemen opposite should continue to raise and cause uncertainty upon a decision which the actions of their own Government at the time made inevitable.
  It is even more important that we should get quite clear the motives which seem to prompt the continued raising of this particular question. I have felt strongly that it was in the interests of Seretse and of the Tribe that the decision should be regarded now as final, but the motives for continuing this controversy, regardless of the interests of this unfortunate man, appear to emerge from the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). It seems to me that this is a recurrent effort, not concerned so much with the welfare of the Tribe, or with the real interests of the person concerned, to attack the policy of the South African Government.
  There are Members on both sides, including myself, who regard the present policy of the South African Government as being wrong, but I do not think that it is right in the interests of justice or of statesmanship that this unfortunate young man and his particular misfortunes should be exploited in a political controversy of which there is no evidence whatever, and we have the word of the Ministers in the last Government, as we have the word of the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary at present in office, that that evidence does not exist.
  I believe that it is quite wrong of the hon. Member for Maldon to come before the House and give currency to rumours which he cannot substantiate. It is easy to build a case upon gossip and rumours and supposition, but it seems to me to be quite contrary to the interests of the Tribe, of whom we are the protecting Power, and to the interests of African people as a whole.
  Mr. Driberg: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he will allow me to say—as he would not give way to an interruption—that his imputations of
  1622
  motive, which in this House we are not usually allowed to make, are beneath contempt and undeserving of an answer. Perhaps he will allow me instead to answer his earlier remark about how strange and wrong it was that I should attach something which followed logically from the action of the Labour Government. I attacked it equally strongly, and voted accordingly in the Lobby, when the Labour Government were in power.
  12.11 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) first alluded to the dynastic question, which was part of the subject of my supplementary answer yesterday. I think I understood his point, and he anticipated my comment. It is strange that the Bamangwato delegation should have put the weaker point before the stronger. I think we shall have to leave it as undecided. The hon. Gentleman himself said he did not understand the motive which would lead them to this delicacy, because it should be noted that Maoesibu, who was the first wife, was of royal blood, and where the wife is of royal blood it may well be that no consultation with the Tribe is necessary—
  Mr. Driberg: No—her name was Mabessie.
  Mr. Foster: As I said yesterday, the information from South Africa is that they have no recorded instance of the Tribe not being consulted in the case of a principal wife. The fact still remains that the other instance, that of Tshekedi, was not apposite because it was not the case of the principal wife of a chief.
  Mr. Driberg: But he was in line for the chieftainship. Seretse was only a boy. If anything had happened to him, Tshekedi would have succeeded to the chieftainship and, therefore, if there was such a strong tradition of consultation one would have thought that there would have been consultation in this case.
  Mr. Foster: I was only meeting the hon. Gentleman and the custom, as we understand it, is that the chief should consult about his principal wife. That, therefore, would not apply to Tshekedi

  1623
  if we are right about that being the tribal law and custom reinforced by Mr. Shapera and also by Seretse's own letter.
  Mr. Driberg: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but since he has referred to Mr. Shapera, he was the author of a handbook compiled a good many years ago. His interpreter, when he went round the Bamangwato getting material for that handbook, is now a member of that delegation, and his evidence about their customs is quite different from that of Mr. Shapera.
  Mr. Foster: Mr. Shapera has always been looked on as a valuable authority on native law and custom.
  With regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman about the majority of the Tribe, he will notice that if the views of the majority of the Tribe are to be paramount it is obvious that the majority of the Tribe in November and December, 1948, was against Seretse's marriage. Therefore, if the views of the majority of the Tribe were obtained that would have completely ended the matter then.
  Mr. Driberg: They were not against his chieftainship.
  Mr. Foster: They were against his marriage, and, therefore, the majority of the Tribe at that moment would have excluded him if he had brought his wife back, as I understand the feeling of the kgotla was against his coming back with his wife. If the views of the majority of the Tribe are paramount, it is obvious that in November and December, 1948, that would have been the end of the matter.
  Mr. Driberg: They changed their view later: she lived there for a year.
  Mr. Foster: If the view of the majority of the Tribe has changed, as my noble Friend said in another place, they can change again. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can found his argument on the views of the majority of the Tribe.
  In the three or four minutes that I have left I want to allude to what the hon. Gentleman said on the general question. First of all, I have no knowledge of what was happening at the end of July, 1949. I can only repeat that no understanding, no conditions and no approaches
  1624
  were made by the Government of South Africa to us, and from my knowledge of the subject there is no kind of bargain or even half-understood arrangement or anything of that kind about a division on the one side and against that the exclusion of Seretse from the chieftainship. I think it is a pity that the hon. Member suggested that it might be possible for the Tribe to disintegrate and there was no prospect of peace. Remarks like that can only—
  Sir Richard Acland: That is what they say themselves.
  Mr. Foster: I think the fact that the hon. Member for Maldon says it lends greater weight to something which this delegation have said and which they obviously may use as a bargaining point in their argument. The hon. Member for Maldon lends his opinion and knowledge to a matter on which he cannot really give an opinion. All he can say is what he was told by the delegation, but he goes further and says that in his opinion it is likely to happen. He must wish that the Tribe will settle down and I imagine, although he may disagree with this decision, he wishes the Tribe to be united again. In his heart of heart he hopes that the decision will not lead to the Tribe's disintegration.
  Mr. Driberg: They cannot be united without Seretse.
  Mr. Foster: That is what he may think, but I was trying to get him to admit that he hopes that the Tribe will be united again and will settle down. That is my point.
  Mr. Driberg: Of course I hope that, as I said in my speech.
  Mr. Foster: If the hon. Member has that hope I think it regrettable that he gives it as his opinion that the Tribe will disintegrate. In those circumstances I can only regret the way in which the hon. Member has harped on this prospect of disunity and also alluded to rumours which have been current and which are without foundation.
  Mr. Driberg: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he not "come clean" and tell us the real reason

  1625
  for the exclusion of Seretse after all this time?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman knows the reasons. They are those given by his own Government in 1949 and 1950, and Her Majesty's Government today believe that that temporary decision should be turned into a permanent one.
  Mr. Driberg: What hypocrisy.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

  U.N. REFUGEES AGENCY (U.K. REPRESENTATION)
  U.N. REFUGEES AGENCY (U.K. REPRESENTATION)
  U.S.S.R. (DEBTS TO MINING COMPANIES)
  U.S.S.R. (DEBTS TO MINING COMPANIES)
  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' PENSIONS)
  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' PENSIONS)
KENYA
  Public Service
  Public Service
  European Civil Servants (Baths)
  European Civil Servants (Baths)
  Mbaris (Land Losses)
  Mbaris (Land Losses)
WEST AFRICA
  Women, Abeokuta (Water Rate)
  Women, Abeokuta (Water Rate)
  Secondary Schools, Nigeria (Fees)
  Secondary Schools, Nigeria (Fees)
  Cocoa Tree Disease
  Cocoa Tree Disease
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  African Railway Systems
  African Railway Systems
  Airport Services
  Airport Services
  Development Corporation Report
  Development Corporation Report
  TANGANYIKA (CONSTITUTION)
  TANGANYIKA (CONSTITUTION)
ROYAL NAVY
  Regular Seamen (Discharge)
  Regular Seamen (Discharge)
  Letters to Members
  Letters to Members
  Marines' Kit Allowance
  Marines' Kit Allowance
  Contracts, Lancashire
  Contracts, Lancashire
  Local Overseas Allowance, Malta
  Local Overseas Allowance, Malta
  Ships (Oil Pollution)
  Ships (Oil Pollution)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Poles
  Poles
  Kiosk, Reigate
  Kiosk, Reigate
  West Ham
  West Ham
  West Riding
  West Riding
  Rentals
  Rentals
  B.B.C. CHARTER
  B.B.C. CHARTER
POST OFFICE
  Buses (Posting Boxes)
  Buses (Posting Boxes)
  Stamps
  Stamps
  Compulsory Retirements
  Compulsory Retirements
  National Service Men (Pay)
  National Service Men (Pay)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Dilutees (Working Party)
  Dilutees (Working Party)
  Honington Camp (Duties)
  Honington Camp (Duties)
  Requisitioned Properties, Biggin Hill (Compensation)
  Requisitioned Properties, Biggin Hill (Compensation)
  Crashed Aircraft
  Crashed Aircraft
  Accommodation, Fayid
  Accommodation, Fayid
  Range, Tollesbury (Dredging)
  Range, Tollesbury (Dredging)
  Auxiliary Officers (Vaccination and Inoculation)
  Auxiliary Officers (Vaccination and Inoculation)
  SHIPPING (WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATIONS)
  SHIPPING (WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATIONS)
  EDUCATION (SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL GRANTS)
  EDUCATION (SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL GRANTS)
  FIREWORKS ACT (ENFORCEMENT)
  FIREWORKS ACT (ENFORCEMENT)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (ITALIAN MACHINE TOOL)
  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (ITALIAN MACHINE TOOL)
  AGRICULTURE (WAGES)
  AGRICULTURE (WAGES)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Bananas
  Bananas
  RE-ARMAMENT EXPENDITURE
  RE-ARMAMENT EXPENDITURE
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE, WEST RIDING
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE, WEST RIDING
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, DUNDEE (REPORT)
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION, DUNDEE (REPORT)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Biddulph—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Kilbracken—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Viscount Bledisloe—Took the Oath.

BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CIVIL AIRPORTS IN SOUTH WALES
2.36 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have arrived at any decisions with reference to the proposed civil airports at Rhoose, near Cardiff, and at Fairwood Common, near Swansea.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, Rhoose aerodrome is being made ready for a scheduled service to be operated this year by Aer Lingus between Dublin and Cardiff. This service will start on June 10. For this summer, Rhoose will be run by staff based at Pengam Moors aerodrome at Cardiff. The necessary air traffic control officers and other staff will be moved over to Rhoose, whenever an Aer Lingus arrival or departure is expected. So far, expenditure on the provision of facilities at Rhoose has been kept to the minimum. The position will be reconsidered in the autumn, with a
452
view to the possibility of developing Rhoose as the main airport for Cardiff and South Wales. If this is done, the Ministry of Civil Aviation will give up Pengam Moors, which in any case is so restricted that it would be a major engineering feat to develop it to even an aerodrome suitable for use by Dakotas.
Her Majesty's Government have no plans for the development of Fairwood Common as a civil airport. This aerodrome was constructed by the Air Ministry in 1940 for use by the Royal Air Force. It is on common land and is at present held on requisition by the Air Ministry. It has been brought into active civil flying use by the local aero club (the Swansea and District Flying School and Club, Ltd.). A "private use" aerodrome licence has been issued in the Club's name, so that it may carry out normal aero club activities. I understand that the Swansea Corporation still have under review the question of its future use as a municipal aerodrome, but a "public use" aerodrome is an expensive organisation to run, since it must be manned continuously during the advertised hours of watch.
In conclusion, I may say that Her Majesty's Government would like to see a first-class airport in South Wales. Rhoose has excellent possibilities, but the Government cannot see their way to spending large sums of money there unless there is strong evidence that air services in that area will receive adequate support.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his full and comprehensive reply, and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on putting into effect the policy that we envisaged when we were in office. I am sure that the statement which the noble Earl has made with reference to Rhoose will afford great satisfaction in South Wales, where there has been no major airport up to now, and I hope that Rhoose will develop as he suggests it may. I have no doubt that the effect of having a good airport at Rhoose for the first time in Welsh history will also encourage an airport of similar character at Fairwood Common, Swansea.

SEATING IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT
2.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making towards the solution of the problem of installing backward facing seats in civil aircraft.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has raised this very interesting question, which has been the subject of much expert consideration, both nationally and internationally. Safety in a crash depends on the ability of the seat and its attachments to withstand the decelerative forces applied to the aircraft at the time of the crash. We believe that seats strengthened to withstand these forces should face to the rear in cases where, in order to make the maximum use of the available space, the seats are placed close together. This would avoid the hazards to passengers that arise from the tendency to jerk forward against the restraining safety belt.
Any such strengthening of the seats and their attachments involves an addition to the weight of the aircraft, and the safety considerations have to be balanced against the economic penalties of increased weight. Therefore, a series of design studies have been ordered by the Ministry of Supply to ascertain what weight penalties and engineering problems would be involved in installing backward facing seats designed to withstand decelerative forces of 12G, 15G and 25G (G, of course, equals the force of gravity) in the following types of modern aircraft: Pionair, Comet, Bristol 175 and Viscount. Two of these design studies have just been received. As the others are received they will be carefully examined, and it is hoped that they will establish the possibility of adopting rearward facing seats, at any rate in high density layouts, without incurring undue economic penalties.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply and for the consideration that Her Majesty's Government are giving to this question. I noticed recently that Australia has
454
adopted this policy, as also has the Royal Air Force. I am not at all sure (and I ask the noble Earl this question) whether the Ministry of Supply are not letting the best be the enemy of the good in this matter—in other words, whether it is necessary to cater for very intensive forces when it is possible to cater quite easily for medium G forces. Furthermore, I should like to ask the noble Earl this question: Is it not possible to have this kind of seating in the new aeroplanes, the jet and the turbo-prop? I understand the difficulties that arise with existing planes, but is it not possible for the new types coming into production to have this kind of seating?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he said about my reply. I said in my answer that we are balancing economic factors against safety, and I very much hope that the best will not be made the enemy of the good. In regard to the new types, that again is a question of making use of the studies which have been made. I should like to emphasise that this is not the only consideration which we have in mind—the major consideration is that there should be no accidents at all. It is a matter for some pride—noble Lords opposite have the right to that pride, too—that during the whole of last year there was no fatal accident in either of the Corporations or in any of their associate services. That is a matter upon which I am sure the whole House is glad to congratulate them.

FOOD PRODUCTION
2.46 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the food situation in this country, it has any, and if so what, measures in mind to increase the production of food from our own soil; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for introducing in your Lordships' House to-day the topic of our agricultural production and our food supplies. Indeed. I know of no place where such a subject can be more informatively discussed than in your Lordships' House. The number of names of noble Lords down to speak in this debate emboldens me to think that I have put down my Motion at an opportune time, especially

455
as the results of the recent Price Review were announced at the end of last week, so that your Lordships will be able to discuss this matter with that information at the back of your minds. I should first like to say that we welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Carrington announced in your Lordships' House the result of the Price Review (I believe it is the first time that it has been announced here), and that gives me the opportunity of saying how much a number of us welcome the noble Lord in his present appointment. It is clear that with his great knowledge of agricultural problems, he is, if I may put it this way, a round peg in a round hole.
The importance of this topic needs no stressing in this House. Were we able, apart from the necessary tropical fruits, the tea and the coffee which we have to bring in, to grow all our foods in this country, how much better would be our economic position in the world! Last year, for instance, we imported £154,000,000 worth of wheat and wheat products; about £33,000,000 worth of barley, and about the same amount of maize; £90,000,000 worth of butter; £40,000,000 worth of cheese, and some £213,000,000 worth of meat and various meat products. A great part of this—most of the wheat, about two-thirds of the maize, and a considerable quantity of the meat—has to be purchased in currency other than sterling. It is, therefore. as vital now as it was in the days of the war that our agricultural industry should play its full part in providing from our own land all the food which can possibly be produced here. The difficulty is that it is not so easy to get that message through to the country in days of peace as it was in days of war. In days of war we could point out that if only farmers and farm workers could produce more here, there would be smaller losses of the officers and men of our Merchant Navy, who were so gallantly risking their lives in bringing the food supplies to our shores. It is more difficult to put it across to-day, and yet it is just as important now as it was then. Of course, owing to the help of our American and Canadian friends, and also, to some extent, of our Australian and New Zealand friends, finance was no great problem during the days of war. Nor was it a great problem immediately after the war,
456
when we were still made grants by Australia and New Zealand, when the American Loan had not been spent and when Marshall Aid was still in existence.
Now, once more, we have to stand completely on our own feet; and the most secure place on which to put your feet, if you have to stand on them, is on the soil of your own country. Whilst it is true to say that our export trade is our greatest foreign exchange earner, it is equally true to say that the produce of our own soil is our greatest foreign exchange saver. The main solution, of course, must rest in the hands of the farmers and the farm workers. It does not follow that because the farmers get increased prices for their product, or farm workers get increased wages for their work, of necessity more will be produced. Nevertheless, I think that the Government, and the Minister of Agriculture in particular, were right to agree to these new farm prices. After all, the greater part of the increase, if not the whole, has been caused by the increasing costs which for one reason or another the farmer has to bear.
The biggest rise is that for meat; and I think that that is right, because gone are the days when we could rely on vast quantities of imported meat which once so easily filled our larder. So we must give additional encouragement to those who produce meat for us here. But I hope that, in fixing future farm prices, one of the main objects which the Government will have in view is continuity. It may be easy for people at the Ministry of Food to put on pressure for an increased price for a particular commodity because it looks like falling into short supply; but it is wrong to put the accent on meat one year and on milk another, because in farming you cannot, if you are to get the best from the land, quickly turn over from one commodity to another.
It is my view that this Price Review can justify the description which the Minister gave to it: that is, a "just and constructive award." I hope that the Minister is right, too, in saying that it ought to help towards a significant improvement in the supply of home-produced food. I gather that the weekly rise of 1s. 6d. in the cost of living which was envisaged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made his Budget speech took into account at any rate the

457
greater part of these increased prices which we shall have to pay to our own farmers. I certainly hope that that is so, for it is as important to keep the pound stable at home as it is to keep the pound stable overseas. If the steady increase of costs is not stopped we shall soon find ourselves in the position that we cannot sell the greater part of our goods overseas. Then the crash will really occur, and people will be forced to realise that we can no longer maintain some 50,000,000 people on the present standard of living in this small island of ours. I wish that this fact could be fully brought home genertilly to our people, because without harder work on the part of all we, as a nation, are bound to drift more and more into poverty. I hope, too, that all will realise that the greatest efforts must be made to get every acre of land producing the utmost of which it is capable. Here, in my view, the Government can give a better lead than their predecessors did or than they themselves have done so far; and I am going to suggest one or two ways in which they can do this
The first step, surely, is to see that no more agricultural land is taken for purposes other than food production. Dr. Dudley Stamp has estimated that if the present requirements for housing, mineral development and other purposes for which land is liable to be taken are added together, they will take from agricultural production something between another 500,000 and 2,500,000 acres. And houses are still going up on agricultural land where other land on which food crops cannot be grown could be used. Several of our new towns are cases in point. I am not sure whether it is now too late to shift some of these; but any other ventures of this sort ought surely to be put on sandy soil, which is quite good for housing and which is pretty hopeless for growing good crops.
Moreover, at this time of crisis we ought to put sentiment aside. I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in answering a Question in this House today, said, in regard to one airfield, "It is on common land." Well, my Lords, I believe that the time has come when we should look closely at the use to which some of this common land is being put. We have between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 acres of common land in this country, and a great deal of it is never used by any-
458
one. The commoners nowadays do not use their ancient rights upon much of it. I am not talking about the central common around which an old village is built, where the common is used for the weekly football or cricket match. I am not referring to that kind of palace at all. That has a valuable function. But there are many common lands on which no building is allowed to take place and on which crops are allowed to be grown only until December, 1954, when the Minister's powers under the Defence Regulations run out. I should like that matter fully looked into. I think those lands ought to be rented from the commoners and put into full use either for housing sites or, if they can produce decent crops, for food production. If the rents were paid into the local village funds, the trustees—the local village council, or something of that sort—could with the money build a new village hall or provide some extra amenities in the village. I believe that in that way the country, the commoners and the villagers would be far better off.
Another way in which our agricultural land is being taken away, and in an increasing quantity every year, is for new schools and their playing fields. I believe that this is a matter which also has to be carefully watched. I have never seen the playing fields of one of these schools carrying sheep upon them. Sheep keep down grass far better than a mechanical mowing machine does. I happened to be sent to what some people think was quite a good school, and those who were there will remember that when we came back from Agar's Plough or South Meadow, where we had been playing football and where the sheep had been running, we came back a little soiled, but it did us no harm. There seems to me to be no reason to deny the privilege of "getting down to earth" to those who attend elementary or secondary schools. Otherwise we shall create a kind of class distinction between them and those who go to the public schools, over whose playing fields the sheep are allowed to browse.
There is one other point to which wish to draw your Lordships' attention in regard to the wasteful use of land, and suggest that it is something which should immediately be stopped. There is at least one company that calls itself a "turf and loam company," which is now buying up agricultural land and skimming off all

459
the good fertile soil. This particular company has just bought forty-six acres near Bletchingley. I am told that they have been taking off the soil to a depth of eighteen inches or two and a half feet—of course, making that ground completely derelict from the agricultural point of view. I do not know where they sell the soil—I suppose either to people for window boxes or perhaps for suburban gardens. But I do not think we can afford to lose agricultural ground in that kind of way. I am told that in another place at about this moment a Bill called the Agricultural Land (Restriction on Sale of Soil) Bill is being introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. I do not know the terms of the Bill because, of course, it has not as yet been ordered to be printed by either House, but I hope that, if it is a good Bill, the Government will see their way to adopt it and give time for it, because this is a kind of abuse which we had better nip in the bud pretty quickly.
In the past, and for all I know they may be doing it to-day, the worst offenders in taking agricultural land were the Service Departments. In the flush of a rearmament campaign, they have a chance of getting away with more than they otherwise might. In my view, the Army has now sufficient land for its purposes. If it needs any more, it should form its new ranges or practice grounds on our heathland and moor country, and not on agricultural land. In regard to the Royal Air Force, although I realise that, by and large, the faster the machine, the longer the runway it needs to get off the around, I suggest that when we have machines of a speed that will take them to Rome in just over a couple of hours, the tactical situation of an airfield is not as important as it was for slower planes. Therefore, when extensions are being made to runways to take new planes, those airfields where the extension will cause least damage to agricultural interests can well be selected.
Finally, I come to perhaps a slightly more controversial point on this topic. I begin by saying this. We all know that coal is vital to our prosperity, but I ask the question: Is not agriculture just as vital? If so, why are men bona fide engaged in agriculture called up for National Service when nobody would think of calling up the coal miners in a similar fashion? I know that some may
460
say that there ought to be equality of sacrifice; but let us see what we are doing when we call up for National Service the men who work on our farms. First, we are showing them a side of life which, when their military service is over, may attract them to the towns and make them reluctant to return to the more humdrum rural life with which previously they were content. Secondly, we are spending considerable sums of money training men for military service, the greater number of whom no one would think of calling away from the land in time of war. Whether or not the men had been trained as Service personnel we could not afford to denude our countryside at such a time and thereby have to import more food and supplies, and lose our ships, and officers and men of the Merchant Navy in doing so. I hope Her Majesty's Government will give some consideration to these matters, because I believe that if they were dealt with there would be a psychological effect. Until these matters are tackled, people are inclined to think that all this talk of needing more food production is not, after all, so vital.
My Lords, it is vital to increase our own supplies, not only on economic grounds, but also on supply grounds, because a number of our former food suppliers are now using for themselves considerably more of the food they produce, and so have less to send to these shores. Australia is a case in point—I am setting aside the severe drought which, unfortunately, that country is suffering at the present moment. I think we all sympathise with the people of Australia, and particularly the farmers, who are losing so much of their stock owing to drought conditions. But apart from that, the food produce coming to us from that country is paid for at a price agreed between our Government and theirs. Naturally, the Ministry of Food, backed up by the Treasury try to get the prices fixed at as low a level as is reasonably possible. What is happening is that that food will sell for more in Australia itself than under the prices fixed here. Indeed, it will sell for more if exported elsewhere in the world. The obvious result is that we are getting less and less, and the only way of dealing with that situation is so far as we can to make ourselves independent, and to produce more and more ourselves. There are probably some

461
4,000,000 or 5,000,000 acres of marginal land in this country which can still be brought into some kind of agricultural use, and I hope the Government are directing a great deal of their efforts to this end. I myself very much welcome the reintroduction of the fertiliser sub-sidy. I am certain that it is a move in the right direction; it is that kind of subsidy which helps in regard to this marginal land. So is the ploughing-up sub-sidy. I am a little more doubtful about the feeding-stuffs subsidy, although there may be good reasons for retaining this as well.
One of the things I should like to see looked into and tried again is some kind of exemption to farmers from the incidence of tax on the petrol they use for agricultural purposes. I know that this has been tried before, and was abandoned for administrative reasons. But it is done in a number of other countries, and if it can be done there why cannot it he done here? It is done, wholly or in part, in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Eire, France, Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand, and even by our own Colonial Office and its Government in Tanganyika; and it has been done here for years in regard to the vessels which fish around our coasts.
What is the effect of the tax? Apart from the additional cost which it lays on farmers (and presumably that is reflected in the Price Review), it also has the result that the sensible man buys a new tractor which is driven not on petrol but on diesel oil, or other oils heavier than petrol, and on which he pays no tax. The result is that you cannot get as much interchangeability in manufacture between engine parts as you would have if the manufacturers could still go on supplying petrol engines for agricultural machinery. If we were to come to war, where would the shortage in the field of oil supply be? It would be in the oils vitally necessary for propelling jet aircraft, which are just the oils that are now being used by the sensible man for his agricultural production. Therefore, my Lords, I suggest that this matter ought to be looked into anew by Her Majesty's Government.
The Minister of Agriculture has already said that his long-term plan will be announced in due course, and I am certain that when it comes it will show
462
that the Government are not only determined to put a stop, except in rare instances, to the taking away for other purposes of good agricultural land but also propose to do something to encourage the bringing into cultivation of more of our marginal land. Further, I hope that they will do something to see that really bad farmers can be got rid of. In days gone by, the good landlord took steps to get rid of a bad farmer. He can no longer do that. At the present moment, so far as I can see, nobody is doing it. There are a great many keen young men, who have gone through our extremely good agricultural colleges, who are ready and willing to take over a farm, and they should be given a chance to take over the farms which are not being farmed properly by some of the men at present in occupation.
I know that my noble friend Lord Woolton, whom I succeeded as Minister of Food, is as well aware as I am, or any other of your Lordships, of the utmost importance, whether in war or in peace, of getting the most produced from the land of this country. I welcome the fact that he is to take part in our debate today and I am confident that in his present position he will show the same energy on the food front now as he did when, for three and a half years during the war, he served the country so well as Minister of Food. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the House will agree that we have listened to a full and accurate survey of the food situation, and to a number of practical suggestions about increasing food production which deserve the most careful consideration of the Government. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord's speech was all the more acceptable because his eyes strayed for hardly a moment from the real target in a Party direction.
There was one matter to which the noble Lord did not refer but which I regard as of some importance. We are at a slight disadvantage in this debate in not having before us the information which the White Paper promised by the Minister of Agriculture would give. I realise that it is impossible to get out all the figures immediately after an agreement with the farmers is reached,

463
but I am sure it would be better for the Government, for Parliament and for the public, if the information in the White Paper could be released as near as possible to the time of the announcement. I should like to ask the Government to consider whether it might not be possible in future years to postpone the announcement until the White Paper is ready. I know, of course, that this could not have been done this year. I do not in the least blame the Government for their procedure and I make no complaint now, except to say that the absence of the White Paper does impose certain limitations on the debate this afternoon. The lack of the necessary information—which we shall soon have—makes it impossible for us to form more than a tentative opinion about the Price Review or the developments in agricultural policy which it foreshadows. I do not think that any Party or person can form a final judgment about these matters until the White Paper is available. What I shall try to do to-day is to ask the Government for whatever further information they may be in a position to give, to make some suggestions about policy and some comments on the Price Review. I hope that the Government may perhaps be willing to take these suggestions into consideration before they decide about their long-term policy for agriculture, and I venture to hope, also, that we may have another agricultural debate in this House after the White Paper has been published and as soon as the Government are more prepared with their own plans for the future of agriculture.
There is one quite different matter, which I think can be discussed more satisfactorily this afternoon—I refer to the new machinery which has been set up by the present Government for co-ordinating food and agriculture. This machinery has been tried out for six months, and I think we should now be able to review the position and to ask ourselves how it has worked. May I say, before I express an opinion on this subject, that any criticism that I may express will be directed towards the post of Ministerial Co-ordinator and will not be in the least concerned with its present occupant. I have a very high regard—as high a regard, I hope, as has any of your Lordships—for the ability and public spirit of
464
the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. I had the privilege of being a junior colleague of his during the war-time Coalition, and at that time I was able to see from the inside some of the very fine work which he did for the Ministry of Food and afterwards for the Ministry of Reconstruction.
While I think that everyone would agree that the two Departments of Food and Agriculture, which stand for the somewhat divergent claims of the food producers and the consumers, should work together in the public interest, we still await any positive evidence that they have been co-operating more closely in the last six months than they did during other Administrations since the war. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, may be able to produce some evidence to show that in fact this has happened. We found during our period of office that the system of Cabinet Committees—which is, of course, usually employed for settling differences between Departments and bringing them into line with Government policy—was entirely satisfactory in solving the problems of the two Departments with which we are dealing this afternoon. If the Government still believe that another Minister with his own separate staff is indispensable for the purpose of co-ordinating food and agriculture, I think it should be possible for them to show Parliament and the public what advantages, not obtainable by the more usual and more economical methods of Cabinet Committees, have accrued in the past six months and what further advantages may be expected in time to come.
It may be said that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, without a busy Department to look after, is in a better position than a departmental Minister to think ahead and to work out long-term policies. It is, of course, essential, especially for the future of agriculture, that Ministers should give their minds to this problem of a long-term policy, but I feel that it is not practicable to formulate a sound policy without the assistance of departmental advisers and agricultural experts. Otherwise, it is not possible to foresee the many and complex administrative implications, and the implications for farming practice, which changes of policy are likely to bring about. To my mind the Minister of Agriculture is the only Minister in a position to work out a sound policy for the future of the agricultural

465
industry. I believe that he should have the advantage of a position in the Cabinet to enable him to put his own case to his Cabinet colleagues. After all, no one is better able than the responsible Minister to put the case for the policy which he wants his Department to carry out.
If, however, the Government remain convinced that a separate Minister is required to carry out this co-ordinating function, we are at least entitled to ask whether he should sit in this House or in another place. Apart from the accepted constitutional conventions about the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting in another place, and the Lord Chancellor in this House, and, of course, the statutory limit to the number of Secretaries of State who can sit in another place, a Prime Minister is still free to use his own discretion in choosing the particular House of Parliament in which his Ministerial colleagues shall answer for their stewardship. But the use of this discretion in recent years has been guided by a principle common to all Parties and to successive Governments. This principle may not have been explicitly stated, but its influence in the make-up of Governments has been considerable.
Perhaps I may put it in this way: that if the policy for which a Minister is responsible is of paramount importance to the nation, and is also likely to cause acute controversy and criticism in another place, that Minister should reply to his critics and defend his policy from the Front Bench of another place. Your Lordships will remember that the Ministers responsible for the principal measures of nationalisation in the 1945 Government—coal, transport, iron and steel—and also for the establishment of the National Health Service, were all Members of another place. Of course, when a policy of the highest national importance is based on broad agreement between the Parties—such as for example, a policy in relation to the Commonwealth or to defence—there has never been the slightest objection to the responsible Minister sitting in this House. There may be an occasional clash, such as that which we had recently over the Bamangwato chieftainship, but the common ground loon reappears, and there is no demand in another place for the presence of the responsible Minister.
466
But the cost of living, which is closely tied up with the price of food, and the effect upon it of reducing the food subsidies and raising food prices, is the most widely discussed and hotly disputed issue of domestic politics at the present time; and it is an issue which will continue to cause intense controversy. This problem overshadows even housing and unemployment in the degree to which it engages public concern. Those policies which increase the present cost of living must be a constant focus of public interest and, of course, a subject of the keenest Party controversy in another place. I cannot help feeling that the fact that the spokesmen for many of these policies occupy positions in the Cabinet and sit in this House is an infringement of what has at least been a tacit understanding which, until now, has been observed by both sides in politics. This difficulty could, of course, be overcome by allowing Ministers to speak in either House, Peers to speak in the House of Commons and M.P.s in your Lordships' House. As Ministers are responsible to Parliament as a whole, and not to one House of Parliament only, there is a strong theoretical argument in favour of such a course. Everyone recognises, however, that Ministers are seriously overworked. We could not add to their Parliamentary duties without undermining the efficiency of our whole system of government. The practical argument against this solution is overwhelming, and we are driven back to the acceptance of the present practice whereby a Minister can speak only where he sits.
In case any of your Lordships considers that the principle to which I have referred is either recent or a matter of Party, I should like to mention an example of its application by a Conservative Prime Minister before the war. I remember this incident particularly clearly because I was a member of your Lordships' House when it happened. I have little doubt that other noble Lords, with Parliamentary experience much longer than mine, could cite other examples of the transfer of a key ministerial post from this House to another place. Noble Lords will recollect that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, was appointed. Secretary of State for Air in 1935. With the growing menace of aggression on the Continent of Europe, public opinion generally, and a powerful

467
element in another place, became increasingly restive and anxious about the state of our preparedness in the air. Everyone acknowledged that the noble Viscount had done a very good job. Nevertheless, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, informed him in 1938 that he must have the Secretary of State for Air in the Commons; and, of course, the noble Viscount accordingly resigned.
Perhaps I may quote a short passage from the noble Viscount's autobiography, in which he describes in his own words exactly what happened:
"This plan, however"—
the plan had been for a senior Minister to speak for the Air Ministry in the House of Commons—
"did not produce the results the Prime Minister had hoped, and after a rather stormy debate in the House of Commons in the following May the Prime Minister told me that he felt the Secretary of State must be in the Commons. He said that he was more than satisfied with everything that I had done …but, as he put it, he felt that he must have a Secretary of State in the House of Commons who could pacify the House."
As the present Prime Minister was one of the leading critics who obliged the Government of that day to answer in the House of Commons for their air defence policy, one hopes that he will respect the views of critics of his domestic policy at the present time, who are in much the same position now as he was then. I see that noble Lords opposite do not agree with my parallel.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): Yes; I was merely wondering what was the consequence of it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I leave that to the Government to decide: it is a matter for which noble Lords on this side need not assume responsibility.
Another argument in favour of the general line which I have suggested is this. One cannot help feeling that the presence in this House of Ministers whose policies are the subject of intense controversy between Parties tends to alter the tone of our debates, I cannot remember harsher asperities of speech than some which we have recently heard in this House, or a more frequent resort to Party arguments. I know that your Lordships will all agree that this House is at its best when it resembles a Council
468
of State, in which noble Lords with long experience of affairs can express their honest convictions without having to conform too closely to Party programmes. The collective wisdom of the House will influence public opinion and the shaping of Government policy only so long as the House maintains its reputation for a detached and independent attitude towards matters of public policy, and stands aside, as it always has done as a non-elected body, from the real struggle for political power. Party warfare is certain to be imported into this House if Ministers whose policy is challenged in the House of Commons can answer for their decisions only here. I think I should apologise for doing something which the example of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, should have taught me not to do, but I raise this matter because I feel strongly that it is one which deserves the most careful consideration by the Government, and that this is an appropriate opportunity to raise a question of this kind as the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will be replying in a moment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question? Assuming that we are going to have a co-ordinator for food and agriculture, would the noble Earl have the co-ordinator in another place and the Minister of Agriculture here?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition has just said in an undertone something with which I entirely agree: that this job of co-ordination should be done in the Cabinet. I had hoped that the conclusion that might legitimately be drawn from my initial remarks was that we do not want a separate co-ordinator at all. I did not put it as bluntly as that, but I had hoped that noble Lords listening to me would draw that conclusion.
May I pass on to make some comments on the Price Review? We do not yet know how much of their increased costs in the past year farmers will have to carry. That is an extremely important matter. What we do know—and this is, of course, very satisfactory—is that there is no element of bonus or profit in the award. I am informed on pretty reliable authority that there will still be a gap between higher expenditure last year and future recoupment. The gap will not be so wide as it was last year, or in the two

469
preceding years, but recoupment will be by no means complete. Can the Government tell us how much of this loss the farmers have agreed to shoulder? If it is the case, as has been suggested, that at the present time, when profits from farming are no longer rising and output is tending to fall, farmers are still paying a substantial part of the higher costs out of their own pockets, they deserve to get the credit for it. In any event, from the terms of the Price Review as we know them it seems to me that there is no sign of "feather-bedding" in the award. The people who believe that farmers in general are making substantial profits out of public money are abysmally ignorant of what is going on in British agriculture.
It is true that a few large farmers on the best land are still doing extremely well, but the vast majority of the farmers in this country are small or medium men, whose profit margin is narrow and uncertain. It is sometimes forgotten that three-quarters of our farms are less than 100 acres in extent and that the great majority of tenant farmers and owner-occupiers are farming units of this size. It is these people who are the backbone of British agriculture. But because their margin of profit is so narrow, they tend to cut expenditure by reducing output immediately their costs begin to rise. Hence the extreme importance of making adjustments in costs or prices sufficient to maintain and increase production on this type of farm. I am very doubtful whether a less substantial award this year would have succeeded in arresting the present dangerous decline in crops and cattle or in stimulating increased production of the foodstuffs that the country so urgently needs. It is a pity that, pending the publication of the White Paper, we do not know how the £39,000,000 in the award will be divided between new or extended subsidies to farmers' costs, and higher prices for farm produce. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give us the figures: I think they would be very helpful as an example.
We should like a little more light on the subsidy on animal feeding-stuffs. This is spoken of as controlled price relaxation, but it is, in fact, as I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree, a form of subsidy. Farmers will be buying feeding-stuffs—coarse grains and so on—from the Ministry of Food at a lower price than the Ministry of Food is paying to the
470
foreign exporters of animal feeding-stuffs. Presumably the loss will have to be carried by the public. May I ask—because I think this is exceedingly important—whether the Government are assuming that world prices of feeding-stuffs will fall during the current year? If this assumption is not made, the total figure for the award may be as much as £50,000,000. But if this assumption can be made—and only the Government are in a position to judge—then, of course, the Ministry of Food will no longer be, making a loss in the purchase of feeding-stuffs and the farmers will not have to be sub-sidised in this way. This is important, because it affects the cost of living and because this sub-sidy on feeding-stuffs will presumably have to be covered, by the extra 1s. 6d. a week on food to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. I should like to know whether the assumption is that the Ministry of Food will pay less as the year goes on for imported feeding-stuffs, or whether this loss will continue at a fairly high rate.
It looks fairly clear from the award that a larger proportion of the £39,000,000 will be paid in subsidies as compared with the proportions in previous years: more will be paid in subsidies and less in prices for the end crops. This is a significant new development in policy. The advantage of spending money on lowering farmers' costs instead of raising farm prices is that more of the money so spent goes into increased production by the small farmer, and less into higher profits for the large farmer who is probably already producing as much as he can. These subsidies to lower costs, provided that the right thing is subsidised—I am sure that in the case of fertilisers and ploughing up the subsidies are right—are preferable to a larger upward adjustment of prices. The increase in farm prices must be sufficient to keep the marginal farmer in production. This means adding to the profit of farmers with better land, whose costs are lower than the marginal farmer. It has never been administratively possible to discriminate between the prosperous and the marginal farmer; but subsidies to reduce costs meet this particular difficulty.
Another satisfactory feature of the price settlement this year is the emphasis it has placed on more meat arid more crops. The continuation of a subsidised price for

471
animal feeding-stuffs, the further fertiliser subsidy and the new calf subsidies, together with the better price for fat cattle and fat sheep, will undoubtedly encourage the livestock farmer to keep more animals and the small dairy farmer to switch to livestock or dual purpose farming. I am glad to note that the calf subsidy will be paid for heifer as well as for steer calves, as I believe it is the case that about half the animals slaughtered for beef are heifers. I cannot help wondering whether the subsidy, which amounts to only £4,500,000, will be large enough to cover heifers from dual-purpose herds. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who will be replying to the debate tomorrow, will be good enough to look into this matter and let me know whether that is the intention of the Government. I hope that the emphasis on meat, which is the food most urgently needed by the public, will be no less marked in the long-term policy of the Government.
The incentives offered to farmers as an inducement to increase the tillage acreage are just as necessary as the stimulus to livestock. The reversion from arable to grass since the war, instead of subsidising, has continued to increase at an alarming rate, and altogether about 1,000,000 acres have gone back since 1946. There can be little doubt that when farmers have wanted to cut their expenditure they have often taken the easy line of switching over from crops to grass. This accounts for the enormous arable acreage we have lost in the last two years. The better price that will be obtainable under the Review for corn crops, sugar beet and potatoes after the 1953 harvest will help to bring more land under the plough and to stop the drift back to grass. But even more useful for this purpose will be the continuation of the ploughing-up subsidy introduced with such excellent effect this spring. It seems essential that this subsidy should be continued until we have achieved a better balance between crops and grass throughout the country; and I hope noble Lords will bear that in mind in the years to come.
The broad conclusion one hopes that farmers will draw from the first Annual Price Review by a Conservative Government since the war is that agricultural policy will not become a plaything of Party politics. Farmers need the security of a Government policy not liable to
472
sudden changes resulting from the outcome of General Elections. What has taken place since the last Election should convince them that the policy of the 1947 Act has now been accepted by both sides in politics, and that they can plan their future production with complete confidence that they will continue to have a guaranteed market for at least four-fifths of their produce. This, I think, was the main feature of continuity in policy to which the noble Lord. Lord Llewellin, rightly attached so much importance. The fear that what happened after the First World War under Conservative rule might happen again after the last war has been shown by the policy of both the main Parties in the State to be quite groundless.
We are glad to know that the Government are working out a long-term agricultural policy, and that they will lose no time—because time is important—in discussing this policy with those concerned. The five-year plan which we drew up under the 1947 Act for the expansion of agriculture will expire this year, and farmers should be told as soon as possible what the Government wish them to produce to meet our food requirements in the next few years. I trust that the new long-term policy will be formulated with the least possible delay. We have already been told by the Minister that the Government are aiming at an increase of 60 per cent. over the pre-war production level in the next four years—that is, by 1956. Perhaps the Government could tell us the exact amount of the present increase over 1938, as that would indicate the increase in output expected by farmers between now and 1956. It was our policy to aim at a 50 per cent. increase over 1938 by the end of the current year. To raise the target to 60 per cent. within four years seems to me not to set the farmers an impossible task—although it will be a very difficult one—and to stress the country's need for the largest practicable increase in food production.
But this target would be much more helpful to the farmers and more informative to Parliament and the public if it could be split up to show the amount of the increase in output desired in the different types of farm produce. We realise that we are already producing enough milk and eggs but we want more corn crops, especially coarse grains, and

473
very many more sheep and cattle. What is the exact amount of the increase the Government would like in the output of corn, livestock and livestock products, in the next four years? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to-day, or the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be good enough to give us the break-down figures. Splitting up this global figure would show the farmers—and they very much want this information—what the public interest requires. All those who know them realise that they respond quickly and to the best of their ability to an appeal of this kind. I am sure that the Government do not regard this 60 per cent. increase as the maximum which agricultural production in this country cannot exceed. We shall certainly not have reached in four years the utmost limit of our capacity to grow food, and when the time comes I hope we shall hear from the Government what further increase they consider practicable over another period of years. In this way we shall be able to advance by successive and continuous stages towards the best and fullest use of our soil, which I am sure is the prime consideration of everyone in your Lordships' House.
The only other points I should like to mention quite briefly are these. I feel that the fairness of the present award, from the point of view of the farmers, puts them under an even greater obligation to make the best possible use of their land. I have no doubt that the great majority will respond handsomely to the fair treatment which they have received. But there are some farmers, a small minority, whose methods fall far short of a reasonable standard of good husbandry. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe—and his support in a matter of this kind is most valuable—has frequently urged the importance of increasing the efficiency of the poor or bad farmer. I believe that in the past county agricultural executives have shown an understandable desire to give these men a real chance to improve their farming with the help of the expert advice and guidance of the advisory service. But I believe the time has now come when these sub-standard farmers must be asked to choose between doing their job efficiently or making way for those who will do it efficiently for them. I am sure that the second part of the 1947 Act should be used more rigorously than it has been used up to
474
now in order to maintain and improve the efficiency of the industry. It is hard to see how any farmer who has been under supervision for at least a year can reasonably complain if his failure to make good in that time results in dispossession. As your Lordships who have practical experience of farming are well aware, there are plenty of young men with university qualifications who cannot find employment as farmers on account of the shortage of vacant farms. Unless more older men retire from the industry in the next few years, these young farmers will continue to be unable to get on to the land, arid food production will suffer in consequence. Their skill is an asset which, I am sure, this country cannot afford to waste.
There is one other point which I do not think has been mentioned in the debate so far, although it is a general point of the utmost importance. I am certain that it will be possible for the present downward trends in production to be reversed and for expansion to be resumed only if agriculture continues to get an equal priority with the defence and exporting industries in obtaining scarce equipment and machinery and, of course, in securing an adequate labour force. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred in his speech to the importance of maintaining sufficient labour on the land. If the Government go on treating agriculture as a defence industry I do not see any reason to fear that it will not get its fair share of new capital investment and the allocation of man-power essential to a higher level of production. But this is a Government responsibility, and no amount of good will on the side of the farming community can make up for the lack of a sufficient number of farm workers or the equipment required for modern and up-to-date farming. I am certain that if the Government are able to give a real lead to the farming community, the farming community will respond and give the country the extra food it so urgently requires.
3.53 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me for what I recognise as a digression from the subject of Lord Llewellin's Motion, I should like to deal for a moment with the earlier remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I have had the privilege of working with

475
him in the past. I can assure him that when he was making observations on the subject of one of my responsibilities, not for one moment did I suspect that he was doing it in any personal sense. It was a very proper Parliamentary point to raise. I was not quite sure what he was going to do with me in the end if his views were carried out, but even on that issue I am sure that he would be kindly. The first point to which I must draw the noble Earl's attention is the rather interesting contradiction into which he landed himself when he stopped talking about Parliamentary responsibilities and started talking about agriculture, on both of which subjects, indeed, he has every right to speak. Almost his last sentence was that agriculture is not the plaything of Party politics. We very much agree. Therefore, there is no reason why the person who has responsibility for co-ordinating agriculture with something else should be in any way the plaything of Party politics. Do not let us assume that there is in fact controversy here, because, indeed, none of us wants controversy on this particular subject. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, looks surprised, and, if he wishes, when he addresses your Lordships later on he may tell me why.
I must explain what I conceive to be the clear issue of responsibility, and it is this. Ministers of the Crown are responsible to Parliament for the Departments to which they are charged. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible to Parliaments for what he does. In this House, when your Lordships raise issues, then either his Parliamentary Secretary or I reply for him. The Minister of Food is responsible in the House of Commons. Of course, there is no Parliamentary Secretary here, and I reply for him just as I reply for the Minister of Health in this House. My own Parliamentary responsibilities as Lord President of the Council are quite clearly defined. I am responsible for the work of the Privy Council and I am responsible for civil science in this country. In my view, the work of the co-ordinators is not a responsibility to Parliament; it is a responsibility to the Cabinet. It is true that in Mr. Churchill's present Government we have not, as we had in his previous Government and as I gather noble Lords opposite had in the
476
last Government, a Committee for food and agriculture. Instead, Ministers are good enough to confer with me, bringing their departmental staff with them. The noble Earl need not be frightened that this co-ordinator is adding very considerably to the cost of conducting the affairs of the country, because I have not any staff for this purpose. There has been no increase, as a result of this office, in the very small staff which the Lord President of the Council has.
There must from time to time be some divergence of view between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food: it is the normal divergence which you get between the supplier of a commodity and the consumer of a commodity. If I may Dive credit—because there is none for me to take—I may say that your Lordships have not heard of any divergencies in views because between the three of us it has been very easy to settle them. It would have been a much more exciting thing for Parliament if there had been a crisis. We could have had a lot about it in the newspapers, and I might have told your Lordships the wonderful things I had done to settle the crisis. That is not the way in which we are running the business of co-ordinating. There has been no crisis. We have two excellent Ministers. The thing is working very well, and, if I may venture to say so, your Lordships need not be disturbed about it. We are all doing our jobs. My job is indeed a very minor one. I do not think my right honourable friends would mind if I said that it is perhaps the job of the person who has had, unfortunately, a rather longer experience in life, occasionally coming along and giving a little advice as to the way things should go.
There has been a great deal in the newspapers about the co-ordinator. I read in one that the co-ordinator to-day was going to defend himself. My Lords, I have nothing for which to defend myself. I have merely to say that I am glad to inform your Lordships that these two Departments of State are working in complete harmony in the public interest. I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving me this opportunity of making this statement, and of satisfying any people outside your Lordships' House who are concerned as to either the expense of the co-ordinator or the problem of what he does. I apologise for having taken time

477
on this issue, but perhaps my having done so will save time later.
I am now going to do what is part of the job of the co-ordinator of these two Departments: I am going to try—if your Lordships can bear with me for so long—to give some general idea of the line of policy and practice that we are pursuing. I am most grateful to my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, for having raised the subject and for the admirable speech that he made—of which, with his customary courtesy, he was good enough to forewarn me. His Motion deals with that aspect of the problem that arises from the cultivation of our own land; and from the experience that I have had in this House for the last twelve years, I am clear that there is no other place where such a subject could be raised with so much profit to the members of Her Majesty's Government. The fact that the debate is to go on for two days shows the extent of the information which will be available to us, and this we welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who speaks not only with the authority of his Department, but also with much personal experience of this form of production, will wind up the debate.
At the outset, I want to give your Lordships the firm assurance that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to give the farmers encouragement and confidence—I think confidence is the important thing—to develop both intensively and extensively the production of food in this country. In the recent Annual Review not only has this idea been in the forefront of our discussions but the settlement at which we arrived was designed to give the farming industry the fullest assurance on this subject. In the course of the debate I am sure that some of your Lordships will inquire what is the long-term policy of the Government regarding food. Well, my Lords, both the Government and the Farmers' Unions, as I think the noble Lord indicated (at any rate some of your Lordships know it) propose, now that we have settled the immediately pressing problem of prices, to sit down together arid work out a policy the object of which will be to give the farmers confidence to embark on a policy of long-term food production. Farming is a long-term affair. We cannot alter the policy either from year to year or, I think, wisely at any rate, from Government to Government. Obviously, this applies par-
478
ticularly to the rearing of cattle. The long-term policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding food must be to enable the people of this country to obtain the best diet that it is within their power to earn. The experience of the last ten years makes it clear that the basis of our food policy should be to increase to the uttermost the amount that we can get from our own land.
This brings me to the more pressing question of our short-term policy. Here, I am afraid, we cannot see the immediate prospect of getting that freedom which, as a Government, we desire. We are compelled to conduct our affairs in a mariner that will prevent the financial collapse that threatened this country taking place. I think no problem at present facing the general public is more difficult for them to understand than that of what is meant by the "balance of payments." It is very difficult for them to understand and recognise the simple economic truth that our supplies from abroad are governed by the extent to which we can produce and sell to other countries the things that those other countries will take and in return for which, directly or indirectly, we can get the wheat and the meat and the other things that we want. It is simple enough to say these things in this House, but it is difficult to get the mass of the people of this country to understand that simple but profound economic truth. It cannot be too clearly stated that our standard of living depends in the long run, not on the work of the Government but on the efforts of individual people. The only way we can get more and better food is from the work of individual people's hands and brains. The greater the effort, the better the diet: to eat well, we must work well.
I will give your Lordships an example. We have had to reduce the import of hams, which, although highly priced, were very welcome, and of many other foods from the Continent of Europe, because we had arrived at a stage when we had to pay for them very largely in gold. It is this factor of the balance of payments which restricts our much-needed supplies of sugar for the housewife for making jam, and of cheese from Canada. If the drain on our gold and dollar reserves had continued throughout the year at the rate at which it was proceeding at the end of 1951, we should by row have been in

479
the same unhappy state as the last Government were when they were compelled to devalue the pound; and our reserves would have been exhausted by September. It is on that account that we have had to reduce imports by £600,000,000 including £200,000,000 of foodstuffs which we should very much have welcomed for our own diet. Were it not for this need to balance our overseas payments, we should by now certainly have taken sugar and sweets off the ration (the sugar was there), improved our fat ration (the oils and fats were there), and made further purchases of meat in the non-sterling areas. Those are the unpalatable facts that we all have to face.
We are striving at least to maintain our present rations in spite of these financial restrictions. If our financial position does not get worse—and we are bending all our efforts to make it better—I can see no reason for any general worsening of our food supplies. Before the war, even in the period of the 1930s, when we were badly hit by world depression, Britain was the best market in the world for the exporter of foods from other countries. In spite of our present restrictions I believe that that is still true to-day. I believe that there are many food-producing firms in foreign lands who know the value of keeping commercial friendships in repair, and who would welcome a return to trade, or to a fuller trade, with the 50,000,000 people living in this country. We would welcome them; and maybe a renewed confidence in Britain's commercial future, which the growing strength of the exchange value of sterling indicates, will induce some of these firms to seek the means of developing trade with us. I will just add this. The present Government will encourage production and trade within our own Empire—for that we regard as of primary importance. The natural resources of those vast spaces and enterprising peoples give us hope for large and mutually advantageous agricultural development. I thought it right to say these things to your Lordships before developing further Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding home production.
I am told that I could render the best service in this matter by making it abundantly plain to the farmers of this country just where we stand. I hope I am doing so. Our views of British agriculture are broad-based. I believe in
480
this, if I may say so—and I am sure I am speaking for the whole of this House and not only for one side of it. We want to give confidence to the farmers. For reasons of defence, we know that we must grow the maximum amount of food at home. To preserve and stabilise our currency, we must grow the maximum amount of food at home. Britain's agriculture is Britain's biggest dollar saver. Because it is a good means of livelihood for the people, we must preserve and expand this industry and provide those who work in it not only with adequate financial rewards but with housing accommodation and other social amenities. During these last ten years, and especially during those years when we were at war, necessity has driven us to an improved standard of farming. I have no doubt, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has indicated, that we can go a long way further along that road. To do so we will encourage and reward good effort. But the farmers must not mind my using straight language and saying to them that this country cannot afford bad farming.
My noble friend Lord Llewellin has drawn attention to the fact that there have been many incursions into good agricultural land for roads, new towns, airfields and the like. He asks me: what are we going to do about it? I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture—and in this I venture to co-ordinate with him—never misses an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Service Departments to the fact that land means food; that if they take away land, they must do it only when it is absolutely necessary. But there is a great deal of other land that is not being fully used. My scientific advisers in the Department of Agricultural Research put this figure as high as 1,500,000 acres. With that figure I understand that Sir Thomas Dugdale's Department are in substantial agreement. The Minister of Agriculture has called on farmers to tackle this problem and to bring 500,000 more acres into the growing of feeding-stuffs this year.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask the noble Lord a question?
LORD WOOLTON: Yes.
EARL JOWITT: Does that figure of 1,500,000 acres include peat land, or is that land other than peat land?
LORD WOOLTON: The noble and learned Earl has more knowledge of agriculture than I have. But I can say this with certainty, that it is land that can be used for agricultural purposes.
EARL JOWITT: Then it is not peat land?
LORD WOOLTON: It is general agricultural land.
Feeding-stuffs are really one of our major problems. A ton of bacon, grown on home-produced feeding-stuffs, saves the country £200 in overseas expenditure. Already the Minister of Agriculture has offered financial inducements to plough up old pastures, and I am glad to say that his offer has met with a very gratifying response. We hope that farmers will rely upon better grass management, and better conservation and use of our ample output of fine grass, to make dairy herds less dependent upon imported coarse grains. The Hannah Dairy Research Institute in Scotland, one of the sections of the Lord President's scientific responsibilities, is running a dairy farm solely on the feeding-stuffs grown on the farm. How important this is can be judged from the fact that only about one-half of the food that our cows at present eat is grass. The rest has either to be grown specially for them in this country or to be bought abroad and imported at a heavy cost in foreign exchange. We go to all this trouble and expense in spite of the fact that we are told that, without losing any milk or beef, the greater part of the other feeding-stuffs that cattle eat could perfectly well be replaced by grass. I hope your Lordships will forgive this trespass into the technicalities of feeding-stuffs, but its relation to our dollar exchange is the reason why I have raised it. I hope that is a sufficient excuse.
Now let me turn to the Annual Review which we have just concluded. I say quite frankly that we have faced up to the problem of trying to give encouragement to the small farmer. Your Lordships are well aware of the extent to which this industry is in the hands of people cultivating small acreages and people of small means. I do not know whether the urban population of this country recognises how small are the resources of so very many of these farmers in the amount of land that they are cultivating. No fewer than 90 per cent. of
482
our farms in the United Kingdom are under 150 acres in extent and—a figure that surprised me when I first heard it—67 per cent. are under fifty acres. We have tried to give farmers confidence and particularly, through the fixing of prices, confidence to produce more meat—if your Lordships will forgive me for saying so, both pink meat and red meat, meat from pigs and sheep, as well as meat from cattle. Whilst we need to produce all the cereals that we can; to maintain our production of milk, eggs and sugar beet and to satisfy the demand for potatoes—which next year may be an important issue—there is no doubt at all that what we want, as I ventured in perhaps a loose moment to say some time ago, is more meat.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Red meat.
LORD WOOLTON: Red meat—but we have become just a little less particular about the colour as time has gone on! The natural processes for the production of meat take time, and consequently farmers need encouragement, especially as they have to stand out rather a long time for their money when they are producing meat, as compared with when they are producing milk.
I turn now to deal with one or two questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, of which he courteously gave me notice. He asked: What is the cost of the latest award to farmers? The answer to that question I must divide into three parts, starting with the schedule of prices and, subsidies fixed after the Annual Review in 1951 by the preceding Government. The Special Review last November added £16,000,000 in respect of labour in a full year to the price schedules. This addition is being continued. In the price schedules fixed by the preceding Government in 1951, additions were made to livestock prices as the means of giving to farmers recoupment for increased costs arising in 1950, which it had been decided to give them at the Special Review held in March, 1951. These additions were to be made for one year only, and accordingly they have been struck off the price schedules. The total amount so struck off is £2,500,000. The award made by the present Government acids to the price and subsidies schedules of a year ago, as adjusted in these two ways, a total sum

483
of £39,000,000. Substantially more than one-third of this £39,000,000 is to be paid by way of subsidy, and the rest by increases in farmers' prices. I think the proportion to be paid by subsidy is 38 per cent., but I do not want to be bound by that figure. If I leave it as "substantially over one-third," I hope that that will satisfy the noble Earl.
THE EARL of LISTOWEL: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether he can say anything at all about the prices of animal feeding-stuffs? Is that going to increase the £39,000,000, or does he expect prices to fall and, therefore, no difference to be made?
LORD WOOLTON: I simply dare not prophesy. The noble Earl is asking what is going to happen to world prices. I do not know. I could not answer that question. Nor do I think anybody else knows.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that this is an exceedingly important point. If world prices do not change, there may be another £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 added to the £39,000,000.
LORD WOOLTON: Oh, no; that will not increase the £39,000,000.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not wish to press the matter.
LORD WOOLTON: Very well. I regret, with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the White Paper has not yet been published; it would have been a great convenience for your Lordships to have it. But as my right honourable friend indicated in another place, publication is being pressed forward, and it will be issued at the earliest possible moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me also about the effect of the Price Review on the prices of food in the shops. In his Budget calculations my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that in 1952–53, if there were to be no further increase in the retail prices of subsidised foods, the subsidy total would rise to something like £460,000,000. This figure allowed for the estimated effect of the Annual Review. Now that the Review is out of the way, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied, looking at the broad figure of prices, that
484
the figure will be very little, if anything, more than that for which he allowed. The Chancellor also said in his Budget speech that the price increases necessary to bring the subsidy total down to £250,000,000 would cost about 1s. 6d. per head per week. This figure—which still stands—was obtained by estimating the increase in the weekly expenditure on the ration book, but with milk and bread, subsidised articles of food not on the ration, being counted on.
Lastly, the noble Earl asked for information about present production trends and what it is hoped to achieve by 1956. The Minister of Agriculture said in another place that he saw no reason why, by 1956, net output should not have been raised by at least 60 per cent. above pre-war levels. Obviously, it is not possible yet to be precise about the level of net output in the current farming year which runs to May 31 next. I am advised that we cannot put that figure higher than 144 per cent. of pre-war level. To raise this figure to 160 per cent. means an increase of 12 per cent. on present production, if my arithmetic is right. But this is not a target. The Minister's words were,
"… raised by at least 60 per cent. above pre-war."
I should not like the ideas of the farming world to be limited by a figure of 12 per cent. We are not attempting to farm from Whitehall or to set precise targets for each commodity for each county.
The following figures show the downward trends which have caused us much concern, and which afford every reason for seeking to give confidence to the farmers. The September returns of 1951 show that the number of cattle under one year old had declined during the year from 2,138,000 to 1,938,000. According to the June returns, the tillage acreage fell from 12,825,000 in 1950 to 12,215,000 in 1951. There is general agreement that over four years the food for animals derived from our grass can be increased by 15 per cent., and that at the same time the yields of other crops can be increased by at least 5 per cent. On this basis there is scope for rearing, for instance, between 300,000 and 400,000 more calves annually for beef production, continuing the increase in our sheep population, and at the same

485
time releasing more grassland—another 1,000,000 acres after June next—for tillage. This might well build up an increase in the production of meat by some 250,000 tons (mainly pig meat) by the fourth year, with further increases in beef and mutton to follow.
My Lords, I have taken up a great deal of your Lordships' time this afternoon, for which I pray your indulgence. I have been trying to cover a very wide range and to give your Lordships all the information at my disposal. I hope that at any rate I have done one thing—namely, that through your Lordships' House I have convinced the farming population of this country that we want their efforts, that we demand their patriotic efforts—because it will indeed be the highest patriotism—to give this country the increased food which the soil of the country can produce.
4.30 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I too feel deeply grateful to the noble Lord who has moved this Motion, since it gives me an opportunity of intervening in this important debate to-day, and, having been a member of your Lordships' House for something over fifty years, I feel that it is not likely that I shall have many more opportunities of speaking.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD CRANWORTH: The question that I asked myself when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper is one which no doubt a good many people must have asked—namely, is there any new development that has caused us to make any radical change in our agricultural policy? Our policy, as every noble Lord knows, is now based on the Agriculture Act of 1947. But perhaps it is not quite so generally recognised that that Act is based on the conclusions reached by a conference called by the Royal Agricultural Society of England and presided over by Sir George Courthope—now member of your Lordships' House. It was a conference of all the important agricultural bodies of England. They sat for some considerable time, and reached a substantial number of conclusions. And the remarkable thing about the work of the conference is that every conclusion was agreed upon unanimously. Those of your Lordships who have had experience of agricultural conferences will recognise
486
that that was a rather remarkable achievement, and greatly to the credit of Lord Courthope. The conference represented all classes of people engaged in agriculture and, I think, twelve agricultural bodies. Some little addition was made to the conclusions, and one conclusion was abstracted when the Act was passed. I have sometimes thought that it might have been rather better if the whole of the conclusions had been adopted without alteration. Nevertheless, I think all your Lordships will agree that the Act has worked and is working well, and unless some new developments have occurred there would appear to be need only for minor alterations in the Act.
I fear, however (and other speakers have hinted at this), that developments, possibly of a sinister nature, have arisen. The first one has, of course, already been alluded to—I refer to our unfortunate financial position, which precludes us from buying all the food we could wish to buy, as well as all the raw materials which are necessary for our existence. That is a very serious state of affairs. But, after all, it can be remedied, and I think in time it will be remedied. There is only one remedy, and I think that probably we all know in our heart of hearts what it is. It is not increased wages; it is not increased prices; it is not strikes; it is not political action—it is more hard work. That is the only remedy. We must remember that when we built up our prosperity in a period from 100 to 150 years ago it was done by hard work. It is interesting to recall that during those fifty years more than one complaint was made to the Foreign Office by Continental countries, on the ground that everyone knew that our men could work harder and did work harder than the men of any other nation, and that it was not fair to allow them to go to the Continent to work with people who were unable to keep pace with them. I do not think we get many complaints of that kind now.
The other development—and it has hardly been touched upon so far in this debate—is that outlined in the statements of great experts, to the effect that the food productive capacity of the globe is getting, used up; that there is barely enough food to go round now, and that the quantity available is not likely to increase. These experts- have also stated that the population of the world is in-

487
creasing by 20,000,000 a year, and that those people who live in the main food exporting areas are demanding—and rightly—a higher standard of life, so that they are no longer so ready to export food to other countries. It is pointed out, also, that erosion, though stopped in some places, is going on in others, and that it is likely that there may be very little food coming into this country, whether we are able to pay for it or not. It makes one think, when one reads of meatless days in the Argentine. I was brought up to believe that the daily ration of meat in the Argentine was 6 lb. per head. If it is now necessary to have meatless days in the Argentine what must we expect here?
Probably all your Lordships have read some very convincing articles which have appeared in papers and periodicals. I would call particular attention to the remarks of two men—Lord Boyd-Orr, who I have been given to understand is perhaps the highest authority on food production in the world, and Sir James Turner, President of the National Farmers' Union, perhaps the greatest authority on food production in England. They have both expressed again and again these forebodings, and, so far as I know, they have not been contradicted. I have not seen either contradiction or admission of the truth of what they have stated, from the last Government or from this. Surely the statements of these gentlemen deserve attention, because even if but a small portion of them are true the position from the point of view of the people of this country is somewhat grim. Indeed, it looks to me as if it might be an even more dangerous position than that which we experienced during the war. We did at least think then—though not rightly as it has turned out—that if we won the war we should very soon get back to an era of prosperity, and that, at all events, our stomachs would be full once more. It now looks as though it might not be so. Quite clearly, if there is some element of truth in this, a revision of our agricultural policy is called for, and the demand must be for 100 per cent. food production in this country—and we are very far from having 100 per cent. production at the present day. Such a policy would, I presume, have three objectives. The first would be to provide incentives for food production; the second to provide sanctions for those to whom
488
incentives do not appeal; and the third to remove obstacles hampering food production, if any such obstacles exist.
We have already heard something about incentives. They are dealt with in the annual Price Review that is to say the outcome of the yearly wrangle, which has just finished, as to what prices are to be paid. I think that that wrangle is quite inevitable, because a more difficult subject upon which to get agreement it must be almost impossible to find, when we consider all the factors that go to the making up of prices. I do not know if many of your Lordships have studied your farm accounts and have compared them with your accounts of ten years ago. If you have done so you cannot have failed to be struck by the immense differences in the cost of the smaller things such as oil, fuel, power, threshing, thatching, sacks, fertilisers, binder twine, and so on. The cost of all such things has gone up enormously, and if we had the full effect of that it would come to an enormous sum. There is also this factor to be considered. If we provide prices high enough to enable small farmers on poor land to make a living, we provide for big farmers on good land a big sum, though it is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes every endeavour to regain it—and probably succeeds. If he does succeed, that takes away from the good farmer the incentive that should be there to produce more, and makes a serious problem of the whole thing. Farming is a long-term policy. The essence of increased production is confidence, and that confidence can be achieved by the farmer only if he can see his price some way ahead. I was glad to hear that a conference is taking place to go into this subject, which to my mind must be an exceptionally difficult one.
I should like to say a word on sanctions. Of course, this is a most unpopular thing, and is largely non-existent, but it is one which I fear is necessary. We have still "C" farmers—notperhaps so many as there were, but still too many—and we also have farmers in the lower levels of "B" who are very lucky to be there. What are sanctions? A farmer has either to farm well or get out. But how seldom is that done! It is true that agricultural executive committees have power to turn out "C" farmers. An owner can apply to the committee for a certificate of bad farming, and if he gets

489
it the tenant can be, and should be, removed. But what happens, as most of your Lordships know, is that the farmer goes under supervision, and at the end of two years he is coaxed up to be just within the confines of "B." That is not very satisfactory. I do not think we ought to blame these farmers overmuch. Most of them are old and some of them have no capital.
What an immense premium there is in old-age in farming! Let me give your Lordships an example. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I were farming two farms of equal size, side by side, and farming them equally well as "A" farms, as no doubt we should, my farm would be worth 50 per cent. more than his. Why? Because it would be forty years nearer vacant possession, and vacant possession is the thing that makes the value of a farm. A farm with vacant possession is worth twice as much as one that is occupied. My farm would be worth at least as much again as that of the noble Lord. I do not think that that is altogether a satisfactory condition of affairs. It has been said that the country teems with young and competent farmers largely disheartened because they do not see their way to put their talents to use. Many could increase the output of the farms by at least 100 per cent. There is much to be said for the security of tenure of a good farmer, because that gives him the confidence that is absolutely necessary; but too great security of tenure may be a bad and even a dangerous thing for a nation
I should like to touch on one or two of the obstacles which hamper production. The first is that the standing equipment of farms is deteriorating over the country, and this is a serious matter. It is true that many owners have spent large sums on improvements and maintenance. I believe that recently they have spent on improvements over £20,000,000. That is a fine, patriotic effort; but the money was taken out of capital and was spent chiefly by those people who have been helped by the Finance Act of 1945. For those who have not been helped, the tale is very different. I suggest that standing equipment is steadily going down, for this reason: that rents have not risen to a level comparable with the cost of maintenance. The average rent throughout the country is now roughly the same as it was in 1870, eighty years ago. It has
490
risen since the war by 24 per cent., but at the present moment it is only 6 per cent. of the farmer's outgoings. It is true that an owner can apply for arbitration of rent, but that is neither a quick nor a satisfactory procedure. Most of us who have been owners for a long time find it rather a distasteful one. I was brought up on the theory that if I let a farm to a good farmer, he had security of tenure at the same rent so long as he farmed it well. I find it very difficult to get away from that. I believe that the best way to deal with this question is to have rent courts sitting once every three years, to move rents up or down as circumstances demand; but I am bound to tell your Lordships that I do not get much support for that suggestion among my noble friends.
EARL JOWITT: Come over here!
LORD CRANWORTH: But that is still my view. We have heard a great deal about the rape of good agricultural land. We know that now we are losing agricultural land at the rate of 50,000 acres a year, in spite of the efforts—the hard efforts—of the Ministry of Agriculture, who have reduced the loss from 60,000 acres a year to 50,000 acres. That is eighty square miles, and we know how it is going. I feel it is certain to continue to go, and all we can say is that we must replace it with other land. We have talked a great deal about marginal land, and no doubt some marginal land must make up part of the loss, but I wonder whether we could not do more to follow the example of our Dutch neighbours in reclaiming land from the sea, which apparently they do with a great deal of ease and economy. I know we are getting some land back, but I think we should get a good deal more. I consider that it is a scandal and almost a crime when we allow the sea to take large areas of good agricultural land from us. This has happened in my own county and there is an extreme danger of it happening again. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one of the recommendations made by the Conference of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, which was passed unanimously—namely, that sea walls and sea defences should be a national charge. I wondered, when the last Government were in power (and I believe they had no rooted objection to nationalisation), why the one thing

491
every interested and knowledgeable party said should be nationalised, was not nationalised. I hope we, on our side, may do something towards that nationalisation and earn the praise of noble Lords who sit opposite.
I wish to say a few words about marginal land, because I feel that it is from marginal land that the additional production must come. Marginal land, I take it, is land that is held to be uneconomic to produce food. Yet much can be done with this type of land. The most shining example at the present moment is the land that has been reclaimed by Lord Iveagh at Elveden. He has reclaimed 8,000 acres of land. I have known that land all my life, and it must be among the worst land in England. Some portion has bracken on it, but the bulk of it has nothing but moss, on which a few extremely emaciated rabbits used to hang out an existence. That 8,000 acres now produces crops: barley and oats, and even wheat, rye and sugar beet, all very nearly up to the national average; and, in addition, on the loose surface which forms the basis of this farm, large quantities of milk, beef and mutton are produced. If that can be done on that land, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of land, as good as that and better, on which it can be done. If it is said to be uneconomic to do it—and I am given to understand that this particular experiment breaks about even, though, of course, accounts are very difficult to make out—then I suggest that it should be done by Her Majesty's Government. After all, a praiseworthy effort of the last Government was to do this same sort of thing in Tanganyika Territory, with the idea originally of providing food and fats for the people of this country. If a fraction of the money that was spent in Tanganyika Territory had been spent on our marginal land, what a worthwhile contribution would have been made to the food supplies of this country!
In conclusion, I hope that the people of this country, and more especially the farming community, will be taken thoroughly into the confidence of the Government. They should be told how we stand. They should know how much truth there is in the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, and Sir James Turner. If any of it be true, then
492
the people should be convinced of it, because it is a serious matter. The majority of the people of this land are adequately, if rather monotonously, fed, including, I am happy to say, all children and all those who have access to a canteen or a club. But there are certain sections of the population which even now are living nearly at starvation rate, and, most unfairly, they include some of the people engaged in agriculture, who should be the last to be short of food. If all sections of the farming community can be convinced of the crisis, or near crisis, I am sure that, as was the case in the last war and in the First World War, they will spare no effort to alleviate the position by greater production.
4.55 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was speaking he started a sentence which began in this way, if my recollection is right: "My Lords, we do not want controversy." He then noticed that there was some indication of disapproval on my face, and he added the words, "in this matter." The full proposition I accept; but the more limited proposition, that we do not want controversy, is a very odd proposition to come from the noble Lord.
LORD WOOLTON: My sentence must be completed.
EARL JOWITT: So I anticipate, because if anybody is going about the country now asking for controversy, it is the noble Lord. Let me assure him that on the proper occasion he will certainly get controversy. At the present time it seems to me that he is carrying out the old and useful adage, "If you have a bad case, abuse the other side's attorney." This particular matter is not one on which I feel we ought to have controversy. Indeed, the only reason why I—who do not pose as an agricultural expert—have asked to speak in this debate is because possibly I should emphasise, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, that there is no controversy in this matter. The farming community may rest absolutely assured that, if it should happen that there was a change of Government, that would in no sense prejudice their position or their security.
What the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said—in what I thought, if I may say so, a most interesting speech, and one with

493
which, rather to my surprise, I found myself almost entirely in agreement—is surely true; and I venture to say that it was standing out a mile, even before the Election. It is this. We have a population of over 50,000,000 people in these islands. Leaving out raw materials for the moment, I suppose that, so far as foodstuffs are concerned, we produce something of the order of rather more than half what we need. We have therefore, to get the other half from abroad. That pre-supposes two things: first, that we have the money with which to pay for it; and secondly, that the foodstuffs are there to buy, even if we have the money. It is quite obvious to anybody who looks around—the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said this, and quoted Lord Boyd-Orr—that there is a grave danger that the food may not be available. I was out in Australia this year. I do not pose as a farming expert, and I am not going to prophesy, but I will hazard a guess that the exports of food that we receive from Australia in the coming years will be diminished—apart altogether from the drought. That fact stares us in the face. How then are we to feed our people?
From Australia I went on to New Zealand, and I came back through America. We have many very good friends in America who are watching our destinies with great anxiety, wondering whether we can possibly carry on. Can we carry on in these islands, with a population of 50,000,000 people, buying half our foodstuffs? I am not being gloomy or despondent—nor was the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth—but I think we ought to face the facts. They are very unpleasant facts, as I see them; but we have got to face them. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, has spoken on this subject many times, and so has the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr. Those are the facts. What we have to do, therefore, far transcends any issue of Party politics. At all costs, we must do everything we can, as a matter of the greatest urgency, to increase the food supplies of this country. 'Ibis farming business is no longer a game at which people can play. In these circumstances, a man who is not doing the best he can with his land is an enemy of society, and he must be treated as such. I am very relieved to hear that noble Lords from all quarters of the House are beginning to take this
494
view. It is certainly not for me to make any attack on the farmers of this country as a whole. They certainly know their job better than I do, and I am not such a fool as to give them advice.
I reached New Zealand at the beginning of September, and in the course of my travels I went to Napier, in North Island, the great sheep-growing area. I suppose that the beginning of September is approximately early spring out there. I have been engaged in farming for many years, and I saw there what I have never seen before. I saw fields completely unlike the fields at home, looking rather like a golf green at a very good golf course, with very short grass—so short, indeed, that you would think you had to cut it with a pair of scissors to get anything at all. I have no doubt that I saw the country at the most appropriate time of the year, but the fields were a bright emerald green, carrying a head of sheep the like of which I had never seen before, or even dreamt of. I saw aeroplanes flying over the land, dropping their fertilisers on the fields; and the whole thing was completely up to date and modernised with scientific outlook. It struck me, as it would have struck any of your Lordships, that they are doing something there the like of which we do not possess in this country.
I made a point of getting in touch with the farmers, and I asked them about it. They all have a profound admiration for this country, and they were most hesitant to criticise the farmers at home. They said that the farmers of this country were very good farmers indeed, and just as good as they are. I pressed them, and they said in a very modest way: "Well, perhaps on this subject of grass we are rather better than they are." From what I saw there is really no doubt about that. It may be—the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will know, and he will be able to tell your Lordships—that I was there at an exceptional time of year, and in an exceptionally favourable area. I only tell your Lordships that I saw something the like of which I have never seen before. Could we not do something of that sort here? I would ask your Lordships to say that we should all join in letting the public know that we are faced with a very serious arid dangerous problem. You will not do it by promising that there are ample supplies of juicy red meat round the corner—there are not. It

495
is much better to face up to the facts, and your only chance, to my mind, of getting more good pink, red or any other meat, is to grow more in this country. Unless you substantially increase your output in this country you will not be able to do it. The first thing, therefore, is to get a sense of urgency, a sense of drive, which we have not yet achieved—the sense which makes us unwilling to tolerate had farming as being anti-social.
The next thing I wish to say is this. It always seems to me that in this matter, as in all others, we are not realising the impact and effect which taxation has. When income tax started it was very small, but it has gone up in little bits and we do not realise what has happened to-day. For instance, on the whole export problem you ask companies to increase their export trade. You ask them to go into new ventures and to try to develop some new line. If they succeed in doing so you promptly clamp down on them this new excess profits levy, and the rest of it. which makes the new venture hardly a feasible proposition. There was a Commission on this problem presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, whom I am glad to see here to-day. If only the Government could say to these companies: "Well, of course, if you can get anything extra by developing a new line, God bless you! You shall pay no taxes at all." That would be much more sensible than subjecting them to heavy taxation.
With regard to amortisation—and this applies to farming, too—I would far rather have a tax like a dividend tax, and give industry generally, and agriculture in particular, far better terms for amortisation, so that the people can put their money back into their business. I believe that that would be wise. Then there is this old and vexed problem, about which I have heard for so many years, of marginal land. Of course, you have to have one fixed price which is paid to everybody, but the net result of that is that you have to fix that price so high that it affords a return to the farmer of bad land. Of necessity, therefore, it must be too high for the farmer of good land. Can that be avoided? I do not know. That problem stares one in the face, and it is the sort of fact which has led to these suggestions (which I believe to be quite untrue) about "feather-bedding."
496
Suggestions of "feather-bedding" will go on if you have to pay prices which are too high for the good land and yet barely adequate for the bad land. That is a matter I should like to see considered.
There was one matter which the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, raised at the conclusion of his speech, with which I am not sure that I agree. I suppose that if you spend enough money on any land you can make it produce something. Whether you turn the land to the most suitable form of production is another matter. When I was a farmer I was practising at the Bar. I confess that when I was at the Bar I was earning a considerable income. I confess, too, that when I was farming I lost a considerable amount. But I bore my losses with a stoical equanimity, because, in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid most of them. People do all sorts of funny things now, simply because of the taxation problem. What we want is to ensure that the people do not do these things—things which they would not do were it not for some taxation difficulty.
There are just one or two other matters that I wish to discuss. This being, I believe, the most important task before this country. I am unhappy about the present set-up. I am unhappy, not because I distrust the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, at all—for when it comes to administration I know of no one better, though I do not think he knows even as much about farming as I do: I at least can milk a cow, and I have sheared a sheep, though I should be sorry to try now—but because I think the Minister of Agriculture should be in a bigger position than he is to-day. I feel that it is absolutely wrong that the Minister of Agriculture should not be a member of the Cabinet. I sat in the Cabinet for six years, and I saw the efforts of Mr. Tom Williams—who, in my view, was a first-rate Minister of Agriculture. Day after day I heard him fight his battles in the Cabinet, because there were all sorts of other Ministries who impinged on his—Ministries whose affairs had repercussions on agriculture—and I think it quite wrong that the Minister of Agriculture, who is one of the most important Ministers in the country to-day, should not be a member of the Cabinet.
I do not mind having co-ordinators, though I would quote to your Lordships again what I have often said before.

497
I have always been impressed by what President Lincoln said. He said:
"One bad General is better than two good ones."
The danger of these co-ordinators is this. You get two people, the noble Lord opposite and the Minister of Agriculture, both responsible for this policy—no one knows quite who is responsible: at least, perhaps they do, but we do not—instead of having one man who is completely in charge of the whole, and who ought to be a member of the Cabinet. I hope that that view will commend itself. If we are going to have a successful agricultural policy we must put our Minister of Agriculture in a strong position from which he can see that his wishes are carried out.
LORD WOOLTON: If I may be allowed to interrupt the noble and learned Earl, it seems to me that there is a Parliamentary principle involved here. There really is no doubt about who is responsible for agriculture—responsible to Parliament. It must always be the Minister. The noble and learned Earl has served in so many Cabinets that surely he will accept that as a princple. I have no responsibility.
EARL JOWITT: I agree. But then the Minister has no chance of going to the Cabinet. He can be called in, of course; but being called in on exceptional occasions, having to wait outside in the ante-room until his business comes on, is quite a different matter from being in the Cabinet. I ask the noble Lord to consider with the Prime Minister whether it is not right that the Minister of Agriculture should be in the Cabinet. He has at the present time an extremely important job to carry out, on which the well-being and possibly the safety of this country depend.
I cordially agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said about commons. We have had far too much in this country of people saying, "You must not touch that land: it is common land." I have seen acres and acres of common land in August and September shoulder high with bracken, so that no one could possibly get about there. Just because there is this theoretical right, the land is not used; and nothing is done about it. By all means give the people access; let them have their walks, and so on; but we are not in a position to afford to allow that land not to be providing foodstuffs,
498
if it can be made to provide them. I beg the Government to look into this matter. For the rest, go on as you have been going on and as we carried on, with agricultural education. I was in Denmark some years ago and studied their system; and I was immensely impressed with what I saw. About once every year the farmers there go to some university extension course. Their neighbours look after the farm, knowing that in due course their own turn to go to the university will come and that their neighbour, in his turn, will look after their farm. I was told by their Minister of Agriculture that this system of going back to a university broadened these men's minds and proved of immense value. He said, "When we started we covered every form of farming and fertilisation, and so on. Later on we began to cover all sorts of things not remotely connected with farming, such as Greek and Roman mythology, Byzantine art and so on. We found that the farmers liked it very much and that it had a very good result; and they went back to the farms and did magnificent work." I am certain we ought to do all we can on those lines.
There is one other question—and in raising it I speak for myself entirely. I rent a small cottage in Suffolk and I hear a great deal about the question of sugar beet. I often wonder what the rights and wrongs of this question are. I have no views myself, but tills I know: that in your long-term policy you have to consider to what extent you want to develop that industry. There are farmers to whom I have talked who deplore the fact that we have so much sugar beet and wish that there were more ordinary fodder beet. The sugar has, of course, been of immense value, but the real problem is whether the sugar is of more value than the materials which might be produced on that land if it were not producing sugar. It might be producing acres of grain—though of course, there must be rotation. Some would say that it would be better to grow sugar in the West. Indies and stockpile it; then this land could be used for growing coarse grains or the like. But obviously, as I say, we must have some sugar beet. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to formulate policy he will look into this matter. I have no particular opinion myself, but I know that this question has raised differences of opinion amongst

499
people who really understand the subject in that part of the world. I am afraid I have spoken for too long, but I hope I have been able to show your Lordships and the country that this Party is not one which has not the interests of agriculture at heart, but that, on the contrary, we believe—and the record of my right honourable friend Mr. Tom Williams shows it—that this great problem of agriculture is one of first importance to the wellbeing of the whole country.
5.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, we have had this afternoon several brilliant and informative speeches in support of the Motion so opportunely put on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Llewellin; but I venture to say that no speech has been more brilliant and illuminating than that of my noble friend Lord Cranworth. He pointed out—and the noble and learned Earl who has just addressed us has expressed his entire agreement—that the outlook as regards the food supply of this country is a grim one and necessitates every acre that can be usefully applied to food production being so applied. It necessitates also a supreme effort on the part of our farming community, who supply for our consumption essential foods that are not likely in the future to come in any large quantities from overseas. I am not going to attempt to butt in on the subject with which the noble and learned Earl opened his speech. except I to say, first, that I am at one with him in feeling that our Minister of Agriculture should be in the Cabinet; and, secondly, that bearing in mind what happened in the Second World War, we owe an enormous measure of gratitude to the business ability of my noble friend Lord Woolton, who provided so efficiently, to the great comfort of the housewives of this country, essential foods in an unprecedentedly critical period.
Now, my Lords, I am not quite sure that I understood what the noble and learned Earl said in regard to the new award of food prices providing excessive benefits for farmers on bad land. I am far more concerned about providing excessive benefit for bad farmers, which, of course, is a different proposition.
EARL JOWITT: I did not say it provided an excessive benefit for farmers of bad land. I said that if you provide what is a fair benefit for a farmer of bad land, it follows that you must provide excessive benefit for a farmer of good land.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Yes, always assuming that the farmer in question can make the best use of his land, whatever the policy. I am glad that the noble and learned Earl referred to the ex-Minister of Agriculture. I am bound to say that I have known all the Ministers of Agriculture personally from the first, and it is a most remarkable fact that three of the most brilliant and successful Ministers of Agriculture have been men who have not previously been concerned with the cultivation of land. They were Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Runciman and Mr. Tom Williams. Mr. Williams did his utmost to take agriculture out of the cockpit of the Party politicians. I believe that that is the only way to ensure a safe, secure and confident future for what is, after all, the most vital industry of this country. In passing. I should also like to say, with some considerable knowledge of the Danish system of education—and I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Earl has said—that we are beginning to use something in the nature of the Danish system in our new farm institutes. That is a development which is all to the good and will be likely to expand the outlook of the average small farmer to a very considerable extent. As regards beet sugar, for a part of the First World War I happened to be Sugar Controller, and we were not much impressed with the high quality of sugar that came from the West Indies—although the quality has since improved very much. Until it had been efficiently refined by our own refiners at home, we did not rate the West Indian sugar, although coming from a part of the British Commonwealth, as high as certain sugars raised in other parts of the world. What I want to stress is that the value of beet sugar production is not to be found only in the output of sugar. In my long life and experience I do not know of anything that has been more effective in improving the quality of our land, and the standard of general cultivation in the course of the rotation, than the introduction of the beet sugar

501
industry into this country. It is particularly noticeable in East Anglia and the eastern part of England.
May I make two comments upon the admirable speech which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel? He emphasised, as did the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, the desirability of continuity of policy, both as regards the products of the land and, as I have already mentioned, as regards political Parties successively in power. He spoke also about the agreed prices as affecting small farms. In my humble opinion, there is no more important feature in the present and prospective policy of the Government than the encouragement of the small farmer. There I entirely agree with the noble Earl. The noble and learned Earl started his speech by commenting upon the extent to which in the past we have depended upon overseas supplies of food. May I remind your Lordships that, prior to the two world wars, two-thirds of our most essential foods came from abroad—that is, roughly 50 per cent. of our meat and from 75 percent. to 80 percent. of our cereal food, of our breadstuffs—I use the word "breadstuffs" with a little hesitation, because I, for my part, think that in a crisis potatoes, an important starchy food, ought to be included in the term "breadstuffs." The outstanding exceptions were milk and potatoes, in which we were absolute self-suppliers. Within ten years I anticipate that, as regards animal products, and notably meat, no more than 25 per cent. at the most will be forthcoming from overseas. Apart from home production, and ruling out the dollar countries, the only source that we can confidently look to, and are looking to, for an appreciable increase in meat supplies, is New Zealand.
In passing, let me say, as regards Lord Jowitt's laudatory reference to New Zealand methods, with which I entirely agree, that New Zealand has the inestimable advantage of an almost ideal climate as well as a naturally and exceptionally fertile land. We cannot too warmly express our gratitude to that small Dominion and its farmers for their outstanding help in this time of the Old Country's critical need, and all the more so if we realise—and I do not think that many of the public do realise—that New Zealand could quite well sell her meat output to other countries for at least 33
502
per cent. more than we are paying. As a matter of fact, she has during the last twelve months sold to certain other countries for 50 per cent. more value than we are paying small supplies of her meat. I am not unacquainted with New Zealand, its farmers and its productive potentialities, and I venture to assert that she could increase her output and her exportable surplus, if given fair value, by 40 per cent. in the next two years, and double it within the next ten. In that connection, I should like to pay a modest tribute to the Maori people. The Maori people, unlike, perhaps, the Bantu of Southern Africa, are not only an intelligent but also a very progressively-minded people, and, since I was Governor-General of New Zealand, I do not think I am exaggerating if I suggest that the Maori output of food in New Zealand has at least quadrupled, and is increasing progressively every year.
It seems to me that the expression "meat" should not be taken too literally. Of course, what we really mean is protein food, including such meat substitutes as eggs, cheese of the right type and fish—foods which, eaten with our more starchy products, will give us the balanced ration so essential to health and vocational efficiency. One of my great anxieties to-day is whether, under any scheme of Government organisation, a large proportion of our population are getting, or are likely to get in the early future, a sufficiently balanced ration. That is one of the great drawbacks, of course, in Africa to-day. As some of your Lordships may know, I presided over the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission just before the last World War, and the thing which perhaps more than anything else, impressed us all, particularly up in the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia, was that by adding meat to what was in the old days, the exclusively starchy food of the African, it was possible to increase his efficiency and his output by no less than 120 per cent. I mention that only by the way, because this balance of ration is to my mind so enormously important, whether we are dealing with natives or with white people.
Reference has been made to pigs. I know that the Government are doing something to help us in regard to greater production of pigs. But let us always remember that when we are suffering from meat scarcity the pig is capable of

503
reproducing meat in greater bulk and at a greater pace than any other domestic animal. I hope, incidentally, that the small pig-keeper will always be borne in mind. In the old days, when every allotment holder had his pig and there were far more styes occupied by pigs owned by the working population, the small pig-keeper was, if I remember rightly, producing no less than 40 per cent. of the whole of the bacon, if not the pork, that was consumed in this country. Let us give him a chance.
I want to add only a word or two as regards the price awards. I hope that at no distant date we are going to learn something more about the long-term policy of the Government. I do not think that we can adequately judge the efficacy and value of these price awards until we know much more than we do at present about the long-term policy. I personally strongly deprecate cavilling at these awards which have been agreed to after long negotiation between the Farmers' Union and the Government. At the same time, I contend that you cannot fix any scale of prices that is even approximately equitable to the producer, or fair to the consuming public, unless you differentiate markedly between large farmers, with their labour-saving equipment and relatively low overhead costs, and the small farmers, especially in the West of England and Wales, where they are mostly very small farmers; and between those who are efficient and those who are seriously inefficient. Farmers may be inefficient through laziness, old age or poor capital equipment; but, as has been pointed out, we must disentitle these people to occupy our precious, scarce and ever-dwindling area of farmland in this small island. The proportion of inefficient farmers is estimated as at least 10 per cent., but I put the proportion as high as 15 per cent. The process of dispossessing such farmers is far too slow under the present agency of the county agricultural executive committees. To-day, if they are tenants, the farmers have virtual fixity of tenure, whatever their landlords may say; and of course the system of so-called supervision has become almost a farce.
There are two other matters that I want just to refer to. We are told that additional capital for farm purposes will not be available to any material extent.
504
In the present state of the country's finances I am not prepared to grumble about that. But I would say (I am not sure that other noble Lords will entirely agree with me here) that, when it comes to expending national capital, I cannot persuade myself that it ought to be expended to any large extent on the improvement of marginal land at high altitudes, in Scotland and elsewhere—at any rate until the country is in a much sounder economic position than it is today. A great deal has been said in this House this afternoon on marginal land. There is marginal land and marginal land. The land which, out of his own pocket, Lord Iveagh has so magnificently improved, seems to smack of similar work carried out by "Coke of Norfolk" some 150 years ago. That is all very well if the money is provided out of a private purse. But when you come to land at high altitudes, in Scotland and elsewhere, in view of the burning need for additional capital on efficient, well-developed farms, I cannot think that marginal land is the right type of land on which to expend the nation's capital at this time.
What I want to emphasise most of all is the supreme importance of the greater self-sufficiency of the British farm. The noble Earl and other noble Lords today have referred to the importance of grass. During the last ten years there has been a positive revolution in British farming, owing to the discovery that grass (and under that heading I am inclined to include clover and other leguminous herbage) at, we will say, no more than six to eight inches high, is not only an extremely valuable crop, equivalent, in its dry matter content, to the cattle cakes upon which we used to depend for the fattening of our farm animals and the main supply of concentrated food for our dairy cattle, but, when properly fertilised, with due regard for the balance of fertility, can be made to provide for the needs of our livestock to the extent of at least 50 per cent. more than was contemplated ten years ago. It is in that direction—if I may venture to suggest it—that I think we can perform the greatest service to the consumers of this country. Make all possible use you can of herbage, particularly lcy herbage—which, by the way, does not interfere with the rotation of cereal and other arable corps. Make all the use you can in this country, of herbage, controlled grazing,

505
the drying of grass (if farmers have the necessary capital, available for this), silage and, particularly in the matter of self-sufficiency, such crops on arable land as beans, peas, and lucerne.
I wish to say only a few words more. I had hoped that a noble Lord hailing from Worcestershire would make some reference to fruit. It may be suggested that fruit is not an essential food, but certainly it conduces very materially to the health of our population. I am bound to say that, in the West of England at any rate, we have not been fairly treated, in my judgment, in the matter of the production not merely of plums but, very particularly, of dessert apples. That is mainly because the bottom was knocked out of the market fast December by large importations of fruit from overseas, and, so far as Worcestershire was concerned, the importation of large quantities of plums from the Continent of Europe. Another adverse factor was the non-availability of containers, made of tinplate or otherwise, for preserving purposes. An immense amount of valuable fruit was lost 10 the public during the last twelve months because of these importations, which were so detrimental to our own fruit growers, and because of the lack of containers. I hope that this matter will be considered by the Government, especially in view of the fact that in certain areas—the Vale of the Severn, in which I live, is one of them—a considerable number of new fruit growers have put the whole of their little capital into what is undoubtedly a very attractive and, seen prospectively, profitable industry, and some of them have already gone out of business. Certainly no further encouragement is given to new and potential fruit growers by reason of this unfortunate policy of deluging our markets with competitive products from overseas.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me for addressing you at such length. It is all very well for Lord Cranworth to speak as though he were advanced in age. Of course, compared to me, he is positively a young man. In, case I may not have further opportunities of addressing your Lordships in regard to a subject to which, I think I may say without exaggeration, I have devoted practically the whole of a long life, I am taking this opportunity of doing so now. My Lords, a hundred years ago Britain had no rival in the world in the supremacy of her agricul-
506
ture. If her successive Governments display courage, vision and a full consciousness of the potentialities of science, and enlightened human enterprise, she will regain that position. God grant that it may not be too late!
5.44 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, after the magnificent contribution to our debate from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to which we have just listened. We always know when he rises that we are going to hear something good, and we have not been disappointed on this occasion. I take heart because Lord Cranworth, that other great expert, has also spoken, and I shall confine my remarks largely to following many of the things which he has said. I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for setting this debate off on its way. We have had from him an expression of hope that every acre in this country in future may produce the utmost of which it is capable. From Lord Wootton we have had a statement to the effect that he is all for encouraging and giving confidence to the farmers. That was his theme, and he followed it out very thoroughly. From the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, we had a speech in which he impressed us with the seriousness of the situation. We have also had from him an assurance that there is no controvery in regard to these important matters. So I think we are making quite good progress.
There is one matter which I should like to take up from Lord Llewellin's speech. He referred to the question of taking agricultural land for housing. He also said, I think, in parenthesis, something about this land being taken for playing fields—at least, if he did not, I was wondering whether he would go on to say something about that. I could not agree with him more that the process of taking the best land for housing should stop. I do not go quite so far with those who say that too much ground has already been taken for playing fields, and that no more should be taken. I would say to those who have been critical in this matter that, whereas when you build on a piece of land it has gone for good, if you reserve a piece of land for playing fields—adjacent to a school or elsewhere—you can, in the direst necessity, plough it up again. You cannot plough it up

507
again if you have given up the land to housing. Further to what Lord Llewellin said with regard to the Service Departments (and Lord Woolton has given some answer in that connection), I hope that the Air Ministry will be very careful not to allow, unless it is absolutely necessary, airfields now required in connection with the rearmament programme to go out of food production. I have some knowledge of some of those airfields, and they are producing food which it would be the greatest pity to lose. It would certainly not be conducive to an increase of food production if this source of supply were to be ended.
We have heard in this debate a great deal about the last two wars, the post-war period and the lessons we have learned. We have indeed learned lessons of food production and food procurement—if I may so call it. We have found that our great suppliers, more especially the Argentine and Australia, have upset their own balances between primary and secondary production. We found ourselves facing an unbalanced economy a good while ago after the Industrial Revolution. Those two countries are going through their industrial revolution at the present time, with their populations increasing, standards of living rising and, in consequence, less food for export. As has already been mentioned in your Lordships' House, they have had to contend with climatic conditions which have had the effect of making food exports even thinner. No one blames those countries for having—as I have put it—unbalanced their economies, though it hits us pretty hard. It has to be admitted that the condition of our agriculture when we did not need it so much as we do now was deplorable. Time was when we were quite happy that cheap food should come in and everything was well—or seemed to be well—with everybody except those engaged in agriculture.
We have seen, and do not wish to see again, great depressions in agriculture. The recovery of agriculture during the recent war was remarkable, and all praise ought to go to our farmers for what they have done. But I suggest to your Lordships that it has been on an artificial basis. It has been done entirely by subsidies and price arrangements. I believe that what is now necessary is more capital in agriculture for development, for
508
equipment and for restoration. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, have touched on this question of capital. Lord Cranworth spoke on capital and the land owner. The poor old land owners, much maligned though they have been, have been taxed out of existence, although I agree that taxation allowances have assisted matters. I do not know what is the position of farmer-owners with regard to capital and how far they are able to plough back their reserves, but I question whether they are able to do very much.
We all know, probably, how much money has already been lent to agriculture by the banks, but let me remind your Lordships that these loans are supposed to be temporary. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and the Land Development Company have done a great deal to bring capital to the land, and the University Colleges and City of London Companies owning land have no doubt seen that their properties do not lack capital. Is that enough? I do not think it is. There are far too many acres giving a minimum increase, or none at all. Where are we to find further capital for the land? Are we to find it from the State? We have just had a warning from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the State not putting capital into marginal land, and I have taken note of his words. I do not know whether we want the State to be any larger landlord than it is at the moment; I do not think we should appreciate that. I am not sure that the State is a very good landlord anyhow, and I would question, as other noble Lords have already queried, whether State ownership has been good for agricultural schemes in other lands.
I believe that capital is to be found from industry—not the agricultural industry but industry as a whole. Industry has made great strides in supplying machinery and all other items to agriculture. I should like to quote Cohn Clark, who in 1940 wrote a book entitled The Economy of 1960. Recently he has written an article entitled Halfway to 1960, in which he points out that in Britain now there is one tractor for every 3½ men working on the land, as against one tractor to 17 men in the thirties, and that the rate of increase in gross production per head is 3 per cent. while the rate of increase in the population is a little over 1 per cent. That shows

509
what has been done by industry in bringing more machinery on to the land. Science also has played its part. It has helped better growth and earlier maturity, but we always have to consider the pace of nature when discussing the question of food—that is the trouble. It is no good putting up another factory to double output, as industry can do. We have to deal with the conditions of growth. Industry has taken a hand in a very commendable way in improving our breeds of livestock. I would ask why industry should not take a greater interest and investment in food production. Why should not those who buy and sell food have a greater say in its production? They might then learn some of the trials and tribulations of the production of food. Why is there not this interest and investment of capital by industry in agriculture? Is it because there is not enough return? Do the investing public feel there is too great a risk for their capital? That may be the answer. We have not seen public companies dealing with agriculture to any great measure.
But I ask this further question: Is a quick and rich return the only consideration that we have to think about at the present time? I do not think so. In my view, the improvement of land through additional capital should bring its own reward in increased productivity. There is one big drawback to the investment of capital in the land and that is the tenancy terms of the Agricultural Act of 1947. We have already heard a good deal about that, so I will not keep your Lordships long on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, has already said, it offers great security to borderline and indifferent farmers. In industry the borderline man would be replaced by a more efficient competitor, but it is not so in farming. I suggest to your Lordships that the backing or investment, whether of horses or men or machinery, should go to the best and not to the indifferent.
5.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is nearly six o'clock. when a Royal Commission is due to sit to give the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. I suggest that we now adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers),

Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans),

Export Guarantees,

Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland),

Miners' Welfare,

Army and Air Force (Annual),

Church of England Pensions Board (Powers) Measure, 1952.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

FOOD PRODUCTION
6.15 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, perhaps my last remarks were somewhat inappropriate, in that I was talking of the investment of capital from industry in agriculture, and I was saying fiat the backing or support or investment of any sort, whether on horse, man or organisation, should go to the best and not to the indifferent. If the best farmers need more capital to do even better, then I consider that it should not be denied to them. I have had some considerable experience of large-scale cattle farming overseas, and that has taught me that, with an adequate infusion of capital over the years, longterm returns are reasonable, though I will confess that they are not spectacular. Of course, in these other lands there are many climatic difficulties to be combated, although they can be offset to a very large degree by capital development. I venture to suggest that there is another possible avenue of approach to this matter. I do not know whether it has been considered, though I do not think it is new. We have the dedication of woodlands to re-afforestation. I am wondering whether something could not be done on these

511
lines—that is to say, the dedication of land. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that greater use should be made of common land. I am wondering whether those two thoughts could not be put together, whether there could not be dedication of land and consequent long-term investment of capital therein. Even were this practicable, we should have to see a more flexible landlord-tenant arrangement.
There is one further matter (this is rather off my main point of capital from industry, but I think it should be mentioned), and that is the urgent necessity for saving, here and now, the far too many calves which are being slaughtered in this country. I am well aware that many of them may not be worth saving for beef. I understand that as many as a million calves are slaughtered every year. I do not know what percentage would be worth saving for beef, but assume that it is a quarter: that would add 250,000 head of cattle, which, in three or four years' time, would give us an adequate supply of beef. I have no doubt, and I hope it will be so, that the calf-rearing subsidy will do something to reduce this slaughter, but I think many cattle breeders, and especially dairy farmers, might think more of crossing their dairy cattle with a beef bull and thus getting a calf which is more worth rearing.
Noble Lords may ask: If we save this number of calves, where they are going to be reared, and what are we going to do about feeding them, when feeding-stuffs are as expensive as they are to-day? My short answer—and it is very short—as to where we are going to rear them, is that I thought we were going to do a lot about bringing marginal land back into cultivation. When we have brought it back, what are we going to put on it? I think those two things link themselves together—at least I hope they do. There is another warning. We are accustomed to getting a great number of our store cattle from Eire, but I expect that it has not escaped your Lordships' notice that there is a growing export of meat in all forms from Eire to the United States and Europe, and that it is not coming here. To my mind, that means that neither the cattle nor the meat will come here. Presumably, in the case of meat we cannot afford it. That is a warning. It may be
512
that we shall need some of our own cattle reared, instead of their being slaughtered, in order to fill up the vacant place which Eire should have filled. There is in my mind another question, which concerns feeding-stuffs, but we have heard a good deal about that, and I daresay we shall hear more from those better able to answer that question than I am.
I was hoping to finish my remarks before six o'clock, but there have been certain interruptions. However, I believe that I have said enough to indicate my trend of thought on this matter. I firmly believe that we must seriously solve, once and for all, what I call the producer-consumer equation. I was never very good at algebra but I have set myself an equation whereby the producers of food receive a fair but adequate reward, and consumers receive their maximum food requirements at prices they can afford. If this problem seems insoluble now, I suggest that we set about redressing the balance between primary and secondary production, and forging the alliance between industry and agriculture for the essential recovery and the increase of food in our Island.
6.22 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I promise to make but a very short intervention, and I do so only because I understand that no other noble Lords wish to speak before the debate is adjourned to-day. There are one or two points which I wish to take up. Before doing so, I should like to endorse what has been said by the noble and learned Earl, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, to the effect that we on these Benches are very interested in the success and prosperity of agriculture. We can assure the farming community that whatever sound and proper policy is initiated from the other side in regard to long-term matters, we, in our turn, so far as possible will give it our backing and support. We shall watch with interest the unfolding of this policy. I imagine that to-day's debate marks the commencement of something which is to happen in the future: and I hope that that future will not be far distant, because I believe that the farmers of this country should now be enabled to get down to their proper job, to produce the foodstuffs which we require, and to make the best possible use of the land which they farm. The farmers are on trial. I want to say to the farmers from this side of the

513
House—and I know it will be endorsed from the other side—that the drive must now be commenced. There has been a little lagging behind during this last few months; but with the record of the war years and the knowledge which I have of the farmers of Britain I know that they can do their job and produce the foodstuffs. I hope that, with the backing of the Government and of all men and women of good will, what we aim at now will be an accomplished fact in the days that lie ahead.
It is the duty of the Government to feed the people, and therefore they have to make their plans not only for months ahead but also, I think, for years ahead. I am going to suggest to the Government that ten years is not too long a time to envisage. Ten years would enable us to go round our farms in a double rotation of crops; and it would give to the farmers that which I think they want—the knowledge that the future is assured and that, if they do their work, then the country will reward them for it. We shall watch with interest what unfolds itself in the months ahead. The nation, in the present circumstances of food shortages both here and abroad, will not excuse those who are producers here if they fail in the task which I hope will be set them. I am not enamoured of targets or percentages. Percentages have been mentioned this afternoon, but I think that the production efforts of our farmers, with the proper use of our land, can far outrun the percentages and targets of which we have heard, and I hope that that will prove to be the case.
I wish to deal with one or two points in regard to the Review of Prices. First, let me endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, in regard to calves. He almost took the words out of my mouth. I believe that we can save from slaughter many more calves than we do at present. I think the calf subsidy is not sufficient to bring about what we want. The Government are calling for meat, for an increase in stock numbers, and it is bad economics and bad in all ways to countenance the undue slaughter of calves. Some of these calves may grow up to be fine beasts. I hesitate to make a personal reference, but I am told that I was a very small baby. I am quite certain that if I had been born in another form I should not have survived but should long ago
514
have been in a veal and ham pie. The same sort of thing may well be happening to our calves. Very often they are small, and some it is impossible to rear, but others, with encouragement from the Government and perhaps with veterinary supervision, can grow up and help to increase our stock numbers.
I noticed to-day that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was anxious for an increase in meat products. I feel rather strongly about this matter, because in another place many years ago I spoke in the same vein—to the effect that we want meat. Well, my Lords, pigs are the quickest producers, and in the Review of Prices which has been published an increase is made in the price for fat pigs. It is limited, however, to pigs of a certain weight. I noticed in The Times to-day that a fat pig over nine or ten score is still to be subject to a reduction in price. Lord Woolton spoke of the fact that one ton of bacon saves this country £200. It is to our interest to encourage the production of a heavier pig for our bacon. It may be said that the people are anxious for a certain cut in bacon; but it is meat and foodstuffs which we want, and I think production of a heavier-weighted pig would help us. One noble Lord from the other side of the House referred to the question of small pig-keepers. We should encourage the small pig-keepers more than we have done in the past. We could look to many thousands of additional pigs from the producers of the one or two pigs, as the case may be.
The second point I wish to raise on the Review of Prices is the small increase made in the price of fat sheep and the rather heavy reduction in the price of wool. My noble and learned Leader referred to sheep in New Zealand. I have seen those sheep and I have seen our own country with great flocks of sheep, but one does not see them now. There is a definite reduction in the quantity of sheep which the farming community is at present running. The Review of Prices in effect means that if a fat sheep goes into the market after the Review comes into operation, it is sold at a lower price than that at which it can be sold at the present time, by reason of the fact that there is a reduction in the value of the fleece and a very small increase in the price per lb. of that particular animal. I do not want to cavil

515
(that is the word which was used) about this Review of Prices, but I hope that these prices are a stepping-stone to something more advanced. If I may go back to the point where I started, I do not want the farming industry always to be thinking about the Review of Prices. It is a pity that we have to have these almost six-monthly discussions between the farmers and the Government as to what rewards they should receive. I want them to do something of far greater importance to the community.
There is one point on which I may not be on such safe ground. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in the course of his speech said that agriculture is not a game that anyone can play. That is the view I hold, and I want to enlarge upon it in this way. The farming of land is a job for the specialist and the experienced man. The community demands that the greatest possible production should come from our lands—but what is happening? It has been mentioned often enough this afternoon that many young men are anxious to farm on their own. They are gaining experience, but they have not the wherewithal to purchase farm lands. We are educating those young men; they are gaining experience in their job; and then we allow other people with no experience whatever to come in, purchase our land and farm it. Such a state of affairs does not exist in any other profession. I could not go to the Bar, I could not go into medicine, I could not go into other jobs of that sort, unless I was properly qualified. I might go into politics, but that is different. If we make it necessary in some of our other professions for people to become qualified, surely to goodness it is necessary for the people who produce our food and farm our land to be, in their turn, qualified. I ask the Government to consider this point. I would bring in a system whereby everyone who purchases farming lands to occupy, or becomes a tenant or hopes to become a tenant of farming lands, should be required to obtain a certificate of experience from the county agricultural executive committee or the National Advisory Service. That is a suggestion which might improve our foodstuffs and our products.
There is also the question of smallholdings. In Norfolk (the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will no doubt know
516
something of this) I believe there are 400 applicants for smallholdings. The Norfolk County Council have already set aside the sum of £100,000 to try to purchase land, but they have been stopped: no progress is being made in that direction. I think it is up to the Government, without any criticism from me or from anybody else on this side, to try to implement, so far as possible, the smallholdings policy which I believe has their support. We do not want to lose these men from the industry. We want them on the land, and we want the products of their labour. There again, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made a reference to the position of labour and paid a compliment to the men who are working the soil. We want them there, and if we could hasten in some form or another the smallholdings policy, we should be doing very good work.
In conclusion, I want to deal for a moment with the question of horticulture. It has not been mentioned, except by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. What is happening from the Government point of view in regard to horticulture? Nothing has been said from the Government Benches, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will deal with it to-morrow. Here is an industry which is drifting and drifting and drifting. The Government have taken some action to control imports at a certain time. It is admitted that the National Farmers' Union are talking in terms of tariffs, and ideas of that sort, but there is no policy yet before the country from anybody except a society of which I am a member. The British Socialist Agricultural Society produced a policy last year which is worth consideration. The noble Lord may know of it—he probably does. In that policy, an attempt was made to put before the horticulturists of this country some system which, although it might not in every particular be correct, right or possible, would at least ensure that they would have better marketing facilities, that they would reap better prices and steady prices for their products, and that the consumers would have graded British products in the shops for their consumption. I do not want to enlarge upon that policy. It may be known, but I wish the Government would think in terms of it, or parts of it. I think that at the present time the horticulturists, the

517
food growers and the market gardeners of the country have a clear case for Government action as soon as possible. I have much to say, for this is a subject with which I have had to deal all my life. However, the time is short and I do not want to stand in the way of other noble Lords who desire to give their views on this subject.
6.40 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it is nearly four years ago since I intruded in one of your Lordships' debates on a subject similar to this. In that debate I expressed the view that it was doubtful whether we could meet our balance of payments, and very doubtful whether we could achieve the surplus which we required to pay off our debt and invest in the sterling area. In view of the existing circumstances, in which we see the deficit on our "visibles" account running at the rate of £1,000,000,000 a year, let us examine Her Majesty's Government's "visibles" target. In recent years we have picked up from Moscow the percentages habit. First of all, we have tried to find out what this percentage means in terms of either food or money. The Economic Survey gives last year's agricultural production as being 44 per cent. more than the average for the three pre-war years—that again is only a percentage. The 60 per cent. represents, of course, an increase of 16 points on that, which is 11 per cent. on the whole production.
The problem is to discover at what rate our agricultural production is running. There are no firm figures. My researches lead me to believe that at retail prices the British public is consuming about £3,000,000,000 worth of food and subsidies a year, of which about £1,000,000,000 represents the value at the ports of imported food; a maximum of about £1,000,000,000 represents the value on the farm of the food grown at home, and the balance includes subsidiary expenses, such as manufacturing charges, distribution charges, and so on. But the point is that we have a maximum home production at the moment of something of the order of £1,000,000,000. Eleven per cent. on that is £110,000,000. I add, in parenthesis, that this 11 per cent. increase represents about 2½ per cent. compound interest over four years. which is not a very inspiring target.
518
Now look at the components of our imports—meat, £213,000,000; wheat and flour, £153,000,000; butter, £90,000,000; other grains, £70,000,000; tea and cocoa, £120,000,000: vegetables and fruit, £111,000,000; and so on. Surely, out of this enormous volume of food that we are importing we could grow more than this extra £110,000,000 worth that we are talking about. I suggest that the most promising fields are in wheat, pigs and horticulture. Can we really afford to go on buying fruit and vegetables at three times the pre-war value? Quite clearly we cannot, as Her Majesty's Government have already recognised. Most of the £110,000,000 can be found in the home production of horticulture in order to replace those imports. Can we afford £104,000,000 worth of imported pig meat, most of which I am firmly convinced could be produced in our own country? I do not think we can. Then there is the question of £107,000,000 of dollars spent on wheat and flour. Is it really true that British wheat is of such a milling quality that a larger proportion cannot be introduced into the British loaf? After all, our ancestors fought the Battle of Waterloo on British wheat, and they were tough people Then again, are these arrangements with the Canadian millers so sacrosanct that we must go on importing Canadian flour, and must not import the wheat and have the offals in our own country?
I suggest, my Lords, that in the fields that I have mentioned there is abundant opportunity for producing in this country considerably more than the target which Her Majesty's Government suggest as their minimum. One needs to remember one thing—that if we are to remain solvent as we increase production in this country, we must by some administrative action stop imports from abroad, because it is perfectly possible for the sterling area to be bankrupted by the appetite of the British people for tomatoes, ham, apples and so on. Her Majesty's Government have recognised this. We must, of course, remember that traditionally the Ministry of Food are importers. When the Ministry was set up it was staffed chiefly with importers. That tradition has remained, and they tend very largely to have regard to sources of food outside our islands. Very often it is much easier to import food. It is far

519
easier to distribute food imported in that way than it is to buy it off the farms. It is much easier to control, and very often it is cheaper. But if it is a question of "blueing" the reserves of the sterling area on food which we can produce at home, of course there is no question what we ought to do.
That is the general. To return to the specific: if we ask the big men for more production in farming they always ask for more cottages, more pipelines, more labour and more this, that and the other. If we ask the little man for more production, he generally asks for only one thing—namely, more feeding-stuffs. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will carefully examine the various arrangements that are in force, so that if possible he can provide a greater incentive to the really small man to grow more of his own feeding-stuffs, which can be matched by an increased allocation from the Government. I have particularly in mind the position resulting from the introduction of the cultivation of fodder beet into this country, whereby half the food for the pig for the fattening half of its life can be provided from this crop. Moreover, half the food for thirty pigs can be provided off one acre. If that smallholder can be certain of matching his acreage of fodder beet with an allocation of cereals, he will be greatly encouraged to go in for the type of production at which he is best—namely, the tending and care of animals in a small way.
There are other restrictions which it would be as well to examine. There are considerable restrictions on the use by schools and residential hotels of their own swill in order to rear pigs for feeding to their own inmates. I suggest that they should be allowed not only to have a cereal ration to match the expected quantity of swill that they may get on their premises, but also to kill a very much larger number of pigs to be fed to their own inmates. I do not suggest an unlimited amount, but a much larger figure than the very low one at present operating. Then again there are various restrictions which prevent the very small people from keeping pigs. The other day I asked a countryman with quite a little bit of ground in a village why he did not keep a pig. His reply was, "Well, my Lord, the local authorities
520
and people do not like us pig keepers." That is the answer. There are too many restrictions from local authorities and others which prevent people from keeping pigs.
The price question is a source of great worry to the small pig producers at the moment, and pig club membership is declining. I suggest that one of the ways of increasing the numbers of pig keepers would be to make certain that the rearer of the pig who wants to sell half to the Ministry receives the full agricultural price for that half, rather than an unsubsidised price, which is what I understand he receives at the present time. In all this matter one really feels that what is needed is a change of heart on the part of the Ministry of Food. They have from the top to the bottom—and no one can deny it—a tendency to regard the regulations as matters of concessions. It is not they who are conferring a favour on the producer: it is the producer who is conferring a favour on the Ministry. He is producing food which makes it unnecessary for him to go into the market for something which would have to be obtained from somewhere else. A change of attitude on the part of the Ministry is necessary.
To conclude, I think that this "featherbedding" business has got to be examined. In industry, the greater your production the lower your costs. In agriculture, the greater your production the higher your costs, because you are calling in the worse land and the worse-equipped farmer. As we go out to get larger and larger production we shall inevitably find that we are giving bigger profits to the farmers on the best land and the farmers who are best equipped. The tax collector or the rent collector is supposed to—and in theory does—look after these matters, but somehow or other it does not seem always to work out in that way. I believe that the problem has to be examined very carefully, because if we are to have increased prices for food, and increased austerity (which means less food), and are at the same time to give large profits to the best farmers—which is inevitable—this business of getting more food from our own country is going to become a very difficult political question. There is great potential good will between town and country at the present

521
time. After all, very few Englishmen are more than three generations removed from the land. If the system of public relations conducted by the farmers were really efficient and good, they could take advantage of that fact, but I see little signs of any really good public relations at all. I think that the farmers should look into that point. I only hope that the target of Her Majesty's Government is that of a Conservative Government and of a conservative Yorkshireman. If it does not prove to be that in the end, I
522
feel that our economic situation will prove to be a good deal worse than we think.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hudson, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.