Sitting of 15 May 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Brighton Corporation (Transport) Act, 1938, relating to Brighton Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
  DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Derby Corporation Act, 1930, relating to Derby Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Portsmouth Corporation Act, 1930, as amended by the Portsmouth Corporation Act, 1946, relating to Portsmouth Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act,' 1861,
  1598
  relating to Brighton," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Great Yarmouth,"presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (HERNE BAY) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Herne Bay," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to King's Lynn," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MINEHEAD) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Minehead, "presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SEAHAM HARBOUR) BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Seaham Harbour," presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Radio Luxemburg (Foreign Currency)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of foreign currency that has been allocated to firms in this country for expenditure in connection with programmes on Radio Luxemburg during the last 12 months.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): No foreign exchange is granted to firms for this purpose. Payments for time in Radio Luxemburg programmes are made in sterling to a company resident in the United Kingdom, which, in accordance with normal rules, is allowed to remit dividends to its shareholders resident abroad.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that no accumulated deficit is being built up against foreign exchange as a result of these transactions?
    Sir A. Salter: We are, of course, aware of the payments, but I cannot give my hon. Friend exact information on those payments because, as he knows, the relations between Exchange Control and individual firms are confidential.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Radio Luxemburg is advocating Scotch whisky, and if payment is made in currency or in kind?
    Sir A. Salter: I have no information on that.
    Mr. Shepherd: While appreciating the necessity to keep individual transactions confidential, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that there could not be any justification in the present economic circumstances for paying foreign currency largely to advertise British goods in the British market?
    Sir A. Salter: We have all relevant considerations of that kind in mind.

    Commonwealth Finance Ministers (Meetings)
    Mrs. Barbara Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is intended to hold the next Commonwealth Finance Conference.
    Sir A. Salter: I cannot at present add anything to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) on 8th April.
    Mrs. Castle: Since the import restrictions imposed as a result of the last Conference have seriously increased unemployment in this country, is it not time that the Conference was recalled to discuss a more positive solution of Commonwealth difficulties?
    Sir A. Salter: There are many forms of communication between the Commonwealth countries and this country, apart from an actual Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Conference which it is not easy to convene at short intervals in view of the engagements of the different Finance Ministers.
    Mr. Ralph Assheton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense importance to the Lancashire textile trade of our Colonial markets and of doing everything we can to increase our exports to our Colonies?
    Sir A. Salter: Yes, Sir. Special interest is attached to the Australian action, and the House will be aware that the Prime Minister of Australia is expected in this country very shortly.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Australia's import cuts are discriminating particularly severely against textiles while Australia is retaining many imports of capital goods which we could easily dispose of in hard currency areas? Ought not an immediate adjustment to be made to help Lancashire?
    Sir A. Salter: All questions of this kind will undoubtedly be discussed with the Prime Minister of Australia when he arrives this month.

    Official Advertisements
    Sir Edward Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has seen the report of a committee of the Metropolitan boroughs, a copy of which has been sent to him, which demonstrates that a large part of the cost of an official advertisement can be saved by a detailed scrutiny of it before it is published; and whether he will arrange for a like scrutiny of Government advertisements.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir, I have seen this report. I am considering circulating guidance on this subject to Government Departments.
    Sir E. Keeling: Is the Financial Secretary aware that until recently, as the report shows, many London local authority advertisements were twice as long and, therefore, twice as expensive as they need be, and that the same waste is still to be seen in many Government advertisements?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of valuable good sense in this report.

    Balance of Payments (Import Cuts)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of goods affected by the recent import cuts which came from sterling area countries.
    Sir A. Salter: The cuts do not apply to imports from sterling area sources.
    Mr. Shepherd: When the Prime Minister of Australia visits this country will my right hon. Friend draw his attention to the disparity between the methods of this country in effecting imports cuts and those of the Australian Government?
    Sir A. Salter: All these matters will doubtless be discussed; but I think it is right to say that the pattern of trade is different in the two cases.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the present cuts in the import programme are proving adequate to deal with our balance of payments problem.
    Sir A. Salter: Our balance of payments situation is improving, and the import cuts have, of course, been an important factor in this.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that as a result of these changes, there will be the necessary surplus in the second half of the year?
    Sir A. Salter: It is too early to make a confident prophecy.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Might I ask the Minister, through you, Sir, to address the Chair when he answers
    1602
    supplementary questions put by his hon. Friends, as when he turns away none of us can hear?
    Mr. Speaker: I may say that I have observed that both Front Benches frequently turn one way or the other. I would remind hon. Members on the Front Benches that they are more audible if they address the microphone.

    White Walking Sticks (Tax)
    Mr. W. R. D. Perkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield from the Purchase Tax on white walking sticks used by the blind during the last financial year.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Perkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the yield must be trivial, and would he reconsider the whole question of this tax before the next Budget?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as the first part of the supplementary question is concerned, I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend has said. The second part of the question is another matter.

    Millard Tucker Committee
    Mr. F. J. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Report of the No. 2 Tucker Committee on Taxation and Pensions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not at present able to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on 8th April.

    Coronation Procession Tickets (Tax)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to ensure that agencies and persons selling tickets and places to view the forthcoming Coronation procession contribute to the Customs and Excise the correct Entertainments Duty as laid down in the Finance Acts, on the moneys charged.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As Royal processions are not within the scope of the Entertainments Duty, as defined in the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, the question does not arise.
    Mr. Lewis: Does that mean that ticket agencies and spivs on the route can make as much money as they like without contributing to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It means that a Royal procession, for the purposes of the Act of Parliament concerned, is not an entertainment.

    Schedule A Assessments (Revaluation)
    Mr. Douglas Houghtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next revaluation will take place for the purpose of assessments to Income Tax under Schedule A.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not before the rating revaluation has been completed.
    Mr. Houghton: Has the hon. Gentleman anything in mind regarding the linking of the basis of assessment for Schedule A Income Tax with the new basis of rating assessments? Is that what lies behind his reply?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's Question. The answer is based upon the fact that, under the new Act, rating revaluation is undertaken, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by the Inland Revenue, and it is administratively convenient to complete that before embarking on the question of Schedule A Income Tax.

    Farmers (Bank Advances)
    Brigadier Christopher Petoasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that farmers who are anxious to increase production are finding it impossible to do so in many cases as they are being refused the necessary advances of money by banks for the purchase of stock; and whether he will take steps to ensure that, in spite of the financial stringency, loans can be granted in such circumstances when security is adequate.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave on 10th March, 1952, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison).
    Brigadier Peto: Not having that answer by me, may I ask my hon. Friend
    1604
    if he is aware that farmers are not only being refused new money but are being called on to refund existing loans? Is he sure that this double squeeze is having the right effect upon greater production?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. and gallant Friend will consult my right hon. Friend's answer, to which I referred him, he will see that my right hon. Friend stated that he has taken steps to make it clear to the banks that, in applying their advances policy, they should give full weight to the importance of agricultural production, especially where increased tillage area and increases in fat stock are concerned.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not only the agriculturists and farmers who suffer? A great many small traders are suffering even more.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That point does not arise out of this Question.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people are beginning to feel that they cannot afford to pay the interest on the existing loans at the higher rates, never mind asking for new loans?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With respect, that point does not arise on the Question.

    Unemployment, Blackburn (Assistance)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in areas of growing unemployment like Blackburn, he will authorise the payment of special grants to the local authority to enable them to carry out urgently needed public works with the surplus labour now available.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the present situation demands such measures. The Government is already taking other steps to help the situation in the textile areas, particularly the recently accelerated textile purchasing programme.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recent action has done nothing to stop the rise in unemployment in these areas? In view of the fact that Blackburn has a large number of public works which urgently need doing and which the authorities have not been able to do since the end of the war—up to now there has

    1605
    been a labour shortage—will he not help them to employ idle labour usefully at this time?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I sympathise with the objects behind the hon. Lady's question; but I do not believe it is the right way to handle this important and difficult problem.
    Mr. Assheton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, important as it is to find alternative labour for those who are unemployed in Lancashire—particularly in Blackburn—public works do not necessarily provide the sort of work which those unemployed require? For instance, unemployed weavers are not really the most suitable people to carry out public works.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. That is a very important aspect of the problem.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the White Paper of 1944—which was generally agreed—stated that a policy of investment would go on in times of slump? Is he also aware that, the other evening, I asked the Chancellor if it might now be possible to release post-war credits for purchase coupons in the textile industry? Will he consider this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Everything the hon. Gentleman says will be considered.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are some urgently needed road improvements in Blackburn which have been hanging fire for a long time because labour has not been available? Many unemployed people in Blackburn would be thankful to be employed in this work if the local authority could be helped to finance it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Specific questions relating to road improvements are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Gold and Dollar Reserves
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now give the figures for the balance of payments position in April of this year.
    Sir A. Salter: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the position of the gold and dollar reserves at the end of April As the House will be aware, it
    1606
    has been the normal practice for figures of these reserves to be announced after the end of each quarter. The statements of monthly figures which my right hon. Friend made in November, 1951, and March last were made exceptionally in view of the important changes of policy which he was then announcing.
    My right hon. Friend will, of course, keep the House informed if any change in the normal procedure is contemplated at any time.
    Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the position is favourable?
    Sir A. Salter: My hon. Friend may recall that a statement was made recently that the improvement shown as from March had been continued in April.

    Retirement Pensions (Review)
    Captain Robert Ryderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the review of the Pensions (Increase) Acts 1944, and 1947, in respect of pensions for retired civil servants and others has been completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John E. Crowderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be able to make a further statement about the proposed increases in the pensions of retired government and local government servants and teachers.
    Mr. Anthony Marloweasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to announce his proposals for increasing pensions for retired civil servants to meet the rising cost of living.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The review is proceeding, but I regret that I cannot yet add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Porter) on 23rd April.
    Captain Ryder: Does not my hon. Friend think that it has taken rather a long time, and could not he give an assurance that it will be speeded up?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The matter is proceeding with the utmost possible speed. I have had discussions with representatives both of the T.U.C. and local authorities—who are also concerned—and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we desire to bring this matter. to a conclusion as soon as possible.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that, however much attention has been given to this matter, it has not been with anything like sufficient despatch? Is he aware that this is a matter of considerable urgency and that a large number of elderly people are suffering hardship at the moment? Is he aware that it is particularly important because many of them live in my constituency?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate the urgency of the matter with reference to all parts of the country.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that quite a number of such cases are being reported from retired teachers who are suffering hardship? Is he aware that the matter has become urgent for many of these retired people?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. That is why we are pressing on with it.

    Food Price Increases (Offsets)
    Miss Elaine Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the price rise this year, in all rationed and unrationed food, shall not exceed a maximum of 1s. 6d. per head per week.
    Sir A. Salter: The figure of Is. 6d. per head per week for the price rise of subsidised foods (rationed and unrationed) was based on the best estimates at the time of the Budget of what our supplies of food would cost us during the year. Unless costs increase further, for reasons unconnected with the reduction of the subsidy, I do not see any reason to vary the figure of 1s. 6d.
    Miss Burton: The country will be very alarmed at that statement. Is the Minister aware that the country believes that there was an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the maximum rise in prices per head per week would be 1s. 6d.? Do we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Government no longer give that guarantee?
    Sir A. Salter: The statement made related to the effect of the reduction of the subsidies and other factors known at that time. To give an unqualified prophecy about future developments, which must depend partly, of course, on matters completely outside our control, would obviously be improper.
    Miss Burton: I can well understand that the party opposite is nervous about making any more prophecies. What is the figure, beyond that Is. 6d., by which the Government expect that prices will rise?
    Sir A. Salter: We gave an estimate on the basis of known facts. If the hon. Lady will read the last part of my answer, I think she will see that it covers her last point—that
    "unless costs increase further, for reasons unconnected with the reduction of the subsidy. I do not see any reason to vary the figure of Is. 6d."
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no Government could answer this Question? Is he aware that the salvation of this country depends on people producing goods and services and wealth of their own free will and at world prices—or we all starve?
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for reasons not connected with the Budget, prices have gone up by much more than 1s. 6d.? Is he aware that these reasons are connected with the return of the Tory Party to power?
    Miss Burtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of those benefits, other than tax allowances, which Her Majesty's Government estimate will offset the rise in the cost-of-living for people below Income Tax level.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I explained the general basis of this aspect of the Budget proposals in my reply to the hon. Member of 8th May. The list for which she asks is as follows:
    Increased family allowances, retirement and widows' pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits, war pensions industrial injury benefits, increases of pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act and, of course, as the ultimate protection against want, increased rates of National Assistance.
    Miss Burton: How will people below the Income Tax level—something like three million before the last Budget—and those who have not two children or more benefit from the list the hon. Gentleman has given me?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the hon. Lady asked for was a list of the benefits. I have given her that list. Its application

    1609
    and effect would, no doubt, be appropriate to a debate on the appropriate Clauses of the Finance Bill.
    Miss Burton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I was very charitable in my Question and that I assumed that the Government thought these increases would offset the cost of living? In view of the answers to both my Questions, it is obvious that they will not. What do the party opposite propose to do about it?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not continue her charity from her Question to her supplementary questions. She will appreciate that this is a matter which is perhaps more appropriate for debate on the appropriate Clauses of the Finance Bill than at Question time.

    Railway Superannuitants
    Captain Ryderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will include the case of the railway superannuitants within the review of pensions for retired civil servants, and others, that is taking place.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The position of railway superannuitants is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on this subject on 6th May.
    Mr. Erroll: Will the Financial Secretary give an assurance that the recent ban on the increase of railway fares will not be used, even indirectly, as a reason for not according these people a just and fair pension?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already explained to the House, the position of these people is being considered by my right hon. Friend, to whom my hon. Friend might care to put that question.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: Is the Chancellor considering superannuation payments to all retired railway staff or merely to a proportion?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is quite manifestly a matter for my right hon. Friend.

    New Coins (Welsh Emblem)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will recommend that, as far as practicable, the Welsh symbol shall be incorporated in the design of any new coins, as it has been on stamps of the realm.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already received representations, which have been passed on to the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, that a Welsh national emblem should be shown among the designs for the reverses of the new coinage. I have no doubt that the Committee will give careful consideration to these representations.
    Mr. Freeman: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the people of Wales regard such measures as the only method of receiving equal consideration, which they regard as equally important as the question of equal pay?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I and my right hon. Friend have great sympathy with the national feeling of all the peoples concerned.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Why all this circumlocution about the Welsh national emblem? May we be told what it is?

    Government Expenditure (Savings)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total saving in Government expenditure that has been achieved since 1st November, 1951.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The provision in Estimates for 1952–53 for defence preparations in the broad sense is some £60 million greater than the provision for 1951–52, including the margin for Supplementaries. The provision for normal civil expenditure as defined by my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech is down in 1952–53, compared with 1951–52, by about £90 million allowing for the reduction of food subsidies and the increase of social benefits.
    It is not possible to give a figure of total savings secured because it is not possible precisely to evaluate the effect of a policy of restriction of Government expenditure in discouraging the submission

    1611
    of new schemes and slowing down the rate of execution of existing schemes involving expenditure.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend make a calculation showing the real reduction in Government expenditure, taking into consideration the fall in the purchasing power of the £?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend has suggested, the real reduction is larger than would be suggested in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, because of the fall in the value of the money in which it is expressed.
    Mr. Hynd: Since the hon. Gentleman now admits that there has been a fall in the purchasing value of the £, how does he square that with all his party's Election pledges on the matter?

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. J. Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of post-war credits outstanding at the present time; and if, in view of the slump in certain industries, he will issue coupons to the value of post-war credits to individuals who wish to purchase goods from those industries.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The total amount of post-war credit outstanding at the present time is about £595 million. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."
    Mr. Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that by releasing post-war credits the decline in the textile industry could be halted? Would not that provide much-needed purchasing power to help that industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulty behind that suggestion is that there is no reason to assume that the additional purchasing power so released would be diverted in the particular direction to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that post-war credits were devised, definitely and specifically, to keep consumption down, and that the textile position is in its present tragic state because consumption is too low? Does it not therefore follow that a device which was intended to reduce consumption is no longer applicable, but tends to worsen the position, and ought now to be put right?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, confusing the position of a particular industry with broad problems of national finance and the reasons I gave to his hon. Friend.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (TELEPHONES)
    Major Lloydasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether Government demands for extra telephones have to be sanctioned by his Department.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not normally. but the Treasury has recently asked Departments to ensure that no requests for new telephone services should be made for a period of six months, save for operational purposes and in any other case where such services are indispensable —for instance, on the opening of new offices.
    Major Lloydasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what periodical checks are to be made to see that the circular letter to Government Departments to reduce telephone calls proves effective; and whether, within the next 12 months, consideration will be given to restoring the pre-war practice of charging Departments direct for telephone calls.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Departments were asked to report to the Treasury by the end of April on the steps they have taken to reduce telephone calls, and these reports are now being studied. Further reports are to be made at the end of the year.
    On the second part of the Question, the Government hope to be able to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. Erroll: Can my right hon. Friend say when that statement will be made, as there seems to be a great deal of waste going on in this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can only repeat to my hon. Friend the expression "shortly."

    ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS (CLOSING)
    Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hydeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider the decision to close the Public Record Office Museum to the public, in view of the interest shown in this institution by overseas visitors.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 13th May.
    Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that as a result of this cheese-paring economy people cannot even now see the Domesday Book or the log of Nelson's "Victory"?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the answer to which I referred my hon. and gallant Friend, he will see that the method by which the reduction of staff imposed on this institution is implemented is a matter that has been left to the authorities in question.
    Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman has left them no option. He has made them reduce their staff and they have to close this museum to conform to his instructions.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman will study the answer to which I have referred, he will not necessarily come to that conclusion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to close to the public the Record Office Museum in Chancery Lane; and how much will be saved thereby.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am informed that the Museum will not be open after Friday, 16th May, 1952. For the answer to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 13th May.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is as a direct result of Treasury instructions that this mean little parsimony is being imposed, and as the total amount involved is not more than £1,322, will the hon. Gentleman give me permission to organise a flag day to keep this Museum open?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As far as I know, I have no authority either to compel the hon. and gallant Gentleman to organise a flag day for any legitimate objective, or to prevent him from doing so.
    24. Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many State art galleries and museums have
    1614
    been closed to the public since 1st November last; and how much has been saved thereby.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For the answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Kaberry), on 13th May. I am informed that the institutions concerned expect to save about £10,000 a year by these measures.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in spite of these decisions, British citizens and foreign visitors will not be denied a glimpse of some of our artistic and historic treasures?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman in answering a previous Question, the exact implementation of these economy measures is left to the museum authorities themselves. The hon. and gallant Gentleman can be assured that it will be in only a very limited number of cases that complete closure will take place.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hydeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what parts of the British Museum, normally open to the public, have been closed; and when it is proposed to reopen them.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No part of the British Museum has been closed, but I understand that the Upper Egyptian and Assyrian and West Asiatic Rooms, and the Gallery of Oriental Art are open only on even dates, while the Prehistoric Room, and Asiatic Salon, the Indian Room, the Chinese Room and the Ethnographical Gallery are open only on odd dates. It is for the trustees to decide to what rooms the public should be admitted, and at what times, but in so far as removal of the restrictions may depend on the authorisation of additional staff I am unable to say when this will be. The museums cannot be exempted from making a contribution to the staff economies which are at present being made throughout the Civil Service.
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Museum is one of our national institutions, and that it is viewed with tremendous respect by overseas visitors to this country, who will be extremely disappointed to find when they go there that these galleries are closed?
    Miss Jennie Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these arrangements are confusing to all except experts, and will he take great care to see that buildings of this kind are available to the general public, particularly on holidays and at times when people who earn their daily bread have opportunity to go to them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: We are very anxious that these museums, with their priceless national treasures, shall be open as much as possible to the public, but we must leave to the museum authorities freedom to decide—
    Miss Lee: Why?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —in what way they will implement the reductions in staff which our national economic position dictates.
    Mr. Marlowe: Would not the necessity for all these economies have been avoided if the last Government had done their job properly?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what directions the Treasury gave to the British Museum as to how many members of its staff the Museum was required to dispense with as a result of the Government's instructions in this matter?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question on that subject it will be answered.
    Mr. Wyatt: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the British Museum has had now to dispense with cleaners so that they cannot evil keep the Museum clean? Is he aware that these galleries have not been closed, either on odd or even dates, since the British Museum was opened in the days of King George III?
    Mr. Julian Snow: Would the Financial Secretary take his party on a conducted tour round the British Museum so that they may learn a little culture?
    Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: In view of the unsatisfactory reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the nature of the instructions he issued to national museums and art galleries to economise
    1616
    in manpower; and what is the estimate of the total savings to be achieved thereby.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend asked each authority concerned to reduce its staff to a certain figure by 30th June, 1952. That figure was fixed with due regard to the different circumstances of each individual establishment and to the desirability of spreading fairly between Departments generally their contributions to his general campaign for staff economy. It was left to the authorities concerned to decide in detail, in the light of their intimate knowledge of all the circumstances, how best to achieve the required saving.
    The staff reductions expected in the national museums and galleries are about 84 posts. The estimated financial saving is £30,000 a year.
    Mr. Wyatt: In view of this barbarous attack on the arts it is useless to appeal to the Government on civilised grounds, but, nevertheless, is the hon. Gentleman aware that even on crude commercial considerations he may lose more than he will save because foreign visitors will be put off from coming here when they hear that the Tory Government are starting to close museums and art gallaries?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Stripped of its adjectives, the essence of that supplementary question could well be directed against each and every economy that is suggested.
    Miss Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the final decisions in these matters must rest with this House and not with the staffs immediately employed, and as all Members of this House are opposed to the barbarism—and cowardice—of these decisions, and as it is obvious that some hon. Members even of his own party share our point of view, will he give us an opportunity to debate this matter properly and express our opinion in the Lobby?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The provision of opportunities to debate any particular matter is not for me but for the Leader of the House.
    Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Can my how Friend say whether, even if particular galleries must be closed from time to time to the general public, the articles in them

    1617
    will be made available for study by students who have special reasons for seeing them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's provision for museums and art galleries and their opening are by no means acceptable, and does he, and does his right hon. Friend, think that these petty, obscurantist, reactionary economies are really worth it, having regard to the effect they will have on the reputation of this country and on the reputation of the gentlemen who make and insist upon them?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is perfectly easy to make a point like that with respect to one particular economy, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that we have a considerable task in restoring our national economy.
    Mr. Wyatt: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to deal with these Questions? Nothing like this has been heard of since Field Marshal Goering said, "When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun"?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am less of an authority on Field Marshal Goering than the hon. Member.
    30. Mr. Wyattasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the British Water Colour Collection at the Tate Gallery, which has had to be closed as a result of his instructions to save manpower, was the only one of its kind in the world previously open all the time; and, whether he will at once arrange for its reopening.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend is aware that the authorities of the Tate Gallery decided to effect the staff reduction asked for by closing the lower ground floor rooms which contain the gallery's water colour collections, The Gallery cannot be exempt from these staff economies, but it is for the Trustees to decide what parts of the Gallery may or may not be opened given the reduced staff.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in the opinion of many experts British water colour painters are
    1618
    the best type of painters produced by this country, and that he is now preventing both our own people and foreign visitors from seeing their work; and is it not time that he dropped all this pretence of trying to put responsibility on the museums, because if they do not close one lot of galleries under his instructions they have to close another?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept the suggestion in the last part of the supplementary question. As to the first part, I do not propose to indulge in an artistic controversy with the hon. Member.
    Captain Ryder: Is it not a fact that if reasonable economies had been effected in earlier years these very sweeping economies would not now be necessary?
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the Financial Secretary suggest that the closing of the British Water Colour Collection can, either directly or indirectly, help to solve our balance of payments problem?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, from his own administrative experience, be aware that effective national economies are generally achieved by the sum total of a large number of economies in themselves quite small.
    Mr. Douglas Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reconsider his decision to close temporarily certain departments of the British Museum, the Tate Gallery and the Public Record Office.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The museums and galleries were asked to make their contribution to the campaign for Civil Service manpower economies, and I understand that the authorities of the institutions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have decided that the method of securing the necessary economies should be to restrict the admission of the public to certain departments.
    In view of the general reductions in the Civil Service which it is necessary to secure in the national interest, I could not agree at present to raise the staff limit for these departments.
    Mr. Jay: In view of the feeling of almost the whole House, may I in all earnestness, and without the use of any adjectives, ask the hon. Gentleman to

    1619
    consult with his right hon. Friend and to think about this matter again? Is it not really false economy run mad to spend public money abroad on inviting tourists to come to this country for them to find when they get here that, for the sake of a few pounds a year, these institutions have been closed? Is it not really making us ridiculous in the eyes of the world, and will he not think again?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that this matter cannot be considered separately from the whole mass of detailed economies which Her Majesty's Government have been compelled to make by the situation they inherited.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman, while not giving any decision now, at least assure us that he will consult with his right hon. Friend on this matter again?

    TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS
    Brigadier F. Medlicottasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has now completed his examination of the difficulties experienced by trustees who are limited to the existing range of investments authorised by law for the investment of trust funds; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir; I cannot yet make a statement.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that the limitations of the existing list are causing great hardship to a large number of people whose only means of livelihood is from a small range of investments; and when he is looking at the matter again will he in any case consider the possibility of amending the law so that the list could be revised at intervals by the Public Trustee, for example, acting on advice from the Law Society, the Council of the Stock Exchange and other suitable and responsible bodies?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I told my hon. and gallant Friend on 31st January, I realise that this is a difficult problem which causes difficulties sometimes to trustees. We are looking at the matter, but as my hon. and gallant Friend will know from his own professional experience, it is not free from complication.

    STATIONERY OFFICE PUBLICATIONS (LOSS)
    Sir E. Keelingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which of the non-Parliamentary periodicals published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office are issued at a loss; and what the annual loss is in each case.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir E. Keeling: Can my hon. Friend say now how many run at a loss; and does he really think it necessary that the taxpayer should finance all these publications such as, for instance, the periodical "Impact of Science on Society," published quarterly?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The number of publications run at a loss is eight. The total loss is something under ££2,000 a year on those eight, but I am glad to be able to reassure my hon. Friend by telling him that that loss is more than offset by the profit on one other publication, the "Board of Trade Journal."
    Following is the answer:

    Rate of loss £ per annum

    Ministry of Labour Gazette

    920

    Ministry of Food Bulletin

    230

    Road Abstracts

    200

    Building Science Abstracts

    160

    Fuel Abstracts

    110

    Water Pollution Abstracts

    110

    Registrar-General's Weekly and Quarterly Returns, England and Wales

    180

    Registrar-General's Weekly and Quarterly Returns, Scotland

    70

    These losses are balanced by surpluses on other periodicals.

    OFFICIAL FILMS (HIRE CHARGE)
    Dr. A. D. D. Broughtonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the estimate of revenue expected to be derived from the new charges imposed on the hire of films which are loaned by the Central Film Library of the Central Office of Information.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Ten thousand pounds from the hire of films, and a further £5,000 from the sale of films and library catalogues.
    Dr. Broughton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this mean policy will deprive a number of voluntary lecturers of the opportunity of using these films; and that it will rob many people of the chance of seeing useful and informative pictures?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept that suggestion. The charge for the hire of these films is not only moderate, but it is a good deal less than the hire charge of private film libraries.
    Dr. Broughton: Is the hon. Gentle. man aware that I have in my hand a letter from a constituent in which he states that for the past 10 years he has received regular monthly supplies of these films; that he has found them most helpful and instructive in his voluntary work amongst children; and that now, when he is called upon to pay a charge of 30s. for a programme lasting one hour, he will be no longer able to use the Central Film Library?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman's constituent is inconvenienced, but the charges are less than those of commercial film libraries, and I do not think it is unreasonable, in present circumstances, to ask those who hire these films to make some contribution to their cost.

    BUDGET PAMPHLET
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many copies of the pamphlet "The Budget, The Crisis, The Facts, Official," have been printed; and what has been the cost to the Treasury.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Four hundred and sixty thousand copies have been printed, at a total cost of approximately £755.
    Dr. Broughton: Does the Financial Secretary not think that in issuing this pamphlet he has overstepped the limits of unprejudiced information and strayed into the field of political party propaganda?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister arrange for all unissued stocks of this pamphlet to be placed in the Public Record Office Museum, where they can no longer be seen by the public?
    Mr. Jayasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will discontinue circulation of the pamphlet, "The Budget, The Crisis, The Facts, Official," and the poster, "Up Against It."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman at least assure us that the Government adheres to the principle that this publicity should be used for matters of fact and information; and does he not agree that, though it may be uncontroversial for this poster to say that the Government is up against it, it is controversial to give an argued defence of the Budget policy?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The publication in question gives a factual account of the Budget proposals and of the position of the national economy. As such, it is distinguishable only by its brevity and impartiality from similar publications issued under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Jay: But is the Financial Secretary not aware that this poster says, for instance:
    " To increase output the Government has changed Income Tax so that many people get more of what they earn "?
    Is that not obviously argument and not information; and will not the hon. Gentleman, whatever he thinks about that, at least assure us that the Government accept the principle that these publications should stick to fact and information?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully accept the principle, but I should have thought that it was a matter of elementary fact that to say, "If you pay less Income Tax you keep more of what you earn"
    Mrs. Mann: In the interests of economy, would the hon. Gentleman hand all the unused "Time For A Change posters over to this side of the House, where we could now use them to very great advantage?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am anxious to give the hon. Lady all the assistance that I legitimately can.

    PARLIAMENTARY EXHIBITION(FUTURE)
    Captain Charles Waterhouseasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the Government's proposals for

    1623
    the future of the exhibition, "Parliament Past and Present," which was displayed last year in the Grand Committee Room.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Her Majesty's Government have considered the future of this Exhibition, which has recently been shown at the Van Riebeeck Exhibition. The Hansard Society have asked to be allowed to assume responsibility for the Exhibition and use it as a feature of their educational work, especially amongst young people; and the Government, appreciating the value of the work of this Society, propose to present the Exhibition to it.
    A Treasury Minute setting out the circumstances of the gift has been laid before the House and published as a Command Paper. In accordance with precedent the Government's formal authority for the gift will not be conveyed until 14 days from the presentation of the Minute.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the value of this gift? I am not objecting to it; but I think that it would be of interest to know that, in view of the proposed saving on the Kensington and other Museums.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The original value of the Exhibition, which, of course, was a capital cost, was about £20,000. Its breakdown value today would probably be something under half that figure.

  AGRICULTURE

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Research)
    Mr. Robert Crouchasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will allocate an extra £1,000,000 this year for research on foot-and-mouth disease.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): No, Sir. The Ministry's Estimates for 1952–53 have already been presented to the House, and I am satisfied that this research is already proceeding as intensively as is practicable, bearing in mind the developments already in hand.
    Mr. Crouch: In view of the concern at the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and the loss of livestock, does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that the time has arrived when
    1624
    research should be made into the cause of the disease and the conditions responsible for incubating these germs, rather than research into vaccines for its prevention?
    Sir T. Dugdale: All aspects of this disease are being looked into in the future.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not prepared to spend more money, at least consider the suggestion I made to him last week, that he should look into the methods of European suppression of foot-and-mouth disease and call a European conference?
    Sir T. Dugdale; Every aspect of this matter will be examined. As I explained last week, a maintenance grant of £94,000 was made for this financial year, and we consider that adequate for the existing necessity.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what steps he is taking to control fox hunting? Is it any use spending huge sums of money on research if he turns down the distinguished guidance he has received that fox hunting should, in the meantime, be discontinued?

    Official Cars
    Mr. Frederick Goughasked the Minister of Agriculture how many official motor cars are used by officials of his Department; how many motor cars are used by officials of the county agricultural committees; and if he will consider what economies can be made, particularly in the substitution of motor cycles wherever possible.
    Sir T. Dugdale: The number of official (self-drive) cars used by my Department is 943, of which 542 are on charge to county agricultural executive committees for the use of county staff. The numbers are kept constantly under review, and all possible economies are made. As the Ministry's travelling officers are often required to carry equipment it would not be practicable to make a general substitution of motor cycles for cars, but I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Gough: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend agree with me that this is still a rather formidable figure. and in the interests not only of general saving

    1625
    but of the saving of petrol, would he consider further reductions? I am glad to hear that he will consider the use of motor cycles.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. There are 27 fewer official (self-drive) cars in use at present than there were on 1st October last year.
    Mr. George Brown: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not invite his hon. Friend to bear in mind the extra food which these county officials help to produce and put that against the alleged saving of petrol?
    Sir T. Dugdale: All these factors are being taken into account.

    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH(PRIORITIES)
    Mr. T. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement showing what priorities on finance and on scientific manpower and equipment are allocated to the various kinds of research undertaken at the public expense under the authority of various Departments, such as cancer research, research into foot-and-mouth disease, atomic research, and research in connection with chemical and bacteriological warfare
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It is the Government's policy to provide funds for scientific research likely to extend our knowledge and bring about advances in industry and agriculture, or to secure improved methods of combating disease. I am assured that no important line of research is being neglected for lack of resources.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the Prime Minister not answer this Question a little more precisely? He has really not answered it at all. Are there no priorities at all as between these different kinds of research? If a foot-and-mouth disease institute wants some scarce equipment or manpower, does it have to compete with an atomic research institution, and, if so, which wins?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the particular resources and materials required for combating foot-and-mouth disease or cancer necessarily clash with those which are used in the manufacture of the atomic bomb

    CO-ORDINATING MINISTERS(CIVIL SERVANTS)
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he will issue instructions that the only Ministers that civil servants should consult and report to are those in charge of their respective Departments.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Both Ministers and their Civil Service advisers fully understand their duties and obligations.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of that reply and the right hon. Gentleman's reply on Monday, in which he told me that supervising or co-ordinating Ministers now consult directly the civil servants who report directly to them, may I ask him two questions? First, whether this dual allegiance of civil servants is not a complete innovation in our Government machinery, and, second, whether it is not bound to undermine, or even destroy, the authority of the Departmental Ministers and generally lead to serious administrative confusion?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think any of these evils will result in a Government which is united by loyal comradeship in the public service.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Does the Prime Minister really wish to convey to the House that the overlords—the so-called supervising or co-ordinating Ministers—go behind the backs of a Departmental Minister, send for his civil servants, consult them, and presumably give them instructions? Is not this the beginning of a complete abdication of Parliamentary responsibility by Departmental Ministers which will lead to a chaotic situation?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that that statement has any relation to the movement of events.
    Mr. Morrison: I think it has. May I ask the Prime Minister what happens if the so-called co-ordinating or supervising Minister gives one instruction to a Departmental civil servant and his own Minister gives him another instruction? What does he do then?
    The Prime Minister: No such occasion is likely to arise. If it did arise it would be rapidly adjusted by a word between the Ministers—
    Mr. Morrison: Underlings.
    The Prime Minister: —between the overlords and the under-lords; I think that the right hon. Gentleman said under-
    lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; underlings."] The right hon. Gentleman managed a lot of them in his time.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not very much in the interests of the Government that the Cabinet should have its advice about a Departmental matter from the man in charge of the Department, and under any other system will not the position both of the Minister and of the civil servant become quite impossible?
    The Prime Minister: If the position of the Minister and the civil servant becomes quite impossible, no doubt events will arise to bring the whole subject in a very vivid form before the House of Commons.

    FRENCH NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
    Mr. Maurice Edelmanasked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire into the leakage of secret information from the Admiralty to a French newspaper.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister what inquiry he has made into the recent disclosure of secret information from the Admiralty to a French newspaper.
    The Prime Minister: I am assured that there has never been any document of the kind referred to in the French Press. Any suggestion of a leakage is therefore absurd.
    Mr. Edelman: In welcoming the Prime Minister's reply, may I ask him if he is aware that on 10th May "Le Monde," an otherwise reputable newspaper, published a libel, as it is now recognised to be, against the Admiralty, and still persists in that libel? Will he say what steps he has taken to obtain an explanation and an apology from "Le Monde" for this obvious libel against the Admiralty?
    The Prime Minister: I never understood that we were obliged to take steps to obtain apologies from foreign newspapers for what they say about us. A lot of unpleasant things are said about us by foreign newspapers, especially those of a Communist or fellow-traveller character.
    Mr. Emry; Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that a fortnight ago the Admiralty issued a denial about a certain public document which it was afterwards compelled to say was genuine. Is he aware that "Le Monde" has the reputation of being an anti-Communist newspaper, and, indeed, an extreme Right Wing newspaper? Is he aware that in that issue of "Le Monde" there was a statement about Britain being made untenable as a result of an attack with atomic bombs, which many people throughout the world believe to be true? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult Admiral Fechteler, so that we may be assured that he has never made any statement of this kind? If this country is liable to be destroyed by atomic bombs, we ought to have a very full explanation in the House.
    Professor Sir Douglas Savory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the principal editor of "Le Monde" has resigned as a protest against the article?
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the impression conveyed by the article is that Europe might be overrun in certain eventualities and that the position of this country would become untenable, and if that impression gains currency, might it not have a detrimental effect on the whole system of European defence? Is it not desirable in the interests of the build-up of European defence that the right hon. Gentleman should give a complete repudiation of what is contained in the article?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read or attempted to read the article or a great many other forms of foreign misrepresentation which are put about. I certainly do not intend to add that to my various labours. To read all the articles endeavouring to cause harm and disconnection between the N.A.T.O. countries would indeed be a task beyond that which anybody would undertake. All I have to say is that we, the Government of this country, the Departments of this country, have nothing to do with the article and know nothing about it.
    Mr. Shinwell: While accepting all that the right hon. Gentleman says about our attitude towards an article of this character, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he appreciates the effect on people in France and the Continent generally if

    1629
    any credence is given to the statements contained in it? With very great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I should have thought that he might see the article and perhaps form a judgment upon it.
    The Prime Minister: I have not, as I said, seen the article, and I do not see any reason why I should give it priority over the many papers that I have to read. Undoubtedly a very serious situation exists, as was so feelingly brought home to us by the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Minister of Defence, in showing the great strength of the Soviet military forces in Europe and their high state of preparedness and their very great preponderance over what the United Nations and N.A.T.O. have so far been able to put in the field.
    We must also remember that this country is in a particular position of prominence in the great antagonisms of the world owing to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues established—I do not say wrongly—on their responsibility the great Anglo-American base in East Anglia, which undoubtedly, as I have said before in the House, renders us specially liable to the counter-attentions of the other side. However, we are all facing these difficulties together. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will make a very great mistake if they attempt to divorce themselves from their great share of responsibility for building up the present situation, in many of their actions in regard to which we have given them our support.
    Mr. Shinwell: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, does not his statement, which is debatable in some respects, prove conclusively that he is not aware of what is contained in the article? I beg him to peruse the article so that he can ruminate on what is conveyed, which, in my view and, I think, in the view of many hon. Members, not necessarily all on this side of the House, may prove to have disastrous consequences on the Continent and elsewhere in respect of the building up of the defence organisation.
    The Prime Minister: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, contrary to his general outlook, is, by his action, endeavouring to invest the document with an altogether undue amount of importance.
    Mr. Speakerrose—
    Mr. Wyatt: On a point of order. You allowed the Prime Minister to make a long, rambling and tendentious statement, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As it had nothing whatever to do with the Question originally asked, may we not be allowed to debate it?
    Mr. Speaker: I allowed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to ask his supplementary question because I thought it was an important matter. This Question started before 3.30. I cannot control what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on either side say. The length of these supplementary questions and replies has carried it much beyond the bounds of tolerance after 3.30.
    Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I want to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the allegation of leakages by means of the British Secret Service to foreign newspapers and the refusal of the Prime Minister to investigate them.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has sought to move the Adjournment of the House. He should now bring his Motion to the Chair.
    Mr. John Profumo: May I ask, Sir, if it is in order for an hon. Member to seek to move the Adjournment of the House and then waste the time of the House by bringing forward a Motion which he has not himself written and has not even completed?
    Mr. Speaker: That is in order, but I am a little out of order. There is the business question, which I had for the moment forgotten.
    Later—
    Mr. Edelman: As the Motion that has now been placed before you, Mr. Speaker, arises directly out of the Question that I put to the Prime Minister, may I say forthwith that I accept fully that the statement which "Le Monde" has made attributing the Fechteler report to Admiralty sources is invalid, is unjustified and is, in short, a libel? In those circumstances it seems to me that the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has equally no validity. The

    1631
    object of my Question was precisely to elicit from the Prime Minister an assurance that the statement in "Le Monde" was a libel so that he would have an opportunity of denying the origin of the paper attributed by "Le Monde" to the Admiralty.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the leakage to a foreign newspaper of an official document by the agency of the British Secret Service.
    It is a clear rule in all these matters that "a definite matter of urgent public importance" must be an established fact. Such a Motion cannot be offered when the facts are in dispute. The course of Question and answer today shows that this condition completely rules the Motion out from the relevant Standing Order.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I appreciate fully that neither you, Sir, nor myself have had very much opportunity to consider this matter, but the facts upon which the Question was based are not in dispute at all. What is before the House and before you, and what was in the Question which my hon. Friend put upon the Order Paper, was the actual appearance in a foreign newspaper of a document described by that newspaper as an official document which reached that foreign newspaper by the agency of its dealings with the British Secret Service.
    If it were sufficient to prevent inquiry that a denial of that allegation should be made by the Prime Minister, he, in making the denial, at the same time confessed that he had not even read the allegation that he was denying. I should have thought it was well within the rule to show that this matter, which is being followed with great interest all over the world at the moment, was definite, was urgent, and was of public importance.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really arguing against my Ruling, which is perfectly clear. He based his Motion upon an allegation of a leakage, which is denied. The facts are in dispute, so the matter is not a definite matter of urgent public importance within the Standing Order.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The only time that the Prime Minister answered the Question
    1632
    was when it was placed on the Order Paper by me. A statement was made in reply to a supplementary question. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's answer, and of the fact that I have already been successful in the Ballot for the Adjournment on 27th May, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on 27th May.
    Mr. Speaker: That closes the matter at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Herbert Morrison: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to state the Business that the Government propose to bring before the House next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): Yes, Sir, the business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY AND TUESDAY, 19TH AND 20TH, MAY—Committee stage: Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST MAY—Debate on the White Paper on Transport Policy, which will take place on a Government Motion.
THURSDAY, 22ND MAY—Committee stage: Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 23RD MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider giving an extension of one hour to the debate on the Government's White Paper on Transport Policy? There are many hon. Members who wish to take part and for a good reason. Further, will the Government Motion be tabled or can the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, as was done sometimes in previous Parliaments, and whether the Motion is to be moved by the Prime Minister in view of the fact that he has taken such a prominent part in transport matters recently? We all hope it will be so.
Mr. Crookshank: If it is the general wish of the House I will put down a Motion to allow for an extra hour's discussion. I am in a position to give the terms of the Motion to the House now if it is thought it would be for their convenience. The Motion will read:
" That this House approves the policy of Her Majesty's Government for transport as set out in Command Paper 8538."
Mr. Morrison: There is in the Vote Office now a White Paper about the future of broadcasting and the British Broadcasting Corporation. Could the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to take the debate on that White Paper? I am not pressing for it next week because we all want time to study it, but, on the other hand, the B.B.C. Charter comes to an end in June.
Mr. Crooks/tank: The Government are aware of that, but I would not like to be tied to a date now. I think everyone would prefer to study the document first.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Last week I ventured to ask the Leader of the House whether he would consult the Prime Minister with a view to a statement being made as to the course of military operations in Korea. I wonder whether the matter has been considered.
Mr. Crookshank: It has been considered and a statement is in the course of preparation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me and I will let him know which day it will be convenient for it to be made.
Mr. John Hynd: In connection with the debate on the White Paper on Transport Policy, can the Leader of the House say whether the trade unions were consulted before this document was drawn up, in view of the very important implications of the document affecting the trade unions and the many thousands of workers employed in that industry and other industries indirectly connected with it?
Mr. Crookshank: That is not a question for me at this stage.
Mr. Julian Snow: In view of the disquiet evinced during Question time about the closing of sections of the British Museum, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the British Museum Bill will be taken, bearing in mind that it is now No. 17 on the list of First Readings?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot give a day for it, though I have noted the disquiet.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom)? In view of the grave constitutional importance of matters contained in that Motion, namely,
1634
that the reason for the Tory Party implementing their promise on transport is because of the donations they have received from transport employers, can he arrange for a debate on that Motion before the debate on Wednesday on the Government's transport policy?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir.
Captain Robert Ryder: Can my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to get a statement about London Transport fares, which is not mentioned in the White Paper on Transport Policy?
Mr. Crookshank: My hon. and gallant Friend must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about a detailed matter of that kind.
Mr. R. T. Paget: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we are to have a debate on agriculture? There has been a fundamental change in agricultural policy by the transference of 40 per cent. of farmers' remuneration to subsidy. On the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill we were asked to keep the debate within narrow confines, because there was a debate coming on agriculture. When can we expect that debate?
Mr. Crookshan: I thought that would have come along on one of the Supply days.
Mr. Edward Shackleton: Is there any prospect of the Government being able to make a statement on the leakage which took place about the Government's proposals on transport, and if they feel that their investigations are complete may I ask whether an approach can be made to Lord lliffe, whose paper published this leakage?
Mr. Crookshank: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, I think, in reply to a Question, stated that inquiries were still proceeding.
Mr. H. Morrison: It has been going on for a week or more and I should have thought that by now the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House would be in a position to make a statement.
Mr. Crookshank: I am not.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: The Home Secretary gave an undertaking at Strasbourg that the Government would do everything within their power to see that the affairs of the Council of Europe were

1635
adequately discussed in this Parliament. In view of the fact that next week is the last chance of discussing the Government's intention before the Parliamentary delegation leaves for Strasbourg, what does the Government intend to do to honour this pledge?
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman put a Question down to the Prime Minister this afternoon, but unfortunately it was not reached. I do not know whether it is possible for my right hon. Friend to give a reply or whether I should give a summary of it in reply to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. de Freitas: So far as I am concerned, I am willing to have it in whatever form is most convenient.
The Prime Minister: If you, Mr. Speaker, would allow it, and if the House would treat it with the indulgence that these occasions sometimes merit, I would gladly answer the hon. Gentleman's Question. It is as follows:
"The statement referred to still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government, to do everything possible to see that the affairs of the Council of Europe are debated in the House. Whether and how far it is possible to fulfil this undertaking must depend on the course of public business, and on this Questions should be addressed to the Leader of the House.
The forthcoming meeting of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe will only last for one week and the major part of the Assembly's work will not be done until September. The matter cannot therefore be considered very urgent.
Mr. Harold Davies: In view of the great changes in policy that have taken place in Malaya, will the Government promise us a debate on Malaya before the Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot do that.
Mr. Frederick Peart: Referring to the question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on agriculture, I was under the
1636
impression that there was to be a special White Paper. Would it not be better to have a debate on that immediately and not wait longer?
Mr. Crookshank: I understand that there will be a White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Quite shortly; I understand that it will be published
before Whitsun. But it must not be assumed that every time there is a White Paper we should have a debate on that White Paper. The general subject of agriculture is one which is very suitable for a Supply day.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: In view of the unprecedented onslaught that is being made by the Government upon museums and art galleries, ought we not to have a day to debate the matter before too much damage is done to our national heritage?
Mr. Crookshank: One of the proper Supply days might be selected for it.
Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Leader of the House aware of the promise that he made to his own back benchers that a debate on Malaya would be held after the Christmas Recess? May we ask him whether he meant last Christmas or next Christmas?

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Standing Committee:

Class V, Vote 13, Department of Health for Scotland.

Class I, Vote 26, Scottish Home Department.

Class VI, Vote 20, Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

Class VI, Vote 21, Department of Agriculture for Scotland (Food Production Services).

Class VI, Vote 22. Fisheries, Scotland.

Class VI, Vote 23, Herring Industry.—[Mr. Crookshank ]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Food for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:
  Civil Estimates, 1952–53

  £

  Class IX., Vote 7, Ministry of Food

  10

  Class IX. Vote 18, Ministry of

  Food (Strategic Reserves)

  10

  Total

  20

  FOOD SUPPLIES
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Webb: There is no subject which the Committee can discuss that has a more urgent claim for attention than that which we propose to examine today. I think we all agree that food is not an abstract problem. It presents no academic issues that we can look at remotely. Of all the matters which engage our attention and involve us in direct responsibility as a Committee, food is the one which the ordinary housewife can test most acutely in terms of her day-to-day experience. Against that background I hope the Committee will examine today these problems of food.
  I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not seek to deny that upon food and the handling of food, there is more dissatisfaction, disquiet and pungent criticism at the moment than about almost anything else.
  Now why is this? The party opposite are largely to blame for the harsh complaints which their handling of the food problem arouses, because quite recklessly and imprudently, and from their own point of view most stupidly, they aroused expectations of quick achievements in the food field.
  I could quote many statements made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen oppo-
  1638
  site. There was, for example, one by the Home Secretary. I wonder where he is today. It might be very useful to have his observations. He made a speciality of speeches which roused Conservative audiences throughout the country to a state of almost uncontrolled excitement by assurances that all would be well, larders would be filled and food would be back in abundant supply if only the Conservative Party were brought back to power. I remember that in one of his most graphic speeches he attacked the warnings I had given to the House, and to the country, of inescapably harsh times and unavoidable shortages of food, by describing me as "Woe, woe, Webb," and stating that I was creating an atmosphere of alarm and anxiety in the country.
  He was, by no means, the only one. There were others. I hope I am not treading on delicate ground if I mention that prophet of abundance, the noble Lord, who exercises some mystic function in the high levels of Cabinet authority. He set out to encourage the building up of his name as some sort of synonym of plenty, on the assumption that we are a nation of Billy Bunters and that the Conservative Party would provide some sort of lavishly stocked tuckshop when they got back to power. The most exciting prospects of full larders and lavish meals were subtly conjured up by the noble Lord as he went about his business of winning the last Election for the party opposite. There were others, too, in the top level, but I shall not quote them.
  For the party as a whole must take responsibility for its repeated pressure in the last Parliament for increases in our food supplies. Constantly in the House they pressed myself, and the Government, to increase supplies. At that time there was no consideration at all of the balance of payments problem, which was just as real then as it is now, as it has been since we ended the war, as it has been over the last 50 years in this country, on the thesis of the Chancellor himself. At that time no attempt was made to take account of the inherent difficulties of balancing our books and maintaining solvency. Every opportunity was taken of exploiting shortages of food for partisan purposes and generally building up a climate of expectation by the most disreputable political methods.

  1639
  The party opposite are now paying for that kind of tactic. These expectations are not being realised. The view established, that some sort of magic ability rested in the Conservative Party to put this right, is now seen to have been one which had very little relevance to the situation. In the immediate stages after the Election, they repeatedly told us that for the moment they could not supply more food because the Government which had gone out had left the larder bare. That was the story two or three months after the Election. That story has not been heard recently, and it can no longer be heard because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies exploded it himself when he said that we were getting through by living on stocks. That statement does not tie up with the allegations that the late Government left an empty larder.
  As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must know there is acute dissatisfaction with the Government on this food issue. I suppose the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can claim some immunity from criticism of this kind since he was not in the House at that time. He may say that it is unfortunate that he should be called upon to fulfill undertakings which never should have been made. We on these benches would have been ready to respond to such a claim for immunity from criticism had the present Minister of Food given us some sign that he realises that our food problems are much more acute and complex than his colleagues supposed.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been conceded on this side of the Committee complete immunity from criticism if, coming fresh to this exacting post, he had departed from that adolescent approach to the food problem which he saw before him, and had tried to face the cause. To our disappointment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given no such sign. I have watched patiently in the hope that he would, as any Minister holding his office should, explain the seriousness and inescapable long-term complexity of the food problem of this country. He has not done so, and therefore I want at once to come to that part of our complaint against the Minister himself. I assure him that it is a complaint which we raise strongly and frankly because we are bound to do so.
  1640
  So far the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us no evidence that he recognises the real nature of our food problem. I hope that today we may extract something more satisfying from him, but we shall see as we go along. So far he has been content to by-pass the real issue by two simple and, as we think, wholly erroneous please. In his replies to our Questions in the House, in his replies to previous debates on this matter, in all his public statements, he has had no more to say than this: "It will all be put right when we balance our payments. It will be even more all right when we resume private enterprise fully in the food field."
  I want to interpret the right hon. and gallant Gentleman correctly about this issue. It is far too serious for scoring partisan debating points. I am sure he would not deny the fact that all his public statements, in the House and outside, have been variations on these two simple items: the balance of payments and the resumption of competitive buying. That has been the story always put to us when we have raised detailed questions on our food supplies. Maybe the Minister will make that defence today of his case.
  I say quite frankly to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that, if that is his considered view, it is a lamentable misjudgment of the nature of the problem for which he now bears prime responsibility. He is the doctrinaire, talking like that; we on this side of the Committee are the ones who have faced, and are facing, and will again face, reality and seek to fit our ideas into a practical programme of food production and development. Let me illustrate our complaint by reference to specific commodities which I will take one by one.
  In the first place, there is tea. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said recently, to appease his critical supporters:
  "We have made a start by freeing tea."
  But he did not do that. I did that. That was done by the last Government. It was a decision taken by the late Cabinet because we are not doctrinaire. Because we believe in settling these things on the basis of reality and technical considerations, we came to the view that bulk buying was not an appropriate method, in these conditions, for securing the tea supplies

  1641
  of this country. We, not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, not the party opposite, freed the tea auctions and resumed the private buying of tea in this country.
  Mr. Peter Remnant: And tied a string round its neck.
  Mr. Webb: There will be ample time for the hon. Gentleman to make his point as the debate goes on. We reopened the tea auctions in the confident belief that by now there could be an end of tea rationing. When does the Minister propose to complete that work which we started? When does he propose to complete it by giving us de-rationing of tea in this country? It should be possible, at the latest, by this autumn. Perhaps he has some announcement to make about it?
  The previous Government always sought at every stage the proper time to abandon rationing. We abandoned points rationing when the time had arrived. Whenever we were satisfied that available supplies were adequate to permit the free market to operate, without detriment to the interests of any section of society, we readily abandoned rationing. We are not doctrinaire about this, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues are. We take the view that all these vital problems should be settled as we go along on purely technical and scientific grounds and analysed in terms of supply.
  But clearly in the case of some foodstuffs, bulk buying has been, and will continue to be for any foreseeable time, of immense value to the people of this country. It is an instrument we cannot dispense with. an instrument that we must try to make more perfect, more flexible and more adequate for our needs. It remains our only effective way of securing continuing supplies of certain commodities at prices which most people in this country can afford.
  Meat is the outstanding example of our approach to this problem. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is guilty of the most grave folly if he believes that the problem of getting our meat would be solved merely by returning the functions to the private trade. Look at the facts. On any rational, reasonable estimate of supplies, there is certainly no prospect of the end of rationing for the next five
  1642
  years, unless the Government are determined recklessly to create a situation in which there is to be rationing by the purse and masses of people without money are not going to have their meat. But I doubt whether they would be so rash as to do that. On any rational, informed estimate of possible available supplies of meat for this country, in the light of the world situation as it is now developing, nobody in his senses could assume the end of rationing within the next five years, and possibly even longer than that.
  There is an increasing demand in all the countries from which we used to get their exportable surpluses. Right across the world the countries that sent their meat as their buying commodity, by which they sought to secure manufactured goods from us as imports, are building up their population, their standards of life are growing and all that kind of thing is happening, and they now have less and less of an exportable surplus.
  The only way to solve that problem, to secure increased supplies to offset this diminishing flow of exportable surpluses, is, as I am sure every responsible person who has looked at the problem would agree, to give long-term guarantees to the primary producers, both at home and abroad. Only a Government can do that. Smithfield cannot do it. The private traders cannot do it. The whole mechanics and thesis of competitive buying—which I want to see, as I shall show later, in certain aspects of the food problem—simply cannot provide the means to give the kind of continuing long-term guarantees that primary producers want to have.
  We have accepted that. We have done it at home. The whole of our agricultural policy, which is accepted by the Government, is based on the belief that we must give guaranteed prices to our own home farmers. Do the Government suggest that they are going to abandon that, and that once again we are going to throw the farmers open to all the ruthless working of the free market for the purchasing of their meat? of course not. The farmers want guaranteed prices; they want a certainty of demand. They want to be sure that if they are producing meat three or four years hence, it will secure for them the kind of reward to which they think they are entitled. The whole of our agricultural
  policy at home is based on that

  1643
  belief. That is not a free market, that is not private enterprise; that is planing, with Government guarantees to private producers.
  It is not only true at home; it is true abroad. We have had to do the same thing for our Dominions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I know, very much disturbed—he must be—by the situation in Australia, aggravated by the recent drought there, but he knows that there is no possibility of getting from Australia, or from New Zealand or anywhere else, a growing supply of meat unless we enter into this kind of longterm contractual engagement with their primary producers through their State-organised public boards.
  During the Election I signed a 15-year agreement with Australia. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, coming back to the House, signed one with New Zealand—and a good thing, too. It is only on that basis of continuing certainty—which is not a free market, and which is not private enterprise—with the Treasury saying, "We will underpin your production. We will guarantee that you will at any given moment get an adequate, fair economic reward for your capital investment and your labour," that we can ever hope to expand production commensurate with our needs.
  How on earth do the Government expect, how on earth can they expect, to resume the free marketing of meat, in the classical sense of that term, faced with these obligations? There is a case for resuming free marketing, but free marketing and competition must be really free marketing and competition. It must not be conditioned by any of these factors. In so far as it will work at all, in those spheres where it is relevant, it really must be free competition. Any attempt to get State-protected, State-financed private monopoly is doomed to disaster. It would become restrictive in its nature and would not meet our needs for food.
  But, let us take meat away from the question of finance. There is a practical problem also. If we resume the private buying of meat, how are we to solve the problem of relating the flow of foreign meat to the flow of home-killed meat, which, as the Minister knows, arrives on the market
  1644
  for two or three months at a peak period in the autumn? Here is something that requires control. If the Minister were to allow Vestey's and Armour's, or anybody else, to resume the private buying of meat in the Argentine or anywhere else, if that could be done, how is he to make sure that they do not put that meat on the market at a time when it would damage the interests of our own home farmers—whose reward is being guaranteed by the taxpayer through the Treasury—without control, regulations and interference, without somehow relating these two things together?
  Mr. Archer Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the deficiency payments which were made before the war?
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman include pork in his general observation that we could not de-ration meat over a period of five years?
  Mr. Webb: I think it is possible that pork might be immune in due course from rationing. I am coming to the question of the deficiency payment. I am merely sketching the problem, which I think is a technical problem.
  The farmers want those assurances, the butchers want their freedom, and what the Government or we as a nation ought to want is a system of management in the procurement of meat that relates these guarantees to the producer with freedom of choice for the consumer at the distributive end. There are all sorts of ways of doing that. There is the deficiency payment system. The farmers do not like that—or some farmers do, those who are themselves butchers. Butchers want certain things that the farmers do not want, and all sorts of technical problems are involved.
  My point is that, whatever device is adopted, in the end we are face to face with the inevitable need for a high degree of Government interference and control. The rational job that we have to face is, surely, fixing the mechanics of that at a point where we get what we need; and what we need is abundant supplies of meat and, in so far as we can get it, freedom of choice and selection by the housewife at the shop round the corner. That is the target and purpose we ought to have in front of us.

  1645
  Surely the answer to that problem is to devise a flexible system which will relate the guaranteed prices to the producers with the flexibility of choice at the distributive end. In the last Government, we completed very exhaustive detailed inquiries into this admittedly complex problem, but we did not take any decisions. We had just completed the job of inquiry. We met the different sections of the trade—the farmers and everybody concerned—and sought their advice. The Election came along, and we were not able to take decisions.
  But we now declare that when we resume office, as we shall do, our purpose will be to work out a scheme for the marketing of meat which will satisfy producers and consumers. To do that, it must have an adequate degree of Government control and Government management in it at the appropriate points.
  Certainly we deplore the slipshod way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman goes on assuming that somehow he will solve the problem merely by passing it over to the trade. If he passes it over to the trade, I warn him that he will destroy the whole basis of our present system of home farming; he will destroy the confidence of Dominion producers, and he will only get in return meat at prices outside the pockets of the great bulk of ordinary households.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and all of us must face the facts. There is nothing that private enterprise can do to increase supplies of meat. What it is likely to do is decrease the supply of meat. What it certainly would do, if left alone, is divert supplies into the wrong places. The only way out is the way we took and which, as I say, we shall resume in due course. There will be some appropriate form of management of meat marketing to meet the requirements I have mentioned. That is one approach to the problem which is not doctrinaire at all, as distinct from that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and hon. Members opposite.
  I come to another commodity, sugar. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that he would fail to meet our needs if he went back on the guarantees we have given and he has endorsed, and which he has given himself to our producers in the Commonwealth. He would not only do damage
  1646
  to our sugar interests but irreparable damage to those intangible bonds of unity which are the basis on which the Commonwealth rests. If anything were done to impair those bonds and the determination of sugar producers to maintain markets here on fair terms, it would have most damaging consequences. Here again, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can guarantee a continuing flow of sugar adequate to our needs by some form of public management and guarantee on the lines I have mentioned.
  I have mentioned these matters to show the wide difference in the approach to these problems. In the case of meat, we wanted to retain the market, for the reason I have put forward. In the immediate future certainly, and equally certainly in the long run, we can solve our problem only by methods of this kind. When we solve our balance of payments problem, as we shall, that still will not provide the answer to the overall shortage of food, and the balance of payments problem is not going to be one which will disappear easily.
  It looks as if we are now moving to a more solid position in regard to the current crisis but the current crisis is only one of a series of crises which we have had and there will be more in the unbalanced world in which we live. In fact, none of us can look forward to a stable world with abundant dollar resources, particularly in the next two or three decades. But if we could do so with all the abundance of dollars in the world, we should have to face the fact that there are more people wanting food than there is food for them. That is what we need to have in mind, and on that we must base our policy. On that expectation alone, can we devise any constructive long-term plans for feeding the people of this country?
  In the last 12 years, in South-East Asia alone 10 million people have been born and they have to be fed. Wherever we look we find a growing demand for more and, while admittedly there is an increase in supply, the increase in supply is always lagging behind the increase in demand. That is the problem facing this country, living as we are on an island which cannot feed itself, with 50 million people wanting four meals a day. It is a problem of the utmost gravity and complexity.

  1647
  That is our general criticism of the Minister. We are not satisfied with the way in which, in answers to us, he has given the impression that he is content to take these narrow, restricted, short-term methods. We are deeply dissatisfied with that, and want him to consider the wider view which I have put before him.
  I want now to come to one or two aspects of the immediate situation which I think should be considered against the general background I have given. So far as the immediate food situation is concerned, I would say that the position of oils and fats seems to be easier. From my information, I think it true to say that here is one commodity of vital importance where currency is the limiting factor on present available supplies. It looks as if oils and fats will be easier for the next two or three years at least, although these things have a tendency to go up or down for all sorts of unpredictable, unforeseeable reasons. Certainly, in the case of oils and fats, we can take an easier view.
  The outlook for meat is grave and is inclined to be increasingly grave, in my judgment. The outlook for coarse grains, on which we rely for feeding cattle, seems unfavourable and certainly far from easy. We shall never solve that problem unless we take the kind of steps the Labour Government took to probe the Far Eastern market behind the Iron Curtain and get more coarse grains from Russia along the lines we sought to develop.
  The outlook for cereals and pulses is unfavourable. The whole range of these commodities adds up to a picture which is not pleasant, a picture which is not easy, of available potential supplies, which ought to be regarded as a challenge to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department and to the Government to proceed with the right kind of steps to find a solution to the problem. Over all it is a prospect of physical shortage which can be eased only by longterm assurances and arrangements with the primary producers, none of them tied to any particular pattern, but each related to the particular type of situation with which we are dealing.
  Against that background I raise these points. We on these benches profoundly object to the Government's decision to withdraw food subsidies. The Chan-
  1648
  cellor's decision to cut subsidies we regard as wholly deplorable and as a serious interference with our efforts, as far as we could, to get a fair sharing of the available, limited, food supplies of this country. I do not myself accept the figure which the Chancellor gave of 1s. 6d. a week. In terms of consequential increases in other foods outside his direct control, it is quite certain that next winter the actual impact of these increases will be much more savage than 1s. 6d. a week. We must remember that this follows other increases made immediately after the General Election.
  The point we should like to press on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is this: Cannot we have now, at once, the complete, comprehensive, details of the proposed increases in prices? I suppose it is too late to press the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to urge the Chancellor to abandon this lamentable decision. We wish he could do that, but, if he cannot. We think it reasonable to ask that we should now be given completely the whole series of these increases. We do object to them gradually dribbling out, one by one. This is a major departure from public policy and means the abandonment of a policy maintained for 10 years at least by successive parties and successive Governments.
  We feel that we and the country must judge this matter against the precise details of its consequences. We can only know those consequences if we know precisely on what foods the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is proposing to put the increases. We ask that because we have different views, and probably will have different views, from those of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about the kinds of food that ought to be subject to these increases. Certainly we feel it reasonable to press at least for a full statement of the whole impact of these proposed changes to enable us to judge them completely as one operation.
  I want to raise another point of immediate importance. A few days ago in this House, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the take-up of the bacon ration was 100 per cent. He must know that that was evading the real question. Of course, the take-up from wholesalers is 100 per

  1649
  cent. That is quite well known, but who is getting the bacon in the shops? There are many people—I would not attempt to estimate the number, but many hundreds of thousands of families—in this country who simply cannot buy their weekly bacon ration. It is true that bacon is passing from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's control to the control of the grocers. What are they doing with it? It is going to those who are not under that economic disability.
  It is no use saying that there is a 100 per cent. take-up of the bacon ration. I think that the Minister could find out, because the machinery is available if he cares to use it. It may be objected by some purists that that is a form of snooping. I do not know; we use words carelessly in this matter, but I would say that it is an essential responsibility of the Minister to find out exactly who is getting this 100 per cent. take-up of bacon at this time and inform the House. We are assured, on the evidence we have, that large numbers of people are getting more than their shares and that many people are not getting their share.
  I turn to one other general proposition. Could the Minister give the House rather more information about his plans for the storing over the full year of home killed meat. On both sides of the Committee the view is held that we must now do much more to spread our home supplies of meat over the year. It is embarrassing to the Minister and to butchers, and it is not easy for farmers, to plan on the present basis. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could proceed with adequate means of freezing down and storing home-killed meat in the flush season for use in the winter, when we really need it, that would be a welcome constructive development which would have the full support and approval of those of us who sit on this side of the Committee.
  There are a number of other points which I had proposed to raise, but I have sketched the general picture as we see it. That picture will be filled in by other hon. Members on this side of the Committee so that the Minister and the party opposite will be aware of our approach to this problem. Others will add to our indictment. The indictment I have set out is simply that we see no signs of a vigorous, imaginative, constructive food policy.
  1650
  We are getting tired of hearing these repeated variations on the enigma theme of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is food we want; it is an honest explanation of the difficulties; above all, we want constructive, resolute action. We are not prepared to follow the party opposite in exploiting our inevitable food shortages for partisan reasons. We will never do that because we believe that to be the way to disaster for any succeeding Government. We want to say frankly to the country that the food situation is not easy, but that the Minister of Food, of whatever party he may be, is bound to be the target for attack, since food is the one thing by which the ordinary citizen can test the good faith and efficiency of the Government.
  We urge the Minister and the party opposite really seriously to drop their doctrinaire shibboleths and to face reality, to accept the fact, as they must, because if they do not circumstances will compel them to do so, that the State and the trade have functions and responsibilities in this matter. It should be the job of the Minister to relate those functions in some sort of coherent policy that will meet our needs. It is because we see no signs of such a policy that this Government, in our view, stands condemned and will be defeated in due course by the electorate.
  Brigadier Terence Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected a rise of Is. 6d. In the cost of living, and that he did not accept that. Did he accept the statement made by Sir Stafford Cripps that after devaluation there would be a rise of only a halfpenny in the price of a loaf and that apart from that there would be little change in the cost of living?
  Mr. Webb: I do not recollect hearing that statement. I am not saying anything recklessly, but I do not accept the statement by the Chancellor. I am convinced that it will be found to be inaccurate.
  Brigadier Clarke: That is thoroughly dishonest.
  4.35 p.m.
  The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): The right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) has quite rightly indicated that this debate is one of the most important that

  1651
  this Committee could possible have. He referred to the fact that there was more disquiet and more criticism at present and went on to say that any Minister of Food was bound to be the target.
  I think he will agree with me that a Minister of Food is the target for a good many things for which he would not have been a target in ordinary times. Whatever goes wrong, even the weather, the Minister of Food is criticised in some way or other. Many things which in the ordinary course of events are taken as normal are, because of the very nature of the organisation, put down to the Ministry itself.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised many points with which I hope I shall be able to deal in due course. If I miss anything, I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with it afterwards. My first purpose today, as I think the Committee would wish, is to give a survey of the position as I see it.
  Since the last debate on the subject in the House, there has been a growing appreciation throughout the country of the nature and gravity of the economic crisis with which we are faced. The Economic Survey for 1952 has been published and makes clear the alarming fall in our financial reserves which has taken place since the middle of last year. Under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, remedial measures have now been formulated and announced.
  Substantial cuts in our imports had to be made last November, almost as soon as this Government took office. This step had, unfortunately, to be reinforced by a further cut in January. On both occasions the blow fell inevitably on food because of the large proportion of our imports which food represents. Subsequently, in his Budget, the Chancellor has consolidated these import restrictions and introduced further financial and economic measures. These are designed to bring back a greater sense of reality into the economic life of the country, and to achieve national security and solvency.
  There is no doubt that if the Government had not taken speedy action in November, and later in January, imports, including food imports, would have cut themselves and there would have been widespread want and unemployment.
  1652
  Although these first steps have been taken, it is idle to pretend that we are out of the wood. As the Prime Minister has said,
  "It will take all our national strength to avoid the downhill slide."
  But the effect of these drastic remedies is just beginning to be felt.
  My task today is to give the Committee an estimate of what our situation will be in the coming months as far as food is concerned. The right hon. Member for Bradford, Central, asked for a vigorous food policy. I very much hope that we shall at least be more vigorous than our predecessors have been in the matter of food, because when they left office after six years the level of the food ration was roughly the same as when they came in. If that is vigour, I shall hope to try something else.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Try eating a bit of cheese.
  Major Lloyd George: If we are as long in office as were the party opposite, we shall try to show a better result than was achieved in those six years. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking with a greater sense of freedom from responsibility in his present position today, but I am proposing to give the Committee the position as I found it.
  First, I shall say a word about the future level of food supplies and rations. This can be done only in very general terms, because I propose to revert to the wise policy of not attempting to prophesy what exactly the future level of the ration will be. There is the question of how to obtain those supplies and how we may hope to increase them, and finally there is the very important question, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of the level of food prices and subsidies.
  I come to the broad picture of the future level of supplies and I will take the main commodities one by one. First, there is tea. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government were entirely responsible for initiating the movement to free the tea market. I am very glad they did and it will, I hope, be our pleasure to carry that to its logical conclusion. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are taking full responsibility for every-

  1653
  thing that happened at the Ministry before we came. They must take the rough with the smooth—
  Brigadier Clarke: Mostly rough.
  Major Lloyd George: I personally have got nothing but rough and when I get to a bit of smooth, I am only too glad to get hold of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the late Government always chose the right time to de-ration. My mind went back to the sweets fiasco not so long ago, and I am anxious to avoid that sort of thing when dealing with tea. I do not propose to hold back any good news which I may have to announce and to deal with the difficult things first. I would say a word about tea because, for a variety of reasons, it is perhaps the most promising thing at present.
  As I have already announced, we intend to remove the subsidy on tea from 15th June. I have also announced an increase in the ration from the present level of 2 oz. to 2½ oz. a week from August. Since I gave that news on 9th April, there have been developments which have led to a change for the better in those plans in one important respect. I recently met the tea trade again. There has been a further improvement in deliveries, and consequently in the stock position. This now enables me to increase the ration to 2½ oz. on 13th July, a month earlier than the date previously planned.
  Mr. Hamilton: Let us have the price.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: It could have been done in April.
  Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman says that it could have been done in April. It is that sort of observation which makes one realise why it is we are in the mess in which we are today. The increase in the ration and the removal of the subsidy are only the first steps towards the much more important end of complete de-control and de-rationing of tea, and I am hoping, in the absence of any unforeseen event, that we shall be able to do that by the end of the year.
  Mr. Percy Wells: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the price?
  Major Lloyd George: I have mentioned before that the price position is perfectly clear. There will be tea available at a very cheap price.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: What does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman call "cheap"?
  Major Lloyd George: The hon. Lady knows more about tea than I do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course she does. At the present time there is tea available at all prices and there will be ample tea available at a reasonable price.
  Mrs. Mann: The lowest price is 3s. 8d. a pound.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The variation in the price of tea is because there are varying kinds of tea in existence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and I want to know what, as a result of taking away the food subsidy on tea, will be the average increase in the price?
  Major Lloyd George: The price of tea is a weighted average. It has been announced that there will be an increase of 10d. upon the controlled price. It will enable the trade to buy more expensive teas and it will be those more expensive teas which will in fact be subsidising the cheaper teas.
  Mr. Hamilton: Rationing by the purse.
  Major Lloyd George: No, it is exactly the opposite. The hon. Gentleman is not getting away with that one.
  Mr. Hamilton: Neither can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Major Lloyd George: The higher-priced teas are very popular in certain quarters and they will be subsidising the cheaper teas.
  I now come to meat. Whatever may be the virtues of an extra cup of tea to the British people, there can be no doubt at all that the level of the meat ration is well below what we would like. We need some 500,000 tons more of meat per annum to get back to our pre-war consumption. What are the long-term prospects? Production at home has expanded, particularly with regard to pig meat. In addition, there is one very bright spot overseas—the immensely valuable production in New Zealand.
  When Mr. Holland was over here, he assured me that he had every hope of a bumper year of meat shipments this year_ We look forward to about 360,000 tons,. and perhaps even more, if we are lucky. We are very conscious of the great efforts being made by New Zealand producers to make sure that the greatest possible

  1655
  amount of this meat is sent to this country.
  On the other hand, increasing domestic consumption and droughts both in Argentina and Australia have reduced meat supplies from those countries. It is a great disappointment to us, because we still need not only Australian meat, but also as much as we can get from Argentina. It may be that we shall do better this year from South America. Certainly Argentina is taking steps to build up supplies for export, and I think it is realised over there that this country is still their main market.
  I would say a word of appreciation of the special efforts which the Argentine Government have made, including restriction of their own home consumption, to send us the 200,000 tons to be shipped under last year's protocol. We all know the great potentialities for meat production in both Argentina and Uruguay, and I hope that we shall soon see both these countries once again in full development.
  The Chancellor announced in his Budget speech that there would be an increase of an average of 4d. a lb. in the price of meat. This increase will come into effect on 15th June next. It is, of course, an average. Some cuts of meat and some types of meat will be increased by more than that; in others there will be a smaller increase and in some cases no increase at all.
  The present ration of Is. 2d. a week will cost 1s. 5d. from 15th June. But I am also glad to be able to inform the Committee that on the same date, thanks to an improvement in supplies, we shall also increase the quantity of the ration. I shall put it up by about 2d. at present prices, and so instead of a is. 5d. ration it will become Is. 7d.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Can the Minister inform the Committee if that means more meat?
  Major Lloyd George: Yes; of course it does. It means more meat, not just an increase in the price. I said that the actual quantity would go up as well. As far as I can see, there is no reason why we should not keep up the ration to at least that level until in two or three months' time the normal increase in the home killings of meat will come along, and we shall be able to increase the ration
  1656
  and to distribute it almost entirely in the form of fresh home-killed meat.
  Mr. F. Willey: For how long?
  Major Lloyd George: Only for a few weeks.
  We intend this year to make a start in the matter of freezing and storing a certain quantity of these home-killed supplies. It will not be much and, for technical reasons, it will be mainly pork. That is a good thing, because pork is more popular in cold weather. These experiments are valuable because every little will help to even out the ration over the year. We are not equipped for large-scale freezing—indeed, it is doubtful whether it is an economical proposition—but we shall do what we can to avoid the violent fluctuations in the level of the ration which we saw last year. A stable and assured supply is what we should aim at, and this was one of the primary aims in the recent price settlement with the farmers.
  Although somewhat smaller imports are likely in the present year as compared with last year, the overall supply of bacon will be somewhat greater. This is due to the expansion in home production. Whereas the average domestic ration throughout 1951 was about 4 oz., for 1952 the prospects are for an average ration of about 4½ oz. This is not as much as we would like, but at least it is an improvement, and no mean addition to the total supply of most foods. [HON. MEMBERS: "At what price? "] I will come to prices later. I do not want to avoid that question.
  Last year was a very disappointing year for consumers of eggs. Unfortunately, the effects of the bad weather and the killing off of poultry are still being
  felt this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] They killed the poultry because there was no meat. I am referring to last year, not this year. We are now at the season of the highest home production. The period of flush production has not been sufficiently marked to allow me to take eggs off the ration for a time. We can be fairly sure, however, that the allocation over the whole of the year will be better than it was last year.
  The next item is butter. Even at its present level of 3 oz. a week, the butter ration is certainly not large but I have to tell the Committee that a reduction in

  1657
  the ration later this year for a period of some months appears unavoidable. This is entirely due to a decline in exports from some of our principal supplying countries.
  Mr. George Jeger: Always excuses.
  Major Lloyd George: If an excuse is a fact, the hon. Gentleman must face it. The truth is that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not face facts, and we have to.
  This is almost entirely due to a decline in exports from some of our principal supplying countries, especially Australia and Denmark. Surely, even hon. Gentle—men opposite know of the troubles in Australia. Here again, New Zealand production has been kept up, but there is no doubt that the high cost of production has made the export of butter not a very attractive proposition to other producers. We must face the fact that butter is rapidly becoming something like a luxury food.
  On the subject of cheese, again we have a rather similar story. Supplies from the Southern Dominions will be less this year than we had originally hoped. We shall be hard put to it to maintain the present ration of 1 oz. a week towards the end of the year. The reduction we have had to make in the cheese ration is due primarily to the decision to cut out all purchases of Canadian and United States cheese in order to save dollars.
  Mr. Jack Jones: How do you keep the mice alive?
  Major Lloyd George: This is the out standing example—I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not miss this one—of the close relationship between our balance of payments and our food supplies. More exports could mean greater dollar earnings, and more dollars could mean more cheese. On the question of margarine and cooking fat—
  Mr. Wells: Before the Minister leaves the question of cheese, can he say whether the special cheese ration for agricultural workers will be maintained?
  Major Lloyd George: Yes.
  I intend to hold the ration for the rest rest of the year at 4 oz. a week of margarine and 2 oz. a week of cooking fat or lard. This is the same as in 1951. Here again, if we had the currency, we
  1658
  could undoubtedly buy additional sup, plies to offset the possible fall in the butter ration. We have already had to cut the allocations of fats to manufacturers by 90,000 tons a year compared with last year, and we have done this in order to maintain the domestic ration which must have priority.
  On sugar, here again, there is no lack of sugar in the world; but we, short of dollars, cannot buy all that we should like. It has been our policy to safeguard the domestic ration and to keep it at 10 oz. at the cost of supplies to manufacturers and caterers, and also at the cost of some of the extra bonus issues of sugar which have usually been made. I am still sure that it is right to try to keep a stable domestic ration, and we have every hope of keeping it at the 10 oz. level.
  I can summarise this broad forward review of our main foods by saying that, compared with 1951, the outlook for 1952 as a whole is much the same. Some ration levels will be better, and some will be not so good. Taking the year as a whole, we shall be getting more meat, more bacon and more eggs. Margarine and cooking fats will be the same. For sugar, butter, cheese, the average ration will be rather lower than last year. But we intend to move, through an increased ration, to the de-rationing of tea.
  The Committee will have very much in mind our dependence on our own farmers. They are already producing about 44 per cent. more food than they produced before the war. We look forward—and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has laid the foundations for the necessary degree of confidence and expansion—to their increasing their output to at least 60 per cent. above pre-war.
  But this invaluable extra contribution obviously cannot be forthcoming immediately. To maintain our present standards of feeding, and still more to improve them quickly, we must have our food imports, which at present still represent more than half our total food supplies. It is only by our own efforts that we can increase the size of the cake to share among us, and if we want more and better food, we must see to it that we sell the right exports in still larger quantities to our overseas customers.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite twitted me a good deal about my being

  1659
  a doctrinaire which, coming from him, I thought was rather rich. He said that I really was sticking purely to doctrinaire ideas, that I had only two ideas in my mind on food, and they were to get rid of bulk purchase and to see that the balance of payments position was put right. I should have thought that if we achieved either of those, or both, we should be very well on the way to getting more food.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: At what prices?
  Major Lloyd George: At the prices we always had, which were the lowest possible in the world, and for the best quality. I am prepared to deal with that point as I go on. I am not in the least repentant after what the right hon. Gentleman said about my attitude towards the procurement of food, and I will try to explain my position.
  We must always remember that we in this country are in a very vulnerable position in obtaining supplies of food and feedingstuffs from abroad. The United Kingdom takes some 40 per cent. of the total world trade in food, including animal feedingstuffs. Only a few other countries, and they are comparatively small ones, such as Norway, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland, import anything like the proportion of their total food supplies that we do. We are, therefore, heavily dependent on the marginal supplies which the great food-producing areas of the world have available for export. Obviously, therefore, we should do all we can to increase these exportable surpluses or marginal supplies, and the question of how, possibly, we can do this brings me to consideration of the method by which we purchase our food.
  I do not think there is any simple formula which can be applied to each and every commodity, and that is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He said that I was being doctrinaire and that I had only one formula for all this. I am saying that I am prepared to accept every case on its merits. I am firmly convinced that the best general principle to follow is that which has served this country so well in the past and which has developed large food producing areas all over the world, namely, the skill and enterprise of the private trader.
  1660
  The favourite hobby-horse of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is world shortages, but he did not ride it quite so hard today. He takes the view that the world population is increasing, and that therefore there are going to be such shortages that we cannot hope to get these supplies. What he means is that the more we progress, the worse off we are all going to be.
  Mr. Webb: I really must protest against that complete distortion of what I said. It is a fact that the higher the standard of living of the millions of people in the world becomes, the greater their demand of available supplies. It is also a fact that the improvement in world supplies of food has not kept pace with the increase in world demands.
  Major Lloyd George: The world population has been increasing for many years at a rapid rate, and as far as this island is concerned it has to import most of its food. But its standard of living has been improving for the last 100 years. I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but if his doctrine is accepted it means that we have to throw up our hands and decide in future that all of us must have less.
  The fact of the matter is that not only are there vast tracts in the world today which through political causes are not producing as much as they used to produce, but that there are others which are not producing anything like they are capable of producing. Therefore, it is a matter of developing them as we developed in the past, and I come back to the point that this was due to the enterprise and skill of the private traders. They are the ones who developed these areas in the past and they are undoubtedly the people to do it in the future.
  When it comes to this island, how many of the food supplies we receive are affected by the right hon. Gentleman's point? How much of the sugar which we could get is denied to us because it is now being consumed by other people? Again, how much of the bacon and cheese which we are denied is being consumed by other people? The fact of the matter is that this is a balance of payments problem. It is not due to certain populations in the world increasing their standard

  1661
  of living and encroaching on what we used to have, because the food of which we are short affects hardly any of these populations.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: I should like to intervene in this interesting exchange of views between the present Minister and the former Minister of Food. is it not a fact that the former main food producing areas in the world, Argentina, America, and other countries, who were basically agricultural in their economies, have, in recent years, increased their industrial capacity, that as a consequence the present percentage allocated to agricultural production is substantially less than before the war, that as a result of this decline in the food producing areas prices have increased, and that therefore we have to pay much more for the food we import?
  Mr. Webb: As a matter of fact there is something in what the hon. Gentleman says with regard to certain foodproducing areas becoming rather highly industrialised, but there is also a highly encouraging side to that, which is that those countries, and particularly Argentina, are realising that it is not in their best interests.
  Mr. M. Follick: Have they not introduced a meatless day once a week?
  Major Lloyd George: Yes, and that is only the beginning of it. There are many other things they are doing, too.
  In any case, it is still my idea and that of the Government that the best way to procure more of the foodstuffs we need is to return that procurement as soon as possible to private enterprise.
  But there is one factor which at the moment presents an almost insuperable difficulty, and that is the restriction on the amount of currency which, in our straitened circumstances, we can afford to spend abroad for our main foods. If we could give the private buyer a free hand in terms of currency, I am convinced that in the long run—and it would not be so very long—we should find greatly increased supplies of many commodities coming into the world market. Whatever one may argue about the currency position, which is really the main stumbling block to the procurement of supplies, there is nobody among the party
  1662
  opposite who could say that we on this side have any responsibility for it whatsoever. The currency position, I repeat, is the main handicap today to the procurement of sufficient food supplies for the people of this country.
  The fact of the matter is that at the moment, as far as procurement is concerned, we are in a vicious circle. Put quite simply, supplies of some foods are insufficient to get rid of rationing, and so long as rationing remains and we have to limit the amount we can spend abroad on food we cannot give buyers a free hand to promote and expand sources of food supplies abroad. We can only break this circle gradually and as our economic circumstances improve.
  There are special considerations which apply particularly, of course, to the Commonwealth. One of my first duties on becoming Minister of Food was to bring the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to a successful conclusion. From personal conversations I have since had with representatives of the Commonwealth producers, I know that this agreement has done much to instil that confidence which is so essential if the producers are to give of their best. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was entirely arranged after we came into office.
  Mr. Webb: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that it is, in fact, a bulk buying arrangement?
  Major Lloyd George: In that agreement, as in all the others we have made since, there are Clauses which state,
  "if and when purchasing returns to private enterprise, or if and when the Government ceases to be the purchaser."
  Mr. Webb: In order to give a true picture the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must complete the rest of that Clause. While it is true that in each of these contracts there g that Clause, it is equally true that it goes on to say that in the event of a return to private buying of these commodities the British Government, through the Treasury, will give guaranteed prices to the primary producers. That is the whole relevance of this arrangement.
  Major Lloyd George: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement the preference is the main point. I am not

  1663
  talking about the Australian Agreement at the moment, but about the two agreements for which I was responsible, and the thing uppermost in our minds when we reached those agreements was an unrestricted entry into Great Britain. That was the most important thing of all.
  I do not have to stress the difficulties which arise from Government trading. Whatever merits and advantages that may have had in time of war, experience has shown that the system brings in considerations of national prestige and diplomacy which are incompatible with commercial practice. And I am convinced that it is in the best interests of this country to revert to purely commercial methods in dealing with other countries.
  As to food prices of which the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central spoke, I have referred to the complications which arise from the relationship between rationing and price control and the food subsidies. The Committee will expect me to say a word on the results of the gradual reduction in the food subsidies and the level of food prices.
  In opening his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that a high level of expenditure of food subsidies is a clumsy and expensive way of giving help to the needy, since food subsidies benefit rich and poor alike. Social benefits, on the other hand, and the differential rates of taxation, are fitted to individual circumstances and can be designed to supplement the incomes of those people who would be most affected by increases in the cost of living.
  My right hon. Friend's proposals, in so far as they reduce the level of food subsidies, were designed to put that money to a more rational use. But they have as well as this main purpose other advantages. For several years now the real facts of the economic and financial situation have been obscured by artificial factors, and the system of food subsidies has certainly concealed from people as a whole what their food has really been costing.
  Indeed, this was recognised by Sir Stafford Cripps in 1949. In his Budget speech of that year he said that we must call a halt to the growing size of the food subsidies,
  1664
  "or else we shall find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having to refuse to import much needed food, because we cannot afford to pay the subsidy out of our budget."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463. c. 2085.]
  The reduction in the food subsidies is from the level of £410 million, which was fixed by the Socialist Government last year, to an annual rate of £250 million. This involved price increases which would cost about £210 million in a full year, since something of the order of £50 million was in any case required to cover increased costs over the £410 million level, including the increases which we anticipated would be necessary in the cost of home produced food.
  But I want to make one point plain. on which I think there has been misapprehension. My right hon. Friend has not imposed a fixed subsidy ceiling for the current financial year, and the actual subsidy this year will depend on the timing and the extent of the price increases which we shall have to bring into operation to come down to the annual rate of £250 million a year.
  1 have already mentioned the arrangements for the elimination of the tea subsidy, and I have today announced the date on which the price of meat, and the size of the meat ration, will be increased. To achieve the reduced annual rate we shall have to make increases in the prices of other basic foods in due course.
  But, although I cannot make any precise announcement about the date of the remaining increases, I repeat that it is our general intention as far as practicable to bring them into effect as and when the compensating benefits of increased National Assistance, pensions, family allowances and so on, become effective. The Committee will be aware that for administrative reasons it is desirable to make price increases of rationed foods at the beginning of a rationing period.
  Perhaps I may remind the Committee what similar price increases were made under the last Government. The need to impose a ceiling on the food subsidies led the last Government during a period of only a little over two years to make increases in the prices of basic foods. The amounts are not without interest. There are 11 items of rationed foods. Increases in prices range from 1½d. on

  1665
  bread, 4d. a lb. on cheese, 7d. a lb. on carcase meat, 1 s. 2d. a lb. on butter. These are just a few of the items that were increased during the last two years by the late Government.
  Mrs. Mann: is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that the late Government increased the price of butter by is. 2d. a lb.?
  Major Lloyd George: Over a period of two years they increased it by 1s. 2d. a lb.
  Mrs. Mann: That is utterly wrong. I really must protest. It is simply not true.
  Mr. F. Willey: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say which two years he has in mind?
  Major Lloyd George: The period from 1st April, 1949, to 3ist July, 1951. These increases were sizeable enough looked at one by one. But, in all, they put food prices up by about £250 million a year on current consumption levels. That was the effect of the price increases the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central, and his Government imposed during the two years before they left Office.
  Mr. Hamilton: Right hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they would alter all that.
  Major Lloyd George: We are putting them up by less in fact, if it comes to that. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this, but I am afraid that they must have it. This does not go down so well when compared with what used to be said before. This is something different which hon. Gentlemen might like to consider before they go to their constituencies next week-end. But never mind the figures, let us contrast the way the increases are made by us with the way right hon. Gentlemen opposite made them. Our increases are part of an ordered plan which gives compensation by social benefit to those most in need. There was no such plan behind the increases put on by the previous Government.
  The great merit of these proposals is that at last the country is beginning to face economic reality. To bring the people back to earth when they have been encouraged for so long to live in the clouds is neither easy nor pleasant, but
  1666
  if we are to overcome our difficulties it is something we have to do; for on whether we succeed or fail in that may well depend the future prosperity and well—being of the British people.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I feel glad to be able to follow quickly the statements the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Food has made. I am sorry the Prime Minister is leaving the Chamber, because I want to quote him at the very beginning. This is what he said:
  "Abundant food: I am sorry indeed that Lord Woolton is not looking after our food as he did in the war. We should have a better diet now if he were"—
  that is what the electorate were promised—
  "at about half the administrative costs."
  So I take it that the party opposite did not tell the electorate that they would maintain the previous Government's prices. The party opposite said there would be cheap and abundant food. The present Prime Minister said that was the foundation of our strength and would be the foundation of a Conservative Government's policy. Today we have been told that the miserable ounce of cheese at which the mice have been turning up their noses is actually to be reduced. One thinks of the posters that were put up, "Britain strong and free"—on an ounce of cheese a week and an extra pennyworth on the meat ration. That is what your announcements mean. You are increasing the price of meat from is. 2d. to is. 5d. and you are increasing the ration by 2d. on the increased price—in other words, "Thank you for an extra pennyworth of meat."
  The Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I hope that she is not suggesting that I personally have anything to do with it.
  Mrs. Mann: I apologise, Sir Charles. I am sure that if you had anything to do with it you would increase it by more than a pennyworth.
  Major Lloyd George: I would point out that it is not a pennyworth but two pennyworth.
  Mrs. Mann: It is not two pennyworth. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made many statements today for

  1667
  which Parliamentary language does not provide adjectives. Perhaps I may class them in an omnibus adjective and say that they are incorrect. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that when the Labour Government left office the ration was the same as when they came into office. That is incorrect. The Minister had no regard whatever for the fact that when we came into office the rations had been arriving by Lend-Lease, with no regard for the balance of payments position, or for what we could afford. Lend-Lease was responsible for the stocks which were in existence when we came in.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has failed to point out that when we came into office we could not get half a pound of biscuits without giving up points. We also had to submit points for jam, marmalade, currants, raisins, rice, sago and tinned fruit. It was common for a mother to be faced with this problem: if she wanted a tin of fruit for the family—a luxury—she had to give up almost two months points and do without cereals, biscuits, jam and the like. When we left office all that was abolished.
  So far from getting abundant food, we have been told that there is likely to be a reduction in butter and that butter is likely to become a luxury food. Shall we hear the dulcet tones of the Parliamentary Secretary coming over the wireless telling us about our proteins and saying how necessary cheese, milk and butter are? I noticed that when he was giving a lecture recently the Parliamentary Secretary was deprecating too much sugar and sweets being given to the children. May we take that as an advance announcement that there is to be a reduction in the sweet ration? We have been told about increases in the price of tea and meat—
  Mr. F. Harris: Before the hon. Lady leaves the question of butter, I should like to ask her this question. She made an accusation against my right hon. and gallant Friend and said that his statement that the price of butter had gone up by is. 2d. a lb. over a period of two years was utterly untrue. I want to know whether she still supports that allegation.
  Mr. F. Wiley: Perhaps I can assist? The price of butter was is. 8d. in 1945 and 2s. 6d. in 1951.
  Mrs. Mann: With regard to the is. 6d. increase in the price of food, we have been waiting to know what are these items which will make up the ls. 6d. While we have been waiting for those items, other increases have been taking place every day amounting to more than is. 6d. Let me refer to some of them which have occurred since the party opposite came into office—to use the Prime Minister's words since Lord Wool—ton has been looking after our food.
  Here are the increases that have been taking place, apart altogether from the subsidy increases. Cheese went up by 10d. a lb; so did bacon. Semolina has gone up in price, as have flour, haricot beans, sago, tapioca, tinned peas and milk. Even a bottle of sauce has been increased in price. Other articles are creamola pudding, salt, baking powder, soap and soap flakes, vegetables, sweets, cocoa, eggs, bread and potatoes. And the is. 6d. increases are still to come.
  This is absolutely incomprehensible coming from a party who came into power telling the housewives that there was no reason at all for the increased cost of living, but that it was due to Socialist bungling and mismanagement, and that it was time for a change. The housewives did not for a moment assume that it was time for a change to still further increases in the cost of living. They innocently thought that the party opposite meant that they were going to reduce the cost of living when they said it was time for a change.
  Every time I go into the grocers I find one item after another increased in price, of which there is no mention inside this House. Mention has only been made of these five or six rationed items, and other increases are still to come. I find there are no prunes and no rice in the country. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary must have recited to his children the interesting little couplet:
  "Prunes and rice
  Are very nice",
  but we can get them no longer. We find that the prunes that we used to get under Webb's management at 10d. a lb. are now in tins and are costing ls. 10d. a lb. We find not only that Webb's cheese which

  1669
  used to cost us is. 2d. is reduced to an ounce but that we are driven to buying the blue mould cheese. It is 4s. 6d. a lb. or, if we want it without the blue mould and we buy the Swiss or French Gruyere, it is 7s. 6d. a lb. So that, apart from the ounce of Webb's cheese, which was is. 2d. a lb., we are now driven to buying Gruyere at 7s. 6d. a lb.
  One can just imagine the housewife wondering what has struck her. If her husband comes in and says: "Look here, these Budget increases are going to mean is. 6d. a head and there are three of us, so I will increase your housekeeping allowance by 4s. 6d." how far off he would be. How far he would be from understanding the real position which exists in every home.
  I can remember an hon. Lady from the other side of the Committee speaking over the wireless, when she said:
  "Dad's got more in his pay packet, it's true —nearly double what he got pre—war; but somehow people don't seem to be any better off."
  Are they any better off today? Will they be any better off next year? I do not think so. I think they will be worse off next year. The hon. Lady referred to the meat muddle, about which I shall speak for a few minutes. She said:
  "Six months after the Socialists had refused to pay £120 a ton they agreed to pay the Argentine £128 a ton. A Conservative Govt. would leave the buying of meat to men who knew their job and who could do it at their own risk."
  Apparently the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does intend to pursue that policy. Did anyone ever hear of private enterprise incurring losses at their own risk and failing to pass those losses on to the consumer? The consumer always pays for the losses of private enterprise.
  Mr. F. Harris rose—
  Mrs. Mann: I will give way in a minute or two. In the meantime. I am trying to teach the right hon. and gallant Gentleman something about the facts of life. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Harris: It is not funny.
  Mrs. Mann: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really think that he can buy at a better price from the Argentine? Can he give us some idea how much he thinks the Argentine will now demand, and is he really going to send
  1670
  the trade buyers over to the Argentine in a ship to bid against each other when they arrive? The Argentinians will be delighted to meet a hundred British buyers, all bidding against each other for Argentina's meat.
  Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know anything at all about the facts of life, or about what occurred before, when the private enterprise buyers arrived in the Argentine? Does he know that they eliminated each other in the ship going over, so that there would be only one bidder when they arrived in the Argentine? There was a process of elimination, so that no British trader would enter into competition with another and so bring back the butcher meat at a higher price.
  What is the position in the Argentine just now? I think there never was a better time for one buyer to buy on behalf of Britain, because I read that the exportable reserves of the Argentine in wheat, maize and linseed have practically disappeared, and she has had to dispose of her current supplies of hide in a buyers' market. Surely, therefore, we are in a strong bargaining position for what is now her only exportable asset. It will be bad enough to enter into competition with other countries for that exportable asset without, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested, sending over hundreds of meat traders to force up the price by bidding against themselves.
  May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we are going to have a change? Is the price of meat coming down? It is all very well for him to say that the Labour Government increased the price. We do not want the record to be played over: "Anything you can do I can do better" If we raise the price of meat by 1 d. is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going to raise it by 2d.?
  I have not yet referred to vegetables. Cauliflowers, spring cabbages, onions and tomatoes are going up in price every day though we are expecting tomatoes to come down. But that is not all. I had occasion to put down some Questions in regard to vegetables, not with regard to their price but to their condition. One takes home a cauliflower and finds maggots at the heart. Onions feel all right when they are being put into the bag, but when one goes to cook them

  1671
  one finds that they are soft and rotten. I know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told me that I should be more careful when I am buying.
  I notice that hon. Members opposite nod their heads in assent, yet I am quite certain that any smart girl at the back of a counter in any shop in Great Britain—[An HON. MEMBER: "Could take them for a ride."]—could catch them if they went in to buy 1 lb. of tomatoes to take home. She could quite easily put four soft ones at the bottom of the bag and some nice firm ones at the top. If they were kind and generous enough to take home some strawberries for their wives, they would find, over and over again that there would be soft and rotten fruit at the bottom of the basket and nice ones on top. It is occurring all the time.
  I was glad to have the assurance that a greengrocer, like any other food trader, can be prosecuted if, for example, he contravenes Section 3 of the Food and Drugs Act, which makes it an offence for a person to sell any article of food which is not of the nature or quality or of the substance demanded, or if he contravenes Section 9 by selling any food which is not fit for human consumption.
  I think that right hon. Members opposite ought to give more publicity to this fact, because housewives have been accepting without protest the one or two bad ones they got amongst onions and tomatoes, and almost every kind of food. I always think that the bad fruit or vegetables add one—third to the price, or even double the price, according to the number. When I complain I feel the utmost sympathy for my greengrocer, because he is usually able to show me that the crates have arrived with one-half of their contents bad.
  That brings me to the question of distribution. When does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman intend to do something about the distribution and marketing of vegetables? Even the Tory "Daily Mail" commented, on 3rd September, 1951:
  "The grower has been getting too little. The public has been paying too much."
  The Lucas Committee observed,
  "The channels of disposal were, to a large extent, antiquated, circuitous and excessively costly."
  1672
  "The Economist" said:
  "Perhaps in no other country are vegetables allowed to deteriorate so heartbreakingly between garden and shop counter."
  "The Economist" is by no means a Socialist newspaper. I do not think a reform along these lines would upset the balance of payments. I think the Minister is lazy and inert if he continues to allow this to go on without doing something to meet it and to help the housewife. I notice he is laughing at that.
  Major Lloyd George: I was not laughing. I have simply been following the example set by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mrs. Mann: The days of red letter elections, red meat elections, are over. The people of this country are demanding solid achievements. This is not merely propaganda. I think everyone will agree that during the elections which have just been completed they could all see that the meetings were very poorly attended. I heard of five M.Ps. from this side of the Committee who went to a meeting where there were five people in the audience. I heard of a Cabinet Minister whose largest audience was 27.
  What is the lesson to be learned from this? The lesson is that the public are becoming fed up with political promises and with politicians and that they will not listen to any more of this kind of promise. They are looking for achievement. They will judge Parliament by what it achieves, and so, I say, the red letter and the red meat election days are gone. The younger generation, perhaps a cynical generation but one living in a jet—propelled age, in an age of radar, in an age of great scientific achievement, will expect results and will judge political parties by the results. If that is so, the feast of Belshazzar is over and the writing is on the wall.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: I am glad to have the opportunity of following my compatriot, the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), in particular because it gives me the opportunity of taking up a point which shocked me considerably —the attack which she made upon shopkeepers and upon girls behind the counters in our shops. I was profoundly disturbed not only by the idea which

  1673
  seemed to prevail in her mind but also by the fact that, according to the assenting noises on that side of the Committee, she received considerable support. It is regrettable that she should suggest that the girls who serve behind the counters in shops try to get away with a practice of putting bad tomatoes at the bottom of the basket and good tomatoes at the top.
  Mr. Jack Jones rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I cannot give way.
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend did not say that.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: If we look at the OFFICIAL REPORT we shall see exactly what she said.
  Mr. Jones: Tell the truth.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: In defence of the good name of people who serve behind the counters, we should protest against what she said. After all, the best hope of expanding trade is to make sure that customers get value for money. In this country we are known as a nation—
  Mrs. Mann rose—
  Mr. F. Harris: On a point of order. I believe that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) called across the Floor—I do not know whether to me or to my hon. Friend—and used the word "is that in order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, according to your Ruling, and should he he asked to withdraw it?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I did not hear any remark by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones).
  Mrs. Mann: I thank the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) for giving way. May I say that it is very common in a working-class district to receive complaints about bad vegetables being put with good vegetables? Will he tell me how, otherwise, the shopkeepers get rid of the bad vegetables?
  Mr. Jones: Will the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) allow me to intervene? My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) went on to say that, having asked for explanations, it was proved to her satisfaction that the trouble was caused through the condition of the crates. HANSARD will prove that.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The point I am making is that the shopkeepers of this country are a fine body of people, as are the girls who serve behind the counters. We have a reputation as a nation of shopkeepers because we give value for money and we see that the customer is satisfied.
  I want to refer to what the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) had to say about the tea industry. As I think the Committee know, this is an industry in which I am closely engaged. He told us that the Labour Party had freed the tea industry and then, talking about meat in this connection, he went on to say that free marketing and competition must be free marketing and competition. Where the Labour Party did not carry through the programme completely was that they did not give the tea industry that free marketing and competition which the industry must have in order to give the best service to the public.
  It has been left to my right hon. and gallant Friend to complete the process of freeing the tea industry, and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him upon the announcement which he made just now that the date for the increase in the tea ration to 2½ oz. is to be advanced to 13th July.
  I have one point to make about that. In my view, the freeing of the tea industry could have taken place over two years ago. It is perfectly true that the party opposite lifted certain restrictions and re-opening the London Tea Auctions. but they kept the industry hamstrung. If they had tackled the task by re—opening the London Tea Auctions and removing the subsidy some considerable time before they did, the housewives of this country would not only he getting more tea today, but the tea which they are getting would have been of better quality as well.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: And much dearer.
  Mr. G. Jeger rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I cannot give way. I want immediately to deal with the question of price. The industry has given a guarantee to the Minister that the 3s. 8d. packet will remain in plentiful supply, even though the subsidy has been removed, and in this way the industry itself is bearing one-half of the cost of the removal of the subsidy on these packets
  Mr. Jeger: What quality?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: From what has happened at the recent auctions, I think we may find that the price may well come down and we may be able to do even better. In connection with the freeing of the tea industry, I would refer to a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22nd December, 1951. Speaking of the party opposite, he referred to them as:
  "…those who during six years of peace have tried to buy the food for this island under wartime controls and through Government planners. They aimed at restriction. They got scarcity."
  1 believe that the tea industry is an example of where this has taken place.
  It would have been very much easier to have freed the tea industry had that action been taken two years ago, instead of having been left until today, because during the last two years, during which the tea trade has been kept in fetters, wages, prices of equipment and costs of production have gone up in the producing countries. The result is that, now that the tea trade is being freed, and the price in the tea markets is collapsing, we have reached a stage where in many instances producers must sell their tea below costs of production.
  Let it be noted that those costs of production have increased markedly in the last two years because of the way in which the restrictions on the industry hamstrung it, artificially raising prices and with them wages. If those restrictions had been removed earlier, the readjustment could have taken place before the costs of production reached their present high figure, and the transition to a free tea trade, through which the housewives would be able to obtain as much as they wanted and of better quality, could have been more easily effected.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend has made an announcement that the increase in the ration to 2½ oz. is to be introduced earlier than he had expected would have been possible. I had hoped that I might have been able to say a word about it to him before he made the announcement and that what I intended to say might have influenced him to increase the ration earlier still. I believe it would have been possible to have increased the ration possibly in June, when it would have coincided with the removal of the subsidy—
  Mr. Charles Royle: Why did not the hon. Gentleman ask a Private Notice Question?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: —and in that connection I should like to say something about the stock position. Let me make it clear in doing so that I am taking the figures from the Board of Trade Returns. I understand that there may be some other figures that my right hon. and gallant Friend has, but I think that the two sets of figures are roughly parallel. We all of us know that tea is produced in Ceylon and South India, where production goes on throughout the year, whereas in North India—Assam and Darjeeling—production is seasonal. In the cold weather we get no production at all from those countires, with the result that the amount of tea coming to this country fluctuates.
  Stocks at 3ist December, 1951, were some 70 million lb. and the amount that came in January, February, March and April was 65 million lb., 53 million lb., 53 million lb., and 48 million lb. respectively. The quantity required to provide a 2-oz. ration is approximately 35 million lb. a month, so that the stock position at the end of April this year was 144 million lb. excluding Ministry of Food stocks.
  We are just coming to the period in which the amount of tea we can receive from the producing countries will enter upon its seasonal decline, and, taking the figures on a conservative basis, we may expect to receive some 35 million lb. in May, and for the months of June, July, August and September the amounts will probably go down to about 30 million lb. each month, so that by the end of September, which is the crucial period when our stocks will reach their lowest ebb, we shall be comparatively all right, provided that we can make sure that by the end of September stocks are not at a dangerously low figure.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend has just told us that from 13th July he is going to raise the ration to 2½ oz. This will require some 43 million lb. of tea a month, so that by the end of September our stocks, if I calculate the position aright, should be in the region of 100 million lb. at the lowest point in the seasonal cycle. After September our stocks begin to increase again, and the amounts which will be coming forward from producer countries will be larger

  1677
  than the amount required for that 21½-oz. ration and will continue to increase until we reach the highest monthly import figure in December, which is probably 70 million lb.
  I was, therefore, hoping that, on the basis of the stock position, we might have been able to give the 2½-oz. ration a little earlier. However, my right hon. and gallant Friend has taken the view—and I am perfectly certain he is right about this—that the lesser objective to raise the ration to 2½-oz. must not be allowed to jeopardise the ultimate aim of freeing the tea trade altogether from its restrictions before Christmas.
  But I would remind him that there are two sources from which that danger of jeopardising the ultimate aim may come. There are twin rocks, so to speak, between which he must guide the ship. First, there is the danger that stocks may become too low. That one is obvious. But there is an equal though less obvious peril that through allowing markets to become disorganised, as they would appear to have been in the last three weeks, producers are put in such a position that they make heavy losses, as many of them have been doing, and, of course, they cannot continue to do that for very long.
  This danger is that, unless we take off some of the stocks that are at the present moment overshadowing the market, there is a possibility that some producers may find it necessary to curtail their production rather than continue to suffer the loss that some of them have recently experienced. In that connection I would remind the Committee that some 50 per cent. of the tea brought forward to the London market in recent weeks has been withdrawn, not because the price offered was too low, but because bids were not offered at all. It is necessary to bear in mind those twin rocks in our endeavour to make sure that nothing jeopardises our aim to free the tea market completely by Christmas.
  There is just one last point I should like to make, and it is this. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will pay particular attention to the needs of the re-export market and the entrepôt trade. Before the war we used to sell abroad some 80 million lb. of tea, a quarter of which used to be dollar earning, going to the United States, to Canada
  1678
  and to the other dollar countries. It is essential that the re-export and entrepôt trade, from which we earned foreign exchange, shall be opened up again as quickly as possible, and I hope that it will soon be practicable for my right hon. and gallant Friend to make a further announcement in this connection, in addition to his satisfactory statement today that the 2½-oz. ration is to be brought forward to 13th July.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom(Sheffield, Brightside): I want to deal with one or two points that have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). First, I want to join with him in agreeing that it is time that we re-opened our export market in regard to tea. Judging by what he said, I think he must have a considerable interest in the tea industry, although I do not know what that interest is. He will agree with me, however, that in the main our export trade at that time in tea was due to our special skill in blending, and today the Americans have found out many of those secrets.
  I join with him in paying tribute to the good name of our shopkeepers. The people behind the shop counters performed a marvellous service to the country in very difficult days. They not only have to act as grocers or drapers, as the case may be, but they have to be accountants, Philadelphia lawyers, psychologists, and a whole host of other things. That is in times of peace. In time of war they become the main supplier to the Forces of the Kingdom. It is well-known that at Dunkirk the boys in the slit-trenches were saying "Next please" in the tone of someone who could only have worked at Selfridge's, Maple's, or one of those establishments.
  Mr. James Johnson: Could my hon. Friend define a "Philadelphia lawyer"?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever a Philadelphia lawyer may be, it has nothing to do with this Vote.
  Mr. Winterbottom: It is an Americanism for a lawyer who knows everything about what is happening to ordinary people who live close to him and gives advice accordingly.
  Listening to the Minister's speech, I did not know quite how to classify it.

  1679
  I find it difficult even now. It seemed to be a cross between a man going into battle with his White Ensign half-way up the mast and his engines full astern, and a man trying to ride a carthorse with his back to the horse's head thinking he was going to win the Derby. Certainly it could not have been made by anyone who knew much about our food situation. Nevertheless, I am glad that he entered the debate because it gives us plenty of ammunition to fire at him.
  I am glad, too, that we are having the debate, because of its importance to our people, although I regret that the Opposition have had to give up a Supply Day. The problem of food and the price level is of sufficient importance for the Government to take such an interest as to give it priority in our business. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that the problem of rising prices is a very pressing one for people of both low and modest incomes.
  I do not intend to recriminate about what the Minister of Food or any other Member of the Government said during the Election. I know that the statements they made then have been freely and justifiably used by my hon. and right hon. Friends. But I am very concerned about some of the statements they have made since the Election, and promises made since the Election which they have broken. First, I take the Chancellor's statement that the effect of the Budget proposals would be to raise the cost of living by 1 s. 6d. a head per week for consumers.
  This morning, quite by chance, I happened to be taking a party round the House, one of whom was a woman with a family of four who said, quite voluntarily, "The increase in the cost of flour alone has meant ls. 7½d. a week in my household. Also Plasmon Oats have gone up 6d. a packet." The rise in those two commodities alone means a cost to that household of 8d. a week per head, leaving out of account major items such as butter, bacon, cheese and unrationed foods. These are main foods, and this is something the Government will have to consider in determining their food policy. I am not attributing all this to the present Government. Please do not think that for one moment. I am thinking of this
  1680
  as a problem to be looked at objectively, because if I could see an end to the rising cost of living I should feel that one of the major social problems of our day had been solved.
  I have here some official prices, which have been checked by chartered accountants, for sugar, fats, bacon, cooking fat, tea, meat and peas. The average increase in 1952 over 1951 is 28 per cent. The largest increase is for bacon. Neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor his right hon. and gallant Friend can accuse the late Government for the heavy increase in the cost of bacon. This year it is 54 per cent. over last year on these official figures. The problem of the cost of living is a major social problem. Apart from anything Members of the Government said during or since the Election, it is a problem which ought to receive priority attention, but we do not see any evidence of their taking the slightest interest in it, except when it is raised by the Opposition.
  I hope that the Chancellor, too, realises that the increases, or some of the price increases, are over and above the ls. 6d. he envisaged as a result of the food subsidies cut. The Parliamentary Secretary and I were prevented, by reason of the House being counted out, from having an altercation on the problem of the rising prices of canned and preserved meats, not one penny of which could be attributed to the Budget cuts. The Budget cuts have yet to come, and they will be a further addition to the already heavy increase in the cost of living.
  I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises these facts, especially today. In view of his attempt to persuade the T.U.C. to accept the principle of wage restraint, and in view of the rising cost of living, how can the Government logically, intelligently or even wisely try to persuade the T.U.C. to accept a policy of wage restraint, when they have given a 100 per cent. increase on the Bank rate? These are facts which cannot be disputed. These are the facts on which the people of this country are judging the present Government and which are behind the results of all the local elections which have taken place during the last few months.
  It is against this background of wages that we have to contemplate what these price increases mean, not particularly to the hon. Gentleman opposite who can afford to buy butter, but to those people

  1681
  who already have not the means, by reason of the rise in prices, to pay for the rationed commodities to which they are entitled. One can go into almost any grocer's shop in the country and buy butter, bacon or cheese. The shopkeepers will sell these commodities at the offical price because they have quantities over and above the ration by reason of the fact that many people cannot afford to buy these commodities.
  I suggested in my Budget speech—[Laughterl.]—I mean in the speech I made during the Budget debate; if I had made the Budget speech it would have been far better than the one the Chancellor made—that a cut in food subsidies was a prelude to the abolition of rationing altogether. I said that it was a start to rationing by the purse, and events have proved me right by reason of the fact that grocers can sell commodities over and above the ration at the official price because people cannot afford to buy them.
  I want to deal with the question of meat. The Minister of Food today has envisaged that during this year there will be a greater supply of meat. I question whether he will be right; I think it all depends on the results of our negotiations with the Argentine. He has talked about refrigeration. I am glad of that because I have pressed all Governments during the last 20 years to establish adequate refrigeration in this country, and especially in the ships bringing meat to this country. When he envisages a better response in the import of meat from New Zealand, I want to tell him that he is not going far with that because of the difficulty in finding sufficient ships with refrigeration to carry that meat.
  I want to put one or two points to the Parliamentary Secretary on this meat problem. Unfortunately, the House was counted out when I was prepared to join issue with him on the last occasion. He is here now, and I ask him: How are the negotiations going on with the meat importers in this country in regard to the Argentine situation? I know that the Government have invited the meat traders and meat importers to form a deputation to go to the Argentine to purchase meat for the Government in terms of bulk buying. I also ask this question: Is it true that the meat importers have refused to accept that commission because, in the first place, they, having argued
  1682
  against the principle of bulk buying and long-term agreement, would find they would have to accept the principle of bulk buying on long-term agreement when they got to the Argentine, at a far higher price than that fixed by the late Labour Government?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Would it relieve the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman if I said that his supposition about the character of the agreements with the meat importers is, in the first place, without foundation, and that the second part of his statement is equally ill-founded?
  Mr. Winterbottom: We got what we wanted on the last occasion when debating this problem, so I can forget any announcement by the meat traders and their official associations, and the similar announcement which was made some weeks ago in respect of this problem. We hope that the Government will continue the policy of the late Government of bulk buying, because I am firmly convinced—and this follows on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie—that if we send the private traders across to the Argentine, we shall find that, because of the disagreements among themselves on this particularly difficult problem, we have to pay even more than we do at the present time.
  It has been announced in the Press that at the present moment Australia is finding it difficult to supply butter at the prices we are at present paying, because they are losing 7½d. on every lb. they sell to us, and this has got to stop. Therefore, we can anticipate a fairly heavy increase in price in the next agreement on butter which should be negotiated very shortly. That agreement will probably be at 8d., 9d. or 10d. per lb. That will go on the bill and the consumers of this country will have to pay the new prices that Australia will demand.
  I want to find out precisely how the Government intend to approach this problem. Are they going to deal with Australia in the near future in order to allay the feelings of the people of this country, who feel that butter in this country will soon become a luxury? If it becomes a luxury, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not know that it is a luxury because they will be able to pay for it, and it will be only the people of my

  1683
  class who will be driven back again to margarine and the spurious fats which we had in the old days.
  Unless the Government review the problem of subsidies for some of the main foods of this country, then, quite frankly, I say that the food position and the price levels will go from bad to worse, and the only consulation we shall have is that it will be the reason for the people of this country finally turning out this Government, lock, stock and barrel; and they are anxiously awaiting that opportunity at the present moment.
  I know the difficulty about the fruit and vegetables problem. It is impossible for any Government at present to say clearly what can be done about fruit and vegetables. What with the farmers, the wholesale market, the intermediaries and the price for the retail trader, there are all kinds of complications.
  A cabbage which represents to the grower 2½d. at the peak period of the year costs the housewife Is. or 1s. 2d. This is a problem not of the Government's making, but it is one which will have to be solved eventually by this or by another Government. I want to know whether the Government are merely lying back and taking things as they come, or whether they have a plan to deal with the problem. In the past they were responsible for many inquiries into the huge discrepancies in the prices of fruit and vegetables between the grower and the consumer, but they have never acted on the findings.
  The Minister twitted my right hon. Friend when my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie said something about fruit and vegetables. I would point out that the late Government were evolving a plan to deal with the problem and we hope that that plan will shortly be prepared and will become part and parcel of the Labour Party's policy.
  I should like to know what the policy of the Government is on this vexed question. Will the Government still permit a system under which prices in isolated instances 1,000, 1,200 and even 1,500 per cent. above the cost of production are charged to the housewives? Surely the time has come, not for another inquiry, but for some action to relieve the anxieties of the housewife in this respect. I am not alone in asking these questions;
  1684
  they are asked by almost everyone who goes into our shop and buys commodities at these very high prices. They are questions which will have to be answered by the Government; if they are not, the Government will be rightly condemned for their indifference and apathy towards this most important problem.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Hurd: Whether we like it or not, we are all being forced to be realists about food today. From the Opposition Front Bench, as well as from the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), we have already had some good sense mixed up with some party politics. From my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food we had, for the first time since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, a completely straightforward statement of the position and the prospects. He did not try to wrap it up in any political white sheet or in any political excuses. That was good. The world is in a grim way for food, and we are in a particularly difficult position, being an industrial island packed with 50 million people and able to grow enough food for only 30 million, and we have also run short of foreign exchange.
  Under the Socialist administration—I believe I carry some hon. Members opposite with me on this—we have perpetuated administrative controls but have done very little to encourage enterprise in getting more food for our people. Business enterprise and acumen have been suppressed, and that is costing us dear today. We find that we are just not able to command supplies abroad and we have lost a good deal of our skill in winning those supplies by normal business methods.
  The controllers and enforcement officers of the Ministry of Food have built a magnificent "empire" for themselves, and, like all good empire builders, they are very reluctant to see any encroachment on their domains. According to the last return, the Ministry's staff on 1st January totalled 26,135. That is about 1,000 fewer than it was last October, but it is still a very big administrative staff and a heavy drain on the skilled manpower, as well as the finances, of the country.

  1685
  We on this side of the Committee will give my right hon. and gallant Friend full support as he takes courageous measures to make enterprise, rather than control, the keynote of our food policy. Enterprise is what has been mainly lacking in the last six years. My right hon. and gallant Friend will have to take risks, sometimes against the advice of civil servants who for 12 years have been able to shelter behind State buying and price-fixing policies.
  Our traders, who have been kept in leading strings, have not been able to serve the country as they know best. Unless they soon get that opportunity, I am afraid that they will lose a great deal of their skill. In the past it was on the skill, the enterprise and the ability to take risks of the individual and the private enterprise firm—despite what the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) told us—that we depended for getting not only ample but also cheap supplies of good-quality food for our country.
  When I was in New Zealand and Australia 18 months ago, I met many producers of food. They cannot understand why we persist in buying on Government account. This is the kind of thing that happens. I went into a meat works at Rockhampton in Queensland where bullocks about six or seven years old and weighing roughly a ton each were being killed. It was coarse heavy stuff. As the carcases went along the line, markers were put on them to show their destinations.
  I asked where certain carcases were going and was told that they were going to the United Kingdom. I said, "That is not the kind of stuff we want. We have a small enough meat ration anyway. Why send us this heavy coarse stuff? It is heavy-boned and overloaded with fat. We do not want it." The reply was, "We cannot sell it in Sydney. Your Government buyers put the same price on everything, and so it goes to you."
  That is what I mean when I say we are losing not only in quantity but also in quality and value by denying ourselves the skill and enterprise of traders who know the markets abroad. Australia hopes to be able to send us meat in greater quantity, although not immedi-
  1686
  ately. Unhappily, after the disastrous droughts this year, particularly in the Northern Territory and Queensland, she will send us precious little this year. It is vitally important to encourage enterprise in Australia to expand meat production for us as well as for her own needs in Sydney, Melbourne and her other towns. We can do that best by regaining their confidence in the sanity and economy of our trading position.
  As we all know, there have been serious losses through drought in Queensland, and I am sure the whole Committee will be with me when I say how much we sympathise with the pastoralists of Queensland and the Northern Territory in their losses. I have had a letter from one station in the Northern Territory. There were 12,000 head of cattle, a very useful reservoir to supply some of the beef we hope to get from Australia. They have already lost 4,000 mature cattle and 3,000 calves. That is an indication of the setback in meat production in this part of Australia.
  I was very glad to hear the tribute paid by the Minister of Food to New Zealand. No one has been more loyal in trying to meet our needs in difficult times than the New Zealanders. They, too, do not like Government trading any more than we do. I have discussed this with members of their Meat Producers Board. They are anxious to be allowed to market themselves their high-quality lamb in this country. They think—and I am sure they are right—that in this way they can best establish full confidence between producers in New Zealand and consumers here. This will result in increased production.
  I was glad, too, that the Minister made it quite clear that the agreement signed with New Zealand, in the same way as that signed with Australia for meat and in the same way as the Commonwealth sugar agreement, does not rule out a return to private enterprise trading. I am sure that we shall find greater keenness and get better value for our money as well as give greater satisfaction to the producers in the Commonwealth when we return to the system we all understand and the system which suits us.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), suggested that even if we had Government buying of meat—and he seemed to cling to that theory as a permanent feature in

  1687
  our food policy—it would be five years before we could do away with rationing. He said that if we did not have Government buying then the delay would be indefinitely prolonged. I take the opposite view, a view which is shared by the meat producers in Australia and New Zealand. I would encourage my right hon. and gallant Friend to go forward with his ideas for using the skill and experience of our traders as soon as he possibly can.
  We look also to the Minister of Food to work out better methods of dealing with our home-killed meat. It is often forgotten that home-killed meat amounts to more than half of our total supplies of meat. The autumn killings are heavier than the killings in any other time of the year. The autumn killings are twice as heavy as in the spring, and for that reason I am pressing my right hon. and gallant Friend to start reserving in cold store some of the heavy output of beef cattle and lambs in the autumn, releasing it from Christmas onwards.
  I was very glad to hear this afternoon that definite plans are going forward for this, although the Minister spoke as if it would be mainly confined to pork this year. It is good to have a start. I hope we shall be able to gain some experience with freezing home-killed Iamb and beef so that if it proves economical we can expand this, knowing what the snags are.
  The Minister of Food would be well advised to take his courage in both hands and free the market for pork next winter. That will be a shocking suggestion to some of the controllers in the Ministry of Food, but I base my case on the number of pigs, particularly the number of breeding sows. We have 580,000 breeding sows now as against 542,000 before the war in 1939. Happily, too, we are growing more barley to feed the progeny of these breeding sows, thanks to the initiative of the Minister of Agriculture this spring, and we are getting good supplies of coarse grains from abroad. Incidentally, it should be possible quite soon to clear away the feedingstuff ration system altogether.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee how he would be able to quote those figure about breeding sows if the farmers had not to fill in forms?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not see that filling in forms has anything to do with the prolificacy of the sow.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: More Socialist muddled thinking.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Please answer the question.
  Mr. Hurd: A sow does not live on Government forms but on barley grown in this country or imported from Russia and other countries. We have a rapidly increasing breeding stock, and that is one of the most encouraging features of meat production at the present time.
  Our bacon production is well above pre-war. The weekly average before the war was 3.000 tons; it is now up to 5,000 tons. This is very satisfactory indeed. Some people view the freeing of the pork market with apprehension, because they think there will be such a rush into the market that the bacon market would be denuded. I do not believe that need happen. All that is required, surely, is to encourage farmers to make contracts with the bacon factories. That would be a return to well-tried pre-war practice. I myself had a contract with the Pig Marketing Board to supply 30 pigs a month to the bacon factory. if I kept up a regular supply, I got the full price, but if I fell down on my numbers I was docked part of the price.
  I am pretty certain that with the increasing number of pigs in the country we could quickly restore these contract arrangements through the Pig Marketing Board direct with the factory. That would enable the Ministry of Food to dispense with their pig allocation officers, and to give the bacon factories a much better quality of pig than they are getting. Now they have to take all kinds of pigs, some of which are not suitable for bacon production and ought to be going for pork.
  To give the housewife what she wants, pork pigs will have to be taken at lighter weights than the Ministry of Food pay the full price for now. I should like the Minister to say that from November onwards he will guarantee the same price for the lighter pigs as he now pays for the heavier pigs that are going through the bacon factories. He will get a remarkable response which will be most satisfactory to the housewives of this country. I realise that the Minister's

  1689
  advisers will be horrified at any suggestion of freeing the pig market, but the sow is such a wonderfully prolific animal that I would take the risk and I press my suggestion.
  I would also say that the Minister will very soon be justified in freeing the egg market. What has been happening? In recent weeks farmers have been sorely tempted by motorists to accept 6s. per dozen or so for their eggs at the back door, instead of sending the eggs to one of the official packing stations where they got 3s. 7d. a dozen. The official price has now risen to 4s. London friends tell me that there has been a very substantial black market on the side, and there probably is today. It is not a good thing if some lucky people are able to get eggs at 6s. a dozen and others, like the stay-at-home housewife, without a roving husband, has to take the allocation of two eggs a week at the dairy or the grocer's shop. It is true that she pays only 5s. a dozen instead of 6s. They are not all rich people who are getting eggs on the side, and the practice is going on more widely than perhaps the Minister realises.
  If egg production continues to increase satisfactorily, the Minister should take the risk of removing eggs from the ration next spring and keeping them off the ration. Hon. Members opposite say that if there is a black market we must have more enforcement officers. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that at Question time yesterday. I am sure that that is not the right answer. We want the production of eggs to continue increasing and the price to be decided by supply and demand. We know pretty well what the price would be, because we know the black market price. It is nothing terrible.
  Mr. Webb: I am listening with great care to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he seriously mean that we must let the law of supply and demand determine the price of eggs and withdraw the guaranteed price from the egg producer altogether?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member should not be so impatient. I was just coming on to that point. It is always as well to listen to an argument until it is completed. The egg producer is entitled to a basic guaranteed price for eggs
  1690
  just as the milk producer is for his milk and the wheat grower for his wheat. That can be arranged perfectly well through the packing stations without the highly artificial structure erected and maintained in recent years. It is quite an easy thing to do. You let supplies go through the packing stations, and at the time of flush production, which is from March until May, the Government say: "We will underpin the price at 4s."—or 4s. 6d., or whatever the appropriate price is. We do not need a complicated and costly administrative machine running the whole year in order to do that.
  Mr. Webb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for again giving way and for making that explanation, but he must admit that he is not describing a free market but an artificial interference with the law of supply and demand.
  Mr. Hurd: I have suggested a support price which would eliminate the black market, which is bad for the morals of our people. We are a good-natured and law-abiding people. The black market grew up under Socialism. Moreover, my proposal would save considerable administrative costs, and I should like the Minister to examine it sympathetically.
  Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the eggs division of the Ministry of Food is costing no less than £1½ million this year for administration alone?
  Mr. Hurd: That is valuable supporting evidence. The Minister is no doubt well aware of the cost of the different sections of his Department and I hope he will look with all the more sympathy on the suggestions I have made.
  At Easter I was in Brussels, and I went round the markets in the poorer streets on the Monday morning before I returned home to see how the housewives were doing their shopping and what they were buying. It is all a free market there. There are mountains of butter, lots of eggs, steaks, and all that kind of thing. There is no shortage of food. Prices are higher than they are here. I inquired from an official source what proportion of income a working-class family in Brussels expends today on food. The figure I was given was 60 per cent. I imagine that is considerably higher than the comparable figure here. I should think our figure is 30–40 per cent.

  1691
  In Belgium there is plenty for all. The Belgians prefer a good table to spending their money on pools or on television sets. Who will say they are wrong in their values? They are getting what they like, which is good food, and by heaven, they give you a very good meal in their homes. That is how they like to spend their money when they have worked hard—on having a good dinner. That is not the value we put on food. We put greater values on gambling, smoking and alcohol, and on such entertainments and amenities as television sets. The Belgians do differently. It is well to realise how other people quite close to us geographically rate their values in everyday life.
  That is why I said it was good that we are facing realities this afternoon. One of the realities we have to face is that our people need more good food, which goes with harder work. One of the reasons our people have not all been able to put in the long hours and give all the extra output that our economic plight demands is that they have not had enough good sustaining food. Good food and plenty of it is implicit in Conservative policy. This cannot be achieved in a few months. When the new Minister took office, he found a bare cupboard, the housekeeping money overspent and a tangle of controls. To some extent he has been able to remove those controls. His predecessor had started in the matter of tea. All praise to him.
  I hope that the present Minister will be able to continue that process. Our present Minister gives the impression sometimes of being rather baffled by the legacy which he has inherited. He does not always show himself very adept in public relations. Perhaps that is because he follows two Ministers of Food who were exceptionally smooth in the matter of public relations. Even so, as he develops his policy and gradually get our food affairs straight, the people of this country will recognise the good job he is doing. We from this side of the Committee wish him well.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Peart: I always listen with great interest to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) when he speaks in agricultural debates. He is a distinguished agriculturist and he
  1692
  expresses expert views, but I cannot say that about his intervention in our food debate today. He made the shocking and fantastic statement that the Belgian worker has a different sense of values, that he thinks in terms of a good dinner, and that our people have other values and think in terms of football pools and television. That is a fantastic interpretation of the desires of the people of this country.
  My constituents work hard, play hard and like a good dinner, just as the hon. Member for Newbury does. Moreover, when thinking of prices of food on the Continent, it should be remembered that in many of those countries where they have a free market there is parallel with it a measure of unemployment. There was a serious problem in Belgium in relation to unemployment and the lack of purchasing power of the people who were unemployed.
  I have heard the usual sneers from hon. Members opposite about civil servants and controls. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury raised that again, although I know that on previous occasions he has inveighed against farming from Whitehall. However, I do not think he would accept the view of the older right-wing section of the Conservative Party, that we should remove guaranteed prices and assured markets from our main agricultural structure.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to deplore State interference in that direction. If we are to solve our food problems it is important that we should give guarantees to our producers of food, and only the State can give those guarantees. I hope that when the hon. Member considers his criticisms of food policies he will relate them to what he said on previous occasions regarding an agricultural policy.
  The Minister also made an amazing statement today. of which I took a careful note. He talked about our increase of food since the war as being 44 per cent. Then he said that his party—I am not certain which party he meant—laid the foundations of this.
  Major Lloyd George: Of what?
  Mr. Peart: Of the 44 per cent. increase in agriculture.
  Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman did not quite understand what I said. I said that the increase to date was 44 per cent., but that steps taken now would help to increase in to 60 per cent.
  Mr. Peart: But he said, "We have laid the foundations."
  Major Lloyd George: I said that the increase hitherto was 44 per cent., and that we hoped the foundations laid by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would increase it to 60 per cent.
  Mr. Peart: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will also say that a Labour Government laid the foundations for that increase of 44 per cent. since the war.
  Major Lloyd George: I am not trying to take anything away from the Labour Government, but I am entitled to point out that a tremendous part of that increase was the result of measures taken during the war when there was a Coalition Government.
  Mr. Peart: But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that since the war there has been virtually a revolution in. our countryside. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say "No," but it is on record. An ex-Conservative Minister of Agriculture said that since 1945, under a Labour Administration, we had increased our food production considerably. That record is there. It has been praised. In United Nations statistics we have the best record for agricultural recovery in Europe.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne rose
  Mr. Peart: I cannot give way now. I will follow the example of the hon. Member for Newbury, if the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished my argument. We laid the foundations of that progress in the Act of 1947, in the Hill Farming Act of 1946, in the Livestock Rearing Improvement Act. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear in mind that that was done through State interference, through guarantees, which must continue even under a Conservative Administration.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also made a plea for more exports to get more food. That is not new. I can
  1694
  remember the late Sir Stafford Cripps stumping the country on that, and I can remember also how he was violently attacked in this House by Conservative Members for his export policy and for his attempt to place economic realities before the country and before the Conservative Party, who were trying to make the electorate believe that there was not an economic problem to face. They said, "Remove the wicked Socialists, remove bulk buying, remove planning and control and we will go into a Tory Utopia."
  I am glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now facing realities, although I think he is caught in his own propaganda.
  Mr. F. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman recall the statement made by one of his own right hon. Friends, that only a lunatic would talk of the need for exports?
  Mr. Peart: When Sir Stafford Cripps was responsible for policy, as President of the Board of Trade and before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he always stressed the need to export more. And we did. British people made tremendous efforts in that direction despite the gloomy analysis of the hon. Member for Newbury. Those efforts were reflected in increased exports to world markets. Despite all that, and despite what has been said about the future of our rations, I say that there can really be no dramatic improvement—
  Mr. Nabarro: Why not?
  Mr. Peart: I shall try to explain. The Minister of Food chided my right hon. Friend for his conception of world shortages. Every person, whether he be Tory or Socialist, must face the economic realities which have been mentioned today, and must face our food position in the context of world supplies. In view of world shortages we should continue the policy which a Labour Government laid down: that despite shortages, we must have fair shares, that we must have improved social services, that we see that the purchasing power of our people is kept at a high level.
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member must let me develop my argument. I have given way on four occasions. It is vital,

  1695
  if there is a shift in emphasis in the international field, for this country always to be prepared to cushion its people against the effect of world shortages. I have mentioned the social services which a Labour Government developed, the policy of full employment, food subsidies—
  Mr. Osborne: And the stability of the £.
  Mr. Peart: We accept that—
  Mr. Osborne: It has dropped by one-third.
  Mr. Peart: I want to develop my theme, if the hon. Member will let me. I like interruptions and will always give way if they are courteous.
  There is a world problem. After all, more people die of famine than of war. I want to quote from the Director-General of F.A.O. After all, the Government make their contribution to F.A.O. In his recent message on the anniversary of the Human Rights Declaration, Norris Dodd, the Director-General of F.A.O., said that half of the world's population's right to enough food was still distant. Out of 2⅓ billion peoples of the world, one in three lives where on an average there is enough food for good living. One in six lives where there is enough food, not so good or plentiful as in the first category, but one in two lives in an area where there is not enough food. That was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, and it was reported again in a United Nations Bulletin on 1st October, 1951, which said:
  "World production of food is not keeping pace with the growth of world population."
  It went on to say:
  "As compared with the pre-war situation the food production has increased about 9 per cent. while population has increased by about 12 per cent."
  That is a reality which we must face.
  What is serious is that the gap between the well fed and the ill fed is increasing. In other words, the well fed are becoming better fed, and the ill fed are becoming worse fed. That is what I glean from information from United Nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] An hon. Member does not agree. What is more. however, the official United Nations Bulletin stated that improvement in supplies will be primarily in regions
  1696
  where consumption per head is at high levels, and that there will be little noticeable improvement in most low consumption countries. That is important. As members of F.A.O., we have a responsibility.
  A representative at a recent F.A.O. conference declared that 90 per cent. of the food produced is consumed in the country of its origin and that that percentage was likely to increase. The great danger which we face is that the amount of food available to meet emergencies—like famine, which we have seen in India —will be diminished. What is more important, the exportable surpluses of countries which produce food—the Argentine, for example—will diminish and that will affect not only this country. but the colonial territories, where we have a measure of responsibility.
  It is those world realities which we must face. We stressed this during the time of the Labour Government. Men like Lord Boyd Orr have tried to face them in another field. We have the example also of that wonderful book by De Castro, "The Geography of Hunger." which shows that not only is there hunger in the narrow sense, but that many peoples of the world have inadequate diet and, therefore, suffer severely from certain nutritional diseases.
  If we accept that standard of hunger, two-thirds of the population of the world are hungry. An American Committee actually put the figure at 85 per cent. Therefore, when we consider our own increase of food supplies, we must always bear in mind that world picture. It would be very wrong for us to neglect it.
  Mr. Osborne: I am very glad that the hon. Member is making that point. Sixty-four per cent. of the world's production live at one-eighth of our standard. Is the hon. Member prepared —he is a good Socialist, who believes in fair shares—to apply that principle internationally and to go back to his constituents and say, "You have got to share your surplus rations with the blacks, the browns and the yellows, who are having a great deal less"?
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has made a fair debating point. I am quite prepared to go back to my constituency and say that, in view of the food shortage in

  1697
  many parts of the world, we must be prepared to devote a part of our capital investment—our national income—to the giving of technical assistance for improving production in those countries. It means that we are prepared to say to our constituents that some of our national wealth should be devoted to the improvement of conditions in the Colonies and in those other countries—
  Mr. Osborne rose—
  Mr. Peart: I am not giving way again.
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member has not answered my question.
  Mr. Peart: We have diverted wheat to India, and I believe that it was right to do so. [Interruption.] I am surprised that some Members are cheering the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) for suggesting that it was very wrong for us to advocate such a policy.
  Mr. Osborne: I did not say that.
  Mr. Peart: The hon. Member implied that. I should have thought that in this direction there was at least some measure of agreement, that in relation to the problems of food we should give every assistance to international action to deal with it in relation to F.A.O.
  F.A.O. has declared that production is not keeping pace with population increases and that, therefore, those Governments who are members, including, of course, ourselves, must in the next five years plan against this serious problem. At their conference in Rome on 19th November, the F.A.O. called for a world goal and said that there must be
  "a well balanced increase of at least 1–2 per cent. per annum in world production of basic food…in excess of the rate of population growth."
  F.A.O. then recommended that all the countries should co-operate
  "by preparing and carrying out forward agricultural development plans suited to their own circumstances and conditions covering the next five years."
  I understand that those plans are to be reviewed regionally over different periods and that the first report is to be made in the spring of 1953.
  We have a special responsibility. I argue the case that I have argued in reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Louth. There must be a dramatic
  1698
  increase of agricultural production in our own country. I hope that the target which has been mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Minister of Food today will be achieved. I hope also that we do not disband any plans to develop resources in the Colonies, about which I will not speak at length as other hon. Members wish to deal with that aspect. We must, however, have international action; there must be an attempt to co-operate with other countries.
  One of the weaknesses affecting the problem has been the lack of knowledge, the failure to pool technical knowledge, and the failure to exchange information about the improvement of livestock production and crop raising. There is, too. incomplete knowledge of world resources. I tried in the last Parliament to raise issues like soil erosion in the colonial territories. The problem is a tremendous one, and was described by the late General Smuts as being bigger than politics. It is vitally necessary that we should have co-ordination with other countries on these problems.
  There is also still a lack of opportunity for primary producers in many of the colonial territories where we have a direct responsibility. That has always been the background of many of these agrarian communities—the lack of credit, of equipment and of "know how." We can help in that direction. Another important point is the instability in the world system of exchange—for example, the instability in prices for wheat. We all have heard that well-known Canadian rhyme:
  "Here lies the body of Farmer Pete, Who died from growing too much wheat."
  That clinches the argument in relation to the problem which faces the primary producer throughout the world.
  What can we do? Some people say that F.A.O. is idealistic and Utopian. There is much that can be done. I saw today a rather interesting editorial in the "News Chronicle" describing in great detail the international action which is now taking place in the Middle East to conquer the plague of locusts. Once I happened to see a locust storm in North Africa. It was an awe-inspiring sight, but it was really tragic to see the little Arab farmers trying to drive away great clouds of these insects. Here, this very week, we are getting international action on this

  1699
  pest which impedes food production. I am glad to see that while F.A.O. are doing so much the Russians have also come in and are sending aircraft and insecticide to the areas concerned and, in this field of international affairs, we have their co-operation.
  Then there is the European Plant Protection Organisation to deal with the colorado beetle, potato root eelworm and other pests which considerably affect our food even in our own country. I understand that the British Government signed a convention in 1951. That is the type of work which is important, because disease, insects and animals do considerable harm to our food supply.
  There is also the F.A.O. action which we have seen in Korea, the Mission they have sent to Bolivia and Uruguay, and the technical assistance agreed with the Portuguese Government to examine nutrition policy in Portugal. There was also the hybrid maize experiment conducted recently in Italy to improve production and quality, and the sending of experts to Libya by F.A.O. to develop the economic resources of that area. All this is important, all this is happening, and all this must be considered. I do hope that this Government, as a previous Labour administration did, will give every support to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I believe it to be the most important agency of the United Nations.
  It is so vital when we think of our own domestic food position. We need a world crusade against this world problem. It has been dramatically described by countless numbers of publicists, not only in this but in other countries throughout the world. It is one way, I believe, to break down prejudice and hates. If we can get combined action as described by the F.A.O., we can make a tremendous advance.
  I believe profoundly in the words of the late Ernest Bevin, that we can never have peace out of hunger. If we approach our food position here at home and relate it to the world problem we, with our great influence in F.A.O. and our great responsibility in the colonial territories of the Commonwealth, can make a great contribution to a world problem which has got to be conquered.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Remnant: I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) will forgive me if I do not follow him beyond saying that I appreciate and agree with a great many of the sentiments he has expressed, and my only criticism will be that I would have wished he had answered directly the direct question of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne).
  I wish to speak for a few minutes on the subject of tea, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). It is a subject with which I am connected on the growing and manufacturing side. I wish to take up the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) who, if I understood him, put forward the suggestion that by opening London auctions he had freed tea. He is entitled to the credit for opening London auctions; it is certainly correct that the opening of London auctions was a necessary step on the way to de-rationing, but certainly opening London auctions in the way he did—and I am not criticising that at all—was not freeing tea.
  There was a ban on re-exports—again I am not arguing. Buyers had a ceiling because they could dispose only of the quantity to which they were entitled under the ration and, therefore, could buy only a certain amount of tea. I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to look for a moment at the position which is resulting from that, although I quite agree that he has given buyers, blenders or wholesalers, whatever we choose to call them, permission to buy more than their quantities.
  There is a large quantity of tea coming on to the London market today for which there is not even a bid. In one week quite recently 53 per cent. of the tea offered for sale received no bid whatever. Admittedly, it is the end-of-the-season tea and not of the highest quality, but it is perfectly good, sound tea which could be used in a blend. I suggest that if I am somewhere near correct in thinking that the amount of tea put into sale for which no bid has been received is now in the region of 8 million lb. weight, my right hon. and gallant Friend is creating a problem which may falsify the figures on which he relies, because buyers—once new season's teas come on the market—

  1701
  cease to be interested in old season's teas. Whilst my right hon. and gallant Friend may have the figures and a sufficient stock to justify him taking action, it will contain a certain quantity of tea which buyers will not want and which by that time may have depreciated into tea which will not be in the best condition to put into blends.
  In that connection, I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend seriously to consider starting to recreate the entrepôt trade of London by permitting that tea, or some large part of it, to be exported, as I believe that Western Europe and America would take it and take it quite quickly. I also agree that the stocks would permit of parting with that tea now without endangering my right hon. and gallant Friend's plans for the future.
  I sympathise with the cautious attitude the Minister is adopting towards this matter. I think he has reason to be cautious, although I do not believe his caution is wholly justified at the moment. He had before him the example of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), who gave an increase in the ration, I think at the end of 1949, which was quite unjustified, certainly against the advice of the trade and, I should think, against the advice of some of those in his own Ministry. It had to be withdrawn soon afterwards; in the matter of a few months.
  There is also the need to allow sufficient time between an announcement for the stocks to get through from London warehouses after auction from the blenders into the grocers' shops, because there must be no question whatever that the ration shall be honoured by the shop when the customer asks for it. Quite rightly, my right hon. and gallant Friend has to keep a watch on the end-of-the-year position or at any rate the point at which the stocks go to their lowest point, as they must with the very large contribution made by Northern India to the teas consumed in this market, since Northern India plucks for only part of the year.
  I base my opinions differently from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and I have taken, not the figures of consumption per head before the war and the consumption per head today at the 2 oz. ration, because I believe consumption per head now is more than it was pre-war. As a safety margin I have
  1702
  taken the figure at slightly under 3 oz. per head per week.
  On the other side, let us see how the trade is faring in making up for the loss of crop resulting from the abandonment during the war of China, Formosa and the Dutch East Indies as sources of supply; certainly the Dutch East Indies have come back as a source of supply to the extent of about 50 per cent. of the prewar contribution, but I think a word of caution is needed there, because, with all the difficulties in Indonesia, I do not think it would be safe to rely on much further increase from Indonesia.
  The fact remains that India—and when I say India I am including Pakistan and thinking of it as it was in pre-war days—and Ceylon have increased their production on practically the same acreage, with an increase of only about 13,000 acres on a total of 1,400,000 acres, from 690 million lb. to 964 million lb.; each successive year showing an increase resulting from improved cultivation, improved methods and an increase of improved fertilisers. I see no reason why that increase in growth from India and Ceylon, given reasonable market conditions, should not continue.
  I agree that the figure for the Board of Trade stocks is 140 million. I believe the end-December stocks on the new ration allowed by my right hon. and gallant Friend will be, to put it moderately, in excess of 100 million, and if we take a ½ oz. ration as taking up 80 million lb., we begin to see one of the reasons why I think my right hon. and gallant Friend would be justified in taking tea off the ration as soon as he has given notice so that the trade can make their preparations.
  I have also had another estimate from a responsible body in London concerned with the tea trade which suggests that, without rationing at all there would be a surplus on the 1952 crop of 22 million lb. That may or may not be correct, but I do not think it is far out. It is as good an estimate as anybody can make.
  Another point about which I am a little anxious is this very considerable drop in the price given in the market for those teas which are sold. I would mention one grade, Assam Common Broken Pekoes, which have dropped their price of 3s. on 13th March to a nominal price of 2s. per lb. on 1st May. We have practically all the Darjeeling gardens and

  1703
  part of Cachar and Sylhet, who are selling tea at a loss of pence per lb. There will be no fear about getting the tea from them in this plucking season, because the expenditure of preparing for it has been incurred and this is the time to get the yield of the manufactured tea. But if that tea cannot be restored to at least the cost of production, at the end of this season they will not continue at all. Although it is true that Darjeeling is the producer of only about 15 million lb., they will go out of production, and so will a certain number of others.
  Perhaps it would be more fair to my right hon. and gallant Friend to say that there are certain ways in which the Indian Government should help industries in their own country. I entirely agree with the comment that if the Darjeeling growers, who employ a great many people in that part of the world, are in such a parlous condition that they cannot go on, the Indian Government should certainly take some steps to help them to continue. I was referring only to certain steps which I thought my right hon. and gallant Friend also could take in order to help.
  I do not want to go into this in any further detail, but I believe that my right hon. and gallant Friend can take tea off the ration. I will not mention the point about the effect on the Treasury of those companies working at a loss, because that is not a matter for debate today, but I wish to put one suggestion to my right hon. and gallant Friend. Since so many people have never experienced having articles off the ration in this country, and since our experience over one or two items which were taken off would suggest that there might possibly be a rush for tea were it taken off the ration which might upset calculations, I suggest that, if that is what is holding back my right hon. and gallant Friend from taking tea off the ration, he might consider making an announcement at an early date to increase the ration to 3 oz. That would certainly stop over-stocking, but would, I believe, be about the saturation point.
  Mr. F. Willey: The speech of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has very much interested the Committee, and we have had the benefit of his experience. But would not he agree that one of the problems we are facing is the slow take-up of the tea available and—
  1704
  I think I am right but I will put this to him—that the position today would be improved considerably if the ration were increased at once?
  Mr. Remnant: The hon. Member refers to the slow take-up. Does he mean teas purchased in the auction? So far as paying for them is concerned, they are now taken up not quite so quickly as before. As to teas being taken out of the warehouse, they can obviously only be taken in by the blenders at a pace regulated by the ration. The blender does not want to keep tea in packet longer than he can help before he sends it out to the retailer.
  7.28 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: This is the second speech we have had from the Government side of the Committee dealing almost wholly with the question of tea. It is not surprising to us that hon. Members opposite should spend a long time talking about tea, because it does seem to be the one food which will be in plentiful supply—the one food which may possibly be off the ration soon—and it must be comforting for hon. Members opposite to be able to talk about something which is in plentiful supply while the present Government are in office.
  I wish to deal with the economics of the question of food. The Minister said that the increase of prices due to cutting the food subsidies to £250 million would not be brought into being until the increases had taken place in the National Assistance Board scales and until there were increased pensions, and so on. He went on to say that by cutting the food subsidies to £250 million he was really bringing home an economic reality to people who had been living in the clouds.
  It is then claimed by the Government that this cut in food subsidies is, in the first place, due to our economic situation, and to the fact that our people, according to them, have been living in a fool's paradise. But not a word of that was said to the electors in October. No suggestion of that kind was made to the electors either in the broadcast of the Chairman of the Tory Party or in the speech made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in North Berwick, Scotland.

  1705
  Both of these men, not mere back benchers of the Government party but responsible members of the Government today, said that food subsidies would not be cut. Nothing could have been more specific than that. I did one of these party political broadcasts myself. But a few days later, on Wednesday, 10th October, there appeared in the "Scottish Daily Mail" an article by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food headed,
  "Hey! Look who's talking about prices!"
  In that broadcast I dealt a great deal with the cost of living. We realised that the cost of living would play a big part in the Election. Those who are now the Government realised that also. I had spoken about food subsidies. I had suggested that if the Tories were returned then food subsidies would be cut. I had suggested that food subsidies were paid in the main by the people who could afford to pay them, and that the people who really benefited were the poorest people. But the Parliamentary Secretary said,
  "We all pay for food subsidies because we all pay for them in taxes such as Purchase Tax, tobacco tax and entertainment tax."
  What has happened with this Government? They have broken their specific promise and they have cut food subsidies to £250 million. Far from taking away Purchase Tax, they have put that tax on the kind of goods that the poorest in the country buy, so that the Government have made it more difficult and have asked the poorest to pay taxes which they were never asked to pay when the Labour Party conducted the Government of the country.
  Captain Richard Pilkington: The hon. Lady said that in the Tory Party's Election declaration of policy we gave no warning of what we should do about food subsidies. I should like to draw her attention to page 20 of one of our pamphlets, where we say that food subsidies have been allowed to rise to alarming proportions, and later where we say that we proposed to recast our social and fiscal policy upon simpler lines. I suggest that that is giving a warning, and that it is unfair to choose isolated sentences—as has been done by hon. Members opposite too often—to show what we did say.
  Miss Herbison: I do not accept in any way that what I have said gives a wrong picture of the specific promise made by the Tories before and during the Election. What the hon. and gallant Member quoted is very vague indeed. The language of the Chairman of the Tory Part in that broadcast which was heard by millions was clear. That broadcast was heard by millions, but I doubt whether millions read the pamphlet from which the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted. The Chairman of the Tory Party said:
  "There is a story that the Tories would cut food subsidies. That is not true.
  Nothing could have been more specific than that. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said at North Berwick that, while we were struggling and striving to deal with the cost of living, food subsidies and our social services would not be interfered with. I think I have shown quite clearly that what I said earlier was the complete truth.
  The Parliamentary Secretary also said in this article:
  "The Conservative and National Liberal Party have no intention.…"
  That is specific—
  "no intention of abolishing the utility scheme.…"
  We know what has happened to that—
  "any more than they have of cutting down the social services."
  Again, nothing could have been more specific than that which was written during the Election a few days after the broadcast which I made.
  I would say to the Minister that it is easy to use words like, "economic reality" and "living in the clouds." Who are the people to whom he is referring? Who are the people who will be hit by this cut in food subsidies. That is what we must examine before we accept the Minister's statement that the cut was meant to bring home to people our economic situation, and to bring them down out of the clouds.
  Let us consider the four million people who were paying no Income Tax before the last Budget. It is true that those who were married and had children will have increased family allowances. But let us consider those who are married, taking into account only the cut in food subsidies and not the extra money that their wives will have to spend because of the

  1707
  D scheme, or that which they are already spending because of the great increases in food prices. We will consider only the £160 million cut and put side by side with it the only advantage they get from the Budget which is that of a 3s. increase in family allowances.
  A married man in that category will have to have more than four children before he will benefit at all from the increase in family allowances. When we take away what his wife will have to pay even under the D scheme, we see that he benefits in no way.
  Let us consider the two million people who were paying Income Tax before the Budget and who will no longer pay it because of the extra rebates. Taking into account the items I have mentioned, there would have to be more than three children in a family before it would benefit in any way. What about the old-age pensioners? The increase which it has been said that they will get will not cover the increase that has already taken place in the cost of the food plus the extra money they will have to pay because of the cut in food subsidies.
  Were these the people whom the Chancellor and the Minister of Food wanted to bring down from the clouds? Are these the people whom they wanted to bring to economic reality? What the Government have done to the old people and to the children of the lowest wage earners is the most shameful action that has been done in this country since we had the Tories in the lean and hungry thirties.
  What we shall find is what I knew when I was a teacher teaching children of the poorest people in a school in Glasgow. Those children had hardly ever known what it was to be properly fed as hon. Gentlemen opposite would always expect their children to be fed. Those are the children who have been harmed, with the old people, by this talk of "economic reality" and "pulling down from the clouds" of the Government of the party opposite. The Chancellor has also asked for a wage freeze. What a hope he has at this time of getting that when every day prices, not only of food but of many of the 'commodities needed in the home are going up.
  I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is in his place, because I want to quote
  1708
  another part of that article of his. As I said before, I had been speaking on the cost of living. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "It began to rise in 1946, and it has gone up steadily with the value of £ falling like a leaky balloon."
  We know that if it were falling like a leaky balloon when we were in power, the balloon has completely burst since the present Government have been in office.
  This article tried to debunk the points I had made in my broadcast and tried to tell the people of Britain that if the Tories were returned to power the £ would become of greater value to them. That has been proved wrong. Since they came to power, the £ in this country has been buying less and less each week. In the final part of his article, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "Yes, the cost of living will be the biggest election question in the home field."
  Despite the fact that it was the biggest election question in the home field, the Labour Party, after 6½ years in power, obtained almost 14 million votes, the biggest vote it has ever had. The local elections in England, Wales and Scotland have shown very clearly that the rising cost of living is still the main question in elections today. It has also shown very clearly that the people of this country, reasonable and intelligent people, will have nothing to do with people who make promises so glibly and who break them so easily.
  There is one question I want to ask the Minister. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) spoke about the people of Belgium and their different values. He suggested that they were far more interested in having good food for their children than were the ordinary people of this country, who all own television sets and who all spend money on the pools. But how stupid that is.
  I said earlier this week that I lived in a working class district. We have a new television station only one and a half miles from where I live, but there are very few television sets in that big village. The propagandists of the party opposite have always said the same. They said that the unemployed could find work if they were not lazy, and that the low-wage earners could feed their children if they did not spend their money in foolish ways.

  1709
  But the fact is that ordinary, decent working-class folk spend as much as they possibly can in getting proper nutrition for their children.
  I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision about the allocation of sugar for jam making this year. The ordinary working-class mothers where I live have always made their own jam. If they did not grow their own fruit, they have always gone to the Clydeside and bought it as cheaply as they could and made good wholesome jam for their families. Under the Labour Government, who were supposed through stupidity to prevent the people from getting all they could have got, we received a fairly good bonus of sugar for jam making. But under this Government, despite all their promises, we find that the bonus of sugar for jam making this year is going to be very much less than it was last year. I earnestly ask the Minister to reconsider it, because the mothers in these working-class homes want this sugar in order to provide good food for their children.
  I know perfectly well that there are great difficulties in finding the food to give good nutrition and health to our people. We always told our people what the difficulties were. It is only since this Government have come to power that their Ministers and back benchers have realised—perhaps I am wrong in saying "realised"—have said there is a shortage of food in the world. I want to make sure that when there is a shortage of food what is available will be fairly distributed inside this country.
  There are two ways of derationing. One way is to allow the cost of living to rise so that the old-age pensioners and the lowest wage earners will not be able to buy sufficient food for proper nutrition and good health. The other way is by having sufficient food to go round at a price which everybody can afford to pay. I am afraid that if this Government remain much longer in power we shall have the first method of derationing.
  I realise only too well that there is a shortage of food in the world, and I do not ask that the people whom I represent should have more than their fair share of that scarce food. I could not believe in Socialism, nor, indeed, in Christianity, if I allowed my people to think that they could have a bigger share at the expense of people in other parts of the world.
  1710
  When elections take place in this country, the people vote not only for representatives to look after their interests in the British House of Commons; they elect Members whose responsibilities are very great indeed. They are responsible not only for the well-being of the people in Britain, but for the well-being of thousands of coloured people in our Colonies.
  I say again to the Minister and to the Government that we want steps to be taken to increase food production inside our own country and in our Colonies. We want the Government to take all available steps to increase food supplies, not only for our own people but for those who are still worse fed than are the people in Britain today, and for whom we are responsible. The food production of the world is not going to be increased to any great extent by private enterprise.
  Our groundnut scheme was sneered and jeered at, but the sooner this country and the greatly developed countries of the world realise that we shall have to have many schemes for the production of food which for many years will be uneconomic, and that only Governments can undertake those schemes, the better. It is only if the Governments of the world get together and undertake uneconomic schemes that there will be any hope in the world of our people and of the people of underdeveloped areas being fed as all really Christian people would like to see them fed.
  7.50 p.m.
  Commander J. F. W. Maitland: When the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was speaking I was reminded of what I think she said in her last speech, that sometimes she was a "shorty" and sometimes a "little lady."
  Miss Herbison: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is confusing me with one of my hon. Friends.
  Commander Maitland: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I thought it was her perhaps because those words were running through my mind when she was speaking and I was wondering at the conclusion of her speech which she was—the shorty or the little lady. I know that every-think she said was said absolutely sincerely. There is no hotter party political point than this question of food, but we must remember, however, that we are

  1711
  speaking today in the shadow of a really grim crisis and that if we do not pull this country out of its difficulties and do not balance our payments, nothing she has referred to will equal the devastation and misery which will occurr in this country.
  That is the background against which she ought to speak. If she wishes to look at the matter from a different point of view, let her read the letter of Lord Kirkwood in "The Times," when he pointed out the great difficulties facing democracy in making people realise the gravity of the crisis. Speeches like hers do not help very much.
  Miss Herbison: Never at any time, in my constituency or anywhere else where I have been speaking, have I failed to deal with the seriousness of our economic situation. The economic situation was serious in October of last year, and what I was trying to prove today was the falsity of the pledges that were made. No one can ever accuse me at any time of not bringing home to my own people the seriousness of our situation, and that we must have from every one of them the best we can produce. But I will always fight, in and outside the House of Commons, against making the lowest paid wage earners and old people go hungry in order to bring about a better economic situation.
  Commander Maitland: Nobody doubts the hon. Lady's sincerity, and I know she is speaking from her heart, but she was denigrating the Government's actions, and it is not much fun to have to do the things this Government have had to do. The Government believe, and I believe, that these things are necessary to save us from disaster, difficulties which otherwise would be far worse than anything the hon. Lady could suggest.
  I will leave the point there and perhaps come to a matter which will engender less heat. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), and indeed the hon. Lady herself, touched upon what I regard as the really important problem raised in this debate. It is that we all feel we are speaking in a world where the food situation is getting worse and not only is an economic crisis threatening us but the general food resources of the world, for one reason or another, are becoming less.
  Mr. Norman Smith: The hon. and gallant Member did not say that last year.
  Commander Maitland: Yes, I did.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. and gallant Member's party did not.
  Mr. F. Harris: When did the hon. Member come in?
  Commander Maitland: Never mind. I am speaking on my own responsibility, and I have the right to be considered to be speaking as sincerely as the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. I suggest that in a world of contracting food supplies there is one very important source, which has not been discussed at all today, from which we can obtain a greater amount of food than ever before. I refer to the sea.
  At the Lake Success conference at which these great food questions were discussed it was admitted that there could be a greatly increased food production from the sea. I want to press upon the Government that they make the greatest effort to investigate new methods to obtain more food from the sea. It may well be our last resort. We in this country should be in a magnificent position to obtain more food in this way. Our country is an island and we have a fleet of ships, and for hundreds of years we have had the reputation of being great fishermen.
  But, as I speak, the Icelandic Government have passed a decree which will reduce the amount of white fish landed in this country by nearly a quarter. That is not romancing; it is a fact. As from today a quarter less fish will be available for catching by our trawlers. It is perhaps one of the most serious crises that the fishing industry has had to face.
  Mr. Follick: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not want to deceive the Committee. He should have said a quarter of the production from Iceland.
  Commander Maitland: A quarter of the white fish or rather 22 per cent., actually comes from Iceland, and by the Icelandic restrictions that quantity is almost entirely removed from this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the hon. and gallant Member going to do about it?"] The hon. Member should have better things to do than to ask a

  1713
  question like that. The whole country must try and see what we can do about it. It is a matter of the greatest importance.
  Nearly a quarter of the fish landed at Grimsby will be cut off by the closing to British trawlers of Icelandic waters. About 33 per cent. will be cut off for Fleetwood and 22 per cent, for Hull. There may be worse to follow, because Iceland have taken advantage of a recent decree by the Hague International Court which allows Norway to extend the territorial line and also to cut out the indentations of her coastline when determining the limits of territorial waters. If the example set by Norway and Iceland is followed in the Faroes, Bear Island and the White Sea, it will cut off practically all the best and highest quality white fishing grounds from British trawlers.
  It means that British trawlers are faced with disaster. It means unemployment at Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. The Foreign Secretary has addressed a note to the Icelandic Government, and we have not yet heard what is the reply. I want to press upon the Government to the utmost of my power that they should realise the seriousness of the situation. Not only does it mean the loss of a certain amount of very valuable food, but it means that all our trawlers will be completely put out of action. They cannot be sent out to new fishing grounds because they have been specially designed for the grounds they fish. It would mean that we should have to design an entirely new type of trawler.
  I have heard recently in this Chamber suggestions about and criticisms of some "overlords" of agriculture and food and transport, and so on. I suggest to the Government and to the "overlord" who looks after these food matters that here is a problem about which he ought to do something; that here is a case where co-ordination really is needed. I implore the Government to look at this matter in all its seriousness. I am amazed that there has not been greater anxiety in the country regarding a matter which affects our well-being as much as this does, and that greater publicity has not been given to it.
  Now I turn to another matter closely akin to what I have been saying. In this country one can have a bit too much
  1714
  of fish. There is no question about it—it is not fish that the Englishman wants to eat. He would like to eat meat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Red meat."] I want to remind the Government and impress on them the fact that out of fish can come meat. At the present moment we are making in this country 70,000 tons per year of animal feedingstuffs through fish meal. That is a high protein food which our young animals need. At the same time we import 70,000 tons of fish meal. That does not seem to me right at this time of economic crisis. We ought to push on with providing more factories capable of making fish meal. I want to see the Government, and the White Fish Authority in particular, do all they can to see whether we cannot produce more of these protein feedingstuffs from fish from our own resources.
  I would particularly draw the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend to what has been happening in the whaling industry. Up to recently, when a whale was boiled down into oil 70 per cent. of the protein value of the whale was blown overboard. Recently, at considerable expense, British firms have installed special machinery which is able to deal with what are called the "solubles," when the whale has been boiled down, and turn them into high protein feedingstuffs. Let me give an example of how valuable this can be. From the production of 55.000 barrels an additional 5,000 tons of this protein food can be made available—in addition, and over and above the 55,000 tons of oil which was all that was the whale harvest before.
  I am told on the best authority I can get that this food can be brought into this country at prices equivalent to equivalent foods sold here today. I have been told, too, that in the past—I hope it is different in the future—these firms have had the greatest difficulty in getting the feedingstuffs department of the Ministry of Food interested in these whale solubles. I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to give us an assurance that he will look into this matter—and I should like a reply to this—to see that those very valuable sources of feedingstuffs are not lost to the country.
  That is all I have to say except to remind the Committee once again that one of our most important national industries is the trawler industry. I should

  1715
  explain that I have absolutely no financial interest in the trawler business. I knew the trawlermen during the war. They are the finest people ever man could meet, and that is one of the reasons why I am speaking here tonight on this matter. It is, I believe, the duty of the country to stand by this great industry, and I do implore the Government to see that they carry out their proper duty to defend this industry in every possible way.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) has been all at sea in his speech. I do not propose to follow him. There has been complaint during this debate from this side of the Committee, quite legitimately, that promise from the other side has been different from performance; and that is our main criticism in this debate.
  It is true, of course, that we in Britain are faced with the tremendously serious problem of how to feed ourselves. It has become increasingly difficult in the last decade largely because we are an importer of food and because the fact is that there are very few net exporting countries in the world: I think New Zealand and Canada are the only two net exporters of food in the world today. It is also true that, despite that, Britain has, in the main, been adequately fed since 1939. Maybe the diet has been dull, and maybe my figure rather seems to contradict that statement; but the figure of the Parliamentary Secretary leans heavily on the other side.
  For six years since 1945 that Tory Party has been engaged in what I think has been the most shameless and most dishonest campaign of misrepresentation and distortion this country has ever known.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: Especially the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Hamilton: Every difficulty on the food front was attributed to the Labour Government. Let me give one or two examples. The present Leader of the House, a responsible Front Bench spokesman, said:
  " The indications are that there is plenty of meat in the world today and that we are
  1716
  quite within sight of the possibility of ending rationing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 1960.]
  Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate that there is any possibility of ending meat rationing within the next five years? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the same debate said:
  "The name of the Ministry of Food stinks in the noses of the ordinary citizen and especially of the British housewife."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 2053.]
  That was strong language from the mildest looking one on the Government Front Bench—one all the more dangerous because he is one of the most mild looking. In the same debate the Parliamentary Secretary, the wonderful "Radio Doctor," said:
  " They "—
  that is, the peopleߞ
  " will want to know why, in fact, the Minister of Food is not securing the food that the people need.…"
  They still want to know. He also said:
  " It is instinctive for the human body unconsciously to relate its output to intake."— [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 8th February, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 2015–6.]
  If things go on like this, there will very soon be no output. Now we come to one of the lesser lights in the Tory Party, a woman, who said:
  "Within six months of the Conservatives' return to power we shall be able to have eggs and bacon, hams, and pork sausages, whenever we like. There is no world shortage of food. Our situation today is the result of bad management."
  The six months have gone. We are still waiting. That lady was the wife of a Tory Member of Parliament. She will be suing him for divorce, I expect—for wilful cruelty.
  Mr. William Ross: Breach of promise.
  Mr. Hamilton: Yes, and for breach of promise as well. Now we come to the pièce de résistance—Lord Woolton himself. In 1951, in the Election, we had Lord Woolton and his famous red meat promise—and no cut in the food subsidies.
  Mr. Osborne: Get on with the real problem.
  Mr. Hamilton: This is the real problem. Lord Woolton will stalk like a ghoul on every Tory platform at the next election.

  1717
  Let me try to trace the history of the Tory Government's approach to the food problem? What was the first step they took? They knew it would be a rough passage for whoever got into the Ministry of Food so they put in two National Liberal "stooges." Let me here say to Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, that when we get back into power the National Liberal Party will not be allowed the advantages that an independent political party normally get. What was their second step? They appointed a noble co-ordinator. He says he has got no staff. He says his job is not important; that he is not responsible to Parliament. All he says is:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th April, 1952; Vol. 176, c. 55.]
  Lord Woolton's volubility is equalled only by his duplicity and his complete lack of political scruple. What has he done in six months? How can we as Members of the House of Commons get at him? We would lead him a dog's life if he were here.
  What other action have the Government taken? They have cut the purchases of food abroad. On the admission of the Colonial Secretary, we are now living on stocks. I remember the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance making great play, when in opposition, about the Labour Government living on and reducing stocks. Well, they are doing it now. Tea, we have been told, is to be de-rationed. I should like to know who built up the stocks to enable de-rationing to take place. We were told that the cupboard was bare, but evidently there were ample stocks of tea.
  Food subsidies, which have already been mentioned, are to be slashed to £250 million. The hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), to say that they gave ample warning in their Election manifesto, and he quoted from page 20. For the purposes of greater accuracy, I have brought a copy along with me, and this is from the same page:
  "In present circumstances, when we are facing severe financial and economic difficulties"—
  1718
  so they knew the difficulties were there; it is no good saying it was a complete surprise to them—
  "and while we are engaged in a full-scale attack on the cost of living, it would clearly not only be unwise but impossible to make any radical change."
  That is in the Election manifesto.
  Mr. F. Harris: Read on.
  Mr. Hamilton: That was a specific promise that because we were in a difficult economic situation no change in the scale of food subsidies was either possible or desirable.
  Captain Pilkington rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: Let us now have a look at some of the cuts that have been made—
  Captain Pilkington: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: For heaven's sake sit down.
  Let us now look at where the heaviest cuts have been made. The heaviest cuts have been made in, for instance, bread. As everybody knows, the demand for bread is inelastic, and those who are hardest hit by the increase in the price of bread are the manual workers and the poorer sections. In December of last year, bacon and cheese went up by 10d. a lb. in each case. That meant a 33⅓ per cent. increase on the price of bacon and a 70 per cent. increase on the price of cheese. Those two alone meant an increase in the personal weekly expenditure of between 4d. and 5d.
  Before the increases on those two commodities, the retail price of bacon was 2s. 7d. and the subsidy was 1s. 3½d., just half. The retail price of cheese before the increase was 1s. 2d., and of that the subsidy was 1s. 1½d. The high subsidies on those commodities were put on deliberately by the Labour Government because they were very popular foods with manual workers. Because they have been attacked, the biggest sacrifices will have to be made by those same manual workers, yet the Chancellor now goes along to the T.U.C. and asks them to exercise wage restraint. He is asking for the moon.
  In deciding where the axe of food subsidy slashes should fall, was careful

  1719
  calculation made, first, to cause the minimum rise in the Retail Price Index, and secondly, to cause the minimum rise in the weekly cost to the household? I realise that any amount of combinations could be made, and all I ask is: Was a scientific calculation made to ensure that the sacrifices were as small as possible, and as evenly distributed as possible? On 30th April of this year the Minister of Food said:
  "the average increase over the whole weekly ration since last October was 2¼d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April. 1952; Vol. 499, c. 14581
  How did he arrive at that figure? Is there one housewife in the country who believes that the price increases of rationed foods since last October have been only 2¼d. per book? I have done a series of sums and I cannot get the figure of 2¼d. The nearest I can get is something between 6d. and 7d., and I should like to know how that figure has been arrived at.
  Even assuming it is true, expenditure on rationed goods constitutes roughly half the total expenditure on food. Let me take one example of something not on the ration which is not taken into account in that 2¼d., namely, bread. For my wife, myself and two young children the increase has meant Is. 6d. weekly to my family, which is an increase of 4½d. a person. With the increases since in the prices of bacon and cheese, which are another 4½d., the total comes to 9d. on those commodities alone.
  The Home Secretary—they are all involved in this; it is a great conspiracy—was very fond of addressing the Housewives' League. It will take all his legal guile to try to convince the Housewives' League that the increase is only 2½d.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: The Housewives' League has disappeared.
  Mr. Hamilton: The blunt truth is that the sky is black with the brickbats that are being hurled at the Tory Party by the housewives.
  As a nation we must face the stark realities of the world food shortage, and our problem is how to educate our people to that fact. The Tory Party must bear a great measure of the responsibility for the lack of understanding among our
  1720
  people. It has been said—and I believe hon. Members opposite try to take credit for it—that for a long time we had cheap, plentiful and easily obtainable supplies of food when the party opposite were in power before the war. All I can say is that we shamelessly enjoyed it at the expense of the primary producers whom we exploited to get it.
  How are we to solve the problem? Mention has been made of world shortages, the world population, soil erosion, and so on, and I think that instead of nattering on about halfpennies on this and ounces off that, we must get down to the problem on an international basis through the United Nations organisation. I believe that we have to have international action and thrash out an international policy with regard to population.
  This debate has now been going on for approximately four hours, and in that time the population of the world has increased by 12,000. That is the measure—[Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. I am trying to treat this matter as seriously as I can. The population of the world is increasing at the rate of about 50 every minute. In India alone, the population increase in the last 10 years has been higher than the total population of the United Kingdom. In Japan, the population doubled in the 60 years to 1945. Why is that? I believe that the main reason is that modern medicine has devoted far too much time to lowering the death rate and not enough time to lowering the birth rate. It seems to me that one of the best things that could happen in the world today would be the extension of birth control throughout the world.
  I realise that that statement offends many people who argue from a religious or moral standpoint. I think that it is infinitely more immoral to bring children into the world when there are not the food resources available to keep them. I know that we are up against a difficulty. Here is a Government that does not believe in any kind of control; but I rather believe that many of them believe in the control I have suggested. I believe that one of the greatest steps towards the solution of the world food problem has recently been taken in India by Mr. Nehru in trying to educate the masses of the people of India to the advantages of birth control

  1721
  I believe that the second great problem to which the Government ought to address itself is how we are to make more adequate use of our land. It is a disturbing reflection that one of the factors of production—in fact, the only factor of production which is limited and cannot be expanded—land, is the very one of which man's use has been the most wasteful.
  There have been millions of acres throughout the world wasted through soil erosion arid neglect. There are houses that have to be built for the teaming millions that are coming into the world every year, and the housing sites are taking up agricultural land. There are the increased demands of the armed forces throughout the world for agricultural land. There is opencast mining which in many cases sterilises good agricultural land, and there are, as well, inefficient farmers. I believe that in this country the Government could do a tremendous amount towards solving our food problem by pursuing a policy of ruthlessly rooting out inefficient farmers, and I believe that we have, moreover, to rid the country of private landowners.
  I think that the Labour Party should go all out for nationalisation of the land, and that along those lines we could tackle the food problem. But let no party in the future pretend to the people that if only they were put back into power there would be plenty of food. I believe that it will he 10 years or more before we get anything like an adequate diet again.
  8.25 p.m.
  Captain Richard Pilkington: We have had some extremely constructive speeches in this debate, and some controversial ones. The last two speeches from the other side have been extremely controversial. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), made, if I may say so, a very good debating speech, but I was sorry that he apparently felt so uncertain of his ground that he refused to give way at any time to anyone on this side of the Committee. This is the second time in this Committee that I have heard an hon. Member opposite refuse to read the sentence immediately following that which he was pleased to quote from our pamphlet. "Britain Strong and Free."
  Mr. Hamilton rose—
  Captain Pilkington: I will give way in a moment. I should like first to read the sentence which followed, and it is this:
  "As we make some progress in our fight to reduce the cost of living, and as economic circumstances permit, we hope gradually to recast our social and fiscal policy upon simpler lines."
  The only thing that hon. Members opposite can say about that is that we have acted quicker than our word.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the conditions which follow on that last sentence he has read have been fulfilled? Has the cost of living come down?
  Captain Pilkington: No, but we are tackling that, and that is one of the points I was coming to, but since the hon. Member has asked the question now, I will deal with it now. A lot of the speeches we have heard from the other side have been about the rise in prices since this Government took office, and it is perfectly true to say that while this Government has been in office the trend of the last six years of increasing prices has continued. I should have thought that it was quite obvious that no Government could arrest the momentum of a six-year trend in a six-month period. Hon. Members opposite will find that as the measures which we are taking make themselves felt, we shall fulfil this promise as we shall fulfil all the others.
  I want to refer to one thing which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), said. She made an extremely controversial speech, and I should like to take one quotation from it. She referred to what she calls, "The lean and hungry '30s." I hope that everyone in this Committee knows that what she called the lean and hungry '30s arose from the disastrous three years in which the Socialists were in power. [Interruption.] I know that lion. Members opposite do not like it, but during the '30s themselves unemployment was falling and the prosperity of this country was rising.
  Mr. G. Jeger: Which were the three years?
  Captain Pilkington: 1929 to 1931. Now. we have only been in office seven months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Hon. Members opposite say "Too long,"

  1723
  but it is a matter of mathematical certainty that had the previous Government remained in power and had things continued to go in the way they did, we should at this time have been on the verge of bankruptcy.
  We have been blamed in this debate for not having fulfilled the pledges we made at the General Election. It is not only in this debate that we have been blamed. Hon. Members opposite and their propaganda organs, the "Daily Herald" and other papers, a bare month from the General Election accused us of not having fulfilled our pledges. I remember large "Daily Herald" headlines "Broken promises" on 17th November. I was encouraged in the view which we on this side take of that sort of thing from an article by the Socialist hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in "Forward" on 15th March, in which he said:
  "We are getting used to the suppression and distortion of political news by the Daily Herald'."
  In that case I thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member.
  With regard to the question of fulfilling pledges, it is only right that we should see it against the proper background. Just after the General Election of 1945, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), said:
  "We have left the old scarcity economics of the capitalistic world behind us."
  We should bear in mind what actually happened during the next six years.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), said in his Election address:
  "Housewives ought to vote against a further lowering of the standard of living through reducing rations."
  What happened? In 1946 the fat ration was reduced, the cheese ration was reduced, bread was rationed for the first time in the history of this country, and prices went up in spite of continued help from America. In 1947 the sorry story went on. Meat was reduced, bacon was reduced, sugar was reduced, tea was reduced; the only thing that was not reduced was prices, which continued to go up.
  Mr. Manuel: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate the point
  1724
  made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), when he said that we have reached the end of the capitalist policy of scarcity economics? He meant that the fact that these things were happening was making certain that in any period of shortage everybody would get a fair share, instead of leaving it to the free-play of private enterprise and to the people who were able to buy although there might not be equal shares for the others.
  Captain Pilkington:I am pointing out the wide divergencies between the promises made in 1945 and what actually happened in the next six years. I am comparing the six years when the Socialists were in power with the six months we have had in which to fulfil our pledges. The next two years, 1948 and 1949, can be summed up by a sentence taken from the Labour Government's own Economic Survey:
  "Little progress from the dreary and tightly rationed standards of 1948 was made in 1949."
  I have dealt with four years out of the six, and I could go on in similar vein.
  So when we are talking about pledges and their fulfilment, let us keep things in their right proportions. It ought also to be remembered that we have taken over at a time when the cupboard has been left bare. I do not mean by that that there was no food at all in the country; there was some, of course. What I mean is that our financial reserves had been reduced to almost nothing and that the handful which still remained was dropping through the holes left in the cupboard by the inefficiency of the Labour Government. As I have said, had things gone on as they were during the last few months when the Labour Party were in Office, we should by this time have been on the verge of bankruptcy.
  Mr. G. Jeger: I have here a quotation from a newspaper of what was said by the Colonial Secretary at Farnborough a few weeks ago. It was corroborated and confirmed by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself in answer to a Question put by me last week. The Colonial Secretary said that Britain was not yet feeling the effects of the cuts in food imports as much as it would later because the country was still living on stocks. If six months later we are still

  1725
  living on stocks, how can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the cupboard was bare?
  Captain Pilkington: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I thought he wanted to make a point of substance. If he had listened to my qualification he would have appreciated that what I meant when I said that the cupboard was bare was that the national housekeeping money was steadily running out. [Interruption.] I have mentioned a lot of things that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like, but they ought to have the background against which to judge the present situation.
  The Conservative Government are tackling the problem as it confronts them in a number of ways—by maintaining the value of our money, by facing the inherent economic unsoundness of the present burden of food subsidies upon the whole of our economy, by helping agriculture, by protecting the fishing industry, by developing Empire resources, and by using free enterprise as well as bulk buying—after all, it was Lord Woolton himself who began the system of bulk buying —to comb the world for greater supplies. Of these six lines of action I want to say something about two.
  The question of food subsidies has loomed large in the debate. Hon. Members will recollect the apprehension felt by successive Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer as the bill for the food subsidies became greater and greater. In 1946 and 1947 the Chancellor of the time said that food subsidies would have to be very carefully considered and the Government might be forced to consider putting a stop to their continued rise. We know how in 1949 the figure was rising to some £568 million and it was then reduced by the action then taken. If I were to use the phraseology of hon. Members opposite, I would call it a savage slash, but it is the Tories alone who cut things hon. Members opposite only carry out adjustments. All this time, while the bill for food subsidies was rising, so the value of our money was falling, and prices of food, in spite of the subsidies, were still going up.
  We did not just consider the position. We acted in the way I have shown, and it may well be said by hon. Members that
  1726
  we did what we said we would do much more quickly than they expected. To offset the immediate, ensuing rise in the cost of living, we have got the tax remissions which are being given to the vast majority of our population.
  There is one other of the six principal lines of action about which I wish to speak. I want to say something on the important matter of the maintenance of the value of our money. Since this Government came into power the value of the £, with which we have to buy our food, has been steadily rising. I have got quotations here to prove what I am saying if I am challenged. There was a fall at one moment in the value of the £, and that fall coincided with the results of the county council elections. [Laughter.] I have the quotation here, and I will read it for the benefit of the hon. Member who laughs. This is what appeared in "The Times" of 5th April, 1951:
  "The helpful effect of the publication of the gold figures was overshadowed in foreign eyes by the contrary effect of the result of the County Council elections and the value of sterling in the foreign exchange market fell sharply."
  We have heard a great deal in this debate and other debates about the local government elections. Hon. Members opposite have taunted us with the fact that we did not do as well as we would have liked. Let us remember that the £, with which we buy our food, fell in value because for a moment foreign observers believed that the country was not behind the measures which this Government have had to take and are taking.
  Mr. S. S. Awbery: It fell before the elections.
  Captain Pilkington: No. I have given my authority and I hope it will be accepted.
  This continual talk about the local elections does not help anyone. Our duty is to do all we can to help the country and to maintain the value of our money, and I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that the best way to serve the interests of the nation at the present time is to show to the world that we are all united behind this Government in the steps which have to be taken, however unpopular they be, to set our affairs in order. I give an open invitation to hon. Members opposite to join us in the Division Lobby tonight.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I have nothing to say about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington), except that I will give him one piece of advice. and it is that if he cares to use this particular speech at Tory garden fetes during the summer months he will achieve great success—but I advise him not to use it where people have any political perspicacity. I invite him to deliver it in North Islington any time he cares to come along.
  I am going to establish a precedent in this debate; I am not going to quote from Lord Woolton. He is a political cliché and not a political figure. He has glided into the mausoleum of political antiquities along with Stanley Baldwin's pipe and Neville Chamberlain's umbrella, and we will leave him there, taking him out now and again for a little laugh.
  I have no grumble with the Conservatives for not as yet managing to fulfil the many pledges they made. No one expected them to do so, and they have only been a very few months in office, but I should have thought that by this time they would have given us some indication of their realisation of the world food position and of what their policy is to deal with it. Therefore, I listened with great interest to the speech of the Minister of Food as he blundered through his brief like a bat battling against the strong sunshine perceptive of nothing beyond the whiskers at the end of its nose. He had no clear conception of the world food situation, and he contented himself by saying, "Well, admitedly we have not sent the private enterprise dealers round the world to garner the spare harvests and we shall not be able to do it for some months. It will be some time before there is liberty of markets and before we revert to private trading."
  It is a pity that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not fortify himself by reading the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 24th April, 1950. He said:
  "This present time, when there is a glut of food in the markets of the world, affords the opportunity of regaining the economies, flexibility and conveniences of a free market such as has successfully been re-established in so many European countries."
  1728
  That is good enough, but the best plum is over the page, in the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day, when the right hon. Gentleman said, referring to the freeing of the fish markets:
  "I believe that in this and in similar matters the higgling of the market will, under healthy and improving world conditions, after a month or two"—
  I would remind the Committee of those words—
  "give the people a far better diet than all the planning of all the planners."—OFFIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1950; Vol. 474, col. 619.]
  It is now seven months that the right hon. Gentleman has been in power. His precise promise was that after a month or two not only would people enter the markets and higgle—that is an excellent Churchillian word and I like it very much —but the process would bring into existence everything that he was promising. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he was talking tommy-rot when he said that, and he is now beginning to realise some of the realities of the position, although from the speeches made from the other side of the Committee so far we gather that their knowledge of food is more gastronomic than economic.
  There have been references to the difficulties of buying food because of our balance of payments problems, but that is a ludicrous misunderstanding and misapprehension of cause and effect. One of the greatest reasons for our balance of payments difficulties is the grossly increased price of primary products in the world. Food prices have gone up in world markets because of a change in the terms of trade as between the manufacturers of goods and the primary producers, and that is why we are suffering from our balance of payments problem now. Therefore, if we are to accept the excuse given by the Minister of Food, it becomes clear that the only way he sees of getting out of his difficulties is to sit and wait for a miraculous flow of currency into our coffers, or, alternatively, to hope that world food prices will fall very severely.
  I am going to be startingly unorthodox and say that I sincerely hope that world food prices and the prices paid to the primary producers of the world do not fall catastrophically. Such an event would be politically and economically

  1729
  disastrous in the long run. We have evidence in "The Times" today to support this because rubber prices have fallen. The result is, in the words of "The Times":
  "The Malayan Government's ability to fight Communist terrorism may soon be dangerously reduced, and Indonesia is already plagued by unemployment and dissatisfied smallholders."
  A similar catastrophic decline in food prices paid to primary producers and peasant producers of the world will mean very severe economic disaster and political unrest that will provide an excellent breeding ground for Communist ideology. It is because many Governments realise this that they are underpinning farm prices. This is being done in the United States of America. Canada, New Zealand and Australia. There is no hope of a sudden fall in the world food prices which will rescue us from our difficulties. In areas where prices are not economically underpinned by Governments, that fall in prices will bring political disaster to the communities concerned.
  Another thing that we must bear in mind is the continual drift away from the land in many areas of food production in this world. It is very serious in this country, but in the primary producing areas of the world the drift is even more serious. In the United States of America in the past 10 years the rural labour force has gone down by 16 per cent. and in the last year by 6 per cent. In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden, the rural labour force has gone down by 20 per cent. in the last 10 years. In France it has gone down 23½ per cent. in the last 40 years.
  Part of this decline in manpower is compensated for by greater productivity per man, though not all of it. Although grain production is now a few per cent. above pre-war, production in fats, oils and meat is still below the pre-war figures. In big part this is due to the drift away from the land. If there were to be a reduction in the prices paid for the primary products on world markets, that drift would be accelerated.
  We have to remember that a primary producer of the world stands at the neck of the grain sack and doles out ultimately what is to be put on world markets. We can try all sorts of devices. In this country we have succeeded better than
  1730
  others by our planning by consent of the agricultural community. The Russians and the new republics of Eastern Europe have failed in their attempts to collectivise farming. France has failed in her attempts to allow a completely free market in agricultural products.
  We have to recognise, whether or not we like the political motive which inspires primary producers. that they will produce to the extent that they find economic incentive in producing. If they were so imbued with the spirit of cooperation, if they regarded the management of their land throughout all the broad acres of the world as a charge placed upon them by humanity for the sake of humanity, perhaps their reactions would not be the same.
  But we have to treat them as we find them, and, as we find the primary producer, he will plant only if he is satisfied that he will get a reasonable economic return; he will put his goods on the market only if he is satisfied that that return will be forthcoming. No amount of coercion, no amount of investigation, will do anything to prevent him from so doing. Therefore, if we allow prices to break on world markets. that will be followed by a decline in world production in the long run. So although we might have a temporary palliation of our food difficulties here for a year or so, within a short time the shortage of world production would put us back in the position we are in now.
  Further, another serious difficulty is the great difference between the amenities available in urban areas and those available in rural areas. It has caused people to drift from the land of this country. It is driving them into the towns of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America. A fall in the price of primary products would not reverse that trend. It would accelerate it, because then there would be even less for bringing amenities to the rural areas of the world in the form of electricity, gas, roads. buses, schools, and even cinemas and television sets if they want them, because I see no reason why they should not enjoy them if they want them.
  Mr. G. Jeger: And free cottages.
  Mr. Fienburgh: And not tied cottages I am not arguing that there should be a wild upswing in world prices, because

  1731
  that would have a diminishing effect on world production. If a man can produce enough to supply his normal desires out of working on two acres instead of three, he will work on two and we shall lose the product of the extra acre. I am arguing that there should be a continuance of the policy of long-term bulk contracts with the primary producing areas of the world, so as to give a reasonable and economic return to the producer and a reasonable purchasing price to the consumer.
  I am delighted that the party opposite has at last realised the economic consequence and validity of that argument. Despite all their bombast, despite all their elevation of the bulk purchase issue into a major political principle, which is what they did with it during the Election, they have turned a complete somersault. Although they have tried to argue that they have not accepted our point of view, when they look at this in the still watches of the night—when all men, even Conservative Front Benchers, are honest to themselves—they will admit that they have now accepted our arguments.
  I have continually pressed that this country should, despite our depressing economic circumstances at the moment, take the lead in the world in facing the problem of the development of the underdeveloped areas. We have the moral right to take the lead in this, even though we have not the financial backing which would help us in carrying out this task. What is needed in the world is a programme of investment. Perhaps I may give two quotations from the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Report of last year. The Report says:
  "The combined circumstances of world war damage or deterioration, gradually swelling populations, droughts, floods, continued civil disturbances, the diversion of energy to armed forces, and the unpreparedness of many nations for rapid or energetic development, have limited actual progress to much less than had been hoped."
  It says further:
  "In great regions with more than half the world's people, agriculture is largely conducted with inadequate equipment, few small tools, and scanty use of fertilisers or pesticides. Illiteracy is high, agricultural and other resources are poorly developed, and farmers are often held down by heavy taxes, rents, and interest charges."
  To that, of course, can be added antiquated and wicked systems of land
  1732
  tenure, which makes the problem more political than economic in many areas of the world.
  These are enormous problems. One of them is the slowness of return of this kind of investment. Another is to persuade people in this country—and here I reply to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)—that we must relinquish some of our standards of living if this task of world economic development is to be undertaken. Compared with these other nations, we have fat upon our bone. We should be diverting more and more of our annually increasing production to these areas of the world, knowing full well that it is not our generation ultimately—not even my generation—which will reap the reward, but, probably the generations afterwards, in terms of a higher balanced world economy and a higher world food production.
  Other political changes are needed, as I have indicated, in systems of land tenure throughout the world. We could make a good start on this by using some of our influence in Korea, in Malaya and in some other parts of the world where we have some degree of political authority. There is the problem of corruption amongst the communities we are trying to help, as the evidence of the United States assistance to the Philippines bears out. The aid which was poured into the Philippines just went down the sink in a tidal wave of corruption.
  There is the problem of helping countries overcome with nationalism—a lesson that we learnt at Abadan—but there is the problem also of the failure—and let us face it—of many of the techniques which we hoped would be successful. Some of the techniques operated by the Colonial Development Corporation have not turned out to be as successful as we would have liked. But against that there is the beginning and growing success, of the Colombo Plan; there is the success being achieved by India in raising the standards of, so far, only a few thousand out of her many millions.
  Now is the time for us to make an economic effort parallel to our defence effort. Now is the time for us to divert increased resources to this end. I plead with the Government Front Bench that if it is impossible to persuade the United States of America to go further in this way through an extension of their Point

  1733
  Four Programme, let us at least take the initiative within the Commonwealth.
  Let us convene an economic development conference of Commonwealth nations to see what a pooling of resources can do in this way. If the Conservative Government are afraid to do it, I make an appeal to the Labour Party and to their National Executive, because we have amongst the Labour Parties of Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain not only alternative Governments, but the next Governments of these three countries. Therefore, I suggest that the time is ripe now to bring together, from this side if the Government dare not do it on their side, representatives of these nations so that we can start now to plan Commonwealth economic development as a beginning to world economic development.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the whole Committee will wish me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) on the clarity with which he has put his case. I can only hope to emulate him. I do not wish to speak for hon. Members opposite who have spoken—I leave that to the Parliamentary Secretary—but as far as my hon. Friends are concerned, they have made articulate what a vast number of people are thinking and feeling.
  The strong reaction against the Government—virtually a notice to quit—expressed by the people during the local government elections largely depends upon four factors.
  Firstly, the Government have broken promises like pie crusts. Promises so recently and so boastfully made are now cynically disregarded. Secondly, the Government are finding it extremely hard to persuade many people, many of their own supporters, of these difficulties, the very existence of which they so persistently and for so long denied and derided. Thirdly, I think that a large number of people are shocked and alarmed—particularly in view of the lessons we thought we had all learned from the past decade—to find that the present Government already, so early in its life, are reverting to the Toryism of the 1930s. Finally, in some fields of administration the Government have displayed intolerable incompetence.
  1734
  All these four qualities are combined in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Food to such an excess as to be almost wanton. He started off behind a smoke-screen. When, for the first time, we were refused Christmas bonuses, he said:
  "I could only distribute what was there."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 976.]
  and the cupboard was bare. When we held the debate on the bonuses that smoke-screen vanished, like the morning mist, and left only the Minister bare and naked and, I hope, ashamed. When we held the debate on the Supplementary Estimates and I pointed out that, apart from increasing our strategic stockpiles, we had doubled our trading stocks, what did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say? He said that these vast stocks were mostly acquired up to November last year. The low stocks had become vast stocks, and vast stocks mostly acquired by the Labour Government.
  What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say of the strategic stockpile? The Chancellor said:
  "We shall in some cases have to use stocks acquired for the stockpile in order to reduce the current level of imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 47.]
  It seems to me that one invaluable asset the Labour Government left for the present Government was this strong stock position. In fact, if we consider any of the cuts—sugar, butter, meat, cheese, the import cuts on unrationed foodstuffs—it is quite obvious that these have nothing at all to do with stocks but are a consequence of supply difficulties.
  Finally, we got the curious intervention, not of an overlord, but of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he spoke at Farnborough and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) said, declared that
  "the effect of the £350 million a year cut in foodstuff imports was not being felt in full because we are still living on stocks."
  A Government which six months after coming into office can still live on stocks cannot cast stones at its predecessors.
  One of the unfortunate consequences of all this is that it makes it even more difficult to accept anything that the present Government say about our food position. because this follows the breach of the undertaking which has been discussed today, that the Conservatives gave during

  1735
  the General Election about the food subsidies. I will follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), and come back to the unabridged, authorised edition of Conservative and Unionist policy, "Britain Strong and Free." The relevant part of that policy about food subsidies was, as my hon. Friend pointed out that the Conservative Party said that
  "In present circumstances, when we are facing severe financial and economic difficulties"—
  Does any hon. or right hon. Member opposite deny that that is obtaining now—
  "and while we are engaged on a full-scale attack on the cost of living"—
  Is not that what hon. Members opposite say they are engaged on now? —
  it would clearly not only be unwise but impossible to make any radical change."
  That was the relevant part of "Britain Strong and Free," and it was upon that passage that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer based what he said at North Berwick—in fact what he said on his tour throughout the two countries, that "under present circumstances, while we fight and strive to reduce the cost of living, we shall maintain the food subsidies."
  It has not proved impossible, but it certainly has proved unwise. The cut of £160 million surely is a radical change—and the Prime Minister should know what "radical "means. Surely this is a fundamental change? But as the Parliamentary Secretary has said and now the Minister has said today, in fact this is not a cut of £160 million; it is a cut of £210 million. It is no use the Minister saying, "Oh, but we are making this cut as and when compensating benefits become effective." This cut is being made now.
  We are facing substantial increases in the price of our basic elementary foodstuffs; not as a result—and this is what is novel—of an increase in world prices, but as a result of the fiscal policy of the present Government. I differ from the Minister. I do not believe we have reached the peak of world food prices. I think it would be wrong to assume that. But it is interesting that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assumes that, because the estimated cut would be a greater cut than £210 million if any allowance was being made for an increase in world prices.
  1736
  The Trades Union Congress said, with a good deal of justification, that the food subsidies "should be increased in the interests of general stability and of protecting people with small incomes." That follows what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in this House in July of last year. He said that if we could purchase stability at a moderate cost by way of food subsidies, then he would reconsider the matter.
  On the case put from the opposite benches, that appears to be the position obtaining now. It is at the very time, when he has a chance of holding economic stability so far as food prices are concerned, that the Minister chooses to slash the food subsidies. Why does he do that now? Because if prices could be held steadily throughout the next 12 months he would then find it absolutely impossible to cut the food subsidies without the people knowing what he was doing. He hoped he could cut them against a background of rising world prices so that people would not appreciate what was happening was not the effect of the increase in world prices, but the effect of the fiscal policy of the present Government.
  This, as the Trades Union Congress has pointed out, is putting an intolerable strain on trade unions, particularly those unions whose duty it is to protect people with small incomes. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the supporters of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. How can they understand that the party which went into office saying that the Socialist Government were responsible during their last term of office for an increase of 4d. a lb. in the price of bacon, can, at one stroke—the first stroke too, because there is to he a further increase—increase the price of bacon by 10d. a lb.?
  People with long memories are disturbed about this; they have not forgotten the policy of high food prices pursued by the Tory Government during the 1930's. The problem of food was the primary problem of purchasing power—
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Pearl:Relative to wages.
  Mr. Willey: No, absolutely, and not merely relative to wages, as I will show

  1737
  in a moment. They remember that the right food in the right quantity was beyond the capacity of a good number of people in this country. They remember it was the result of the policy of a Tory Government that bread prices were affected. They remember it was consequent on the policy of a Tory Government that the amount of frozen meat was reduced by quota to 65 per cent. of the meat coming in in 1931 to 1932. They remember that bacon was pegged back to the average bacon imports of 1925-30. They remember that these things reflected themselves in the price of food, and that the Imperial Economic Committee in its Report made it clear that between 1932 and 1936 there had been a substantial fall in the consumption in this country of meat, butter and cheese.
  I take another example from the "Economist" We have had a lot of talk about tea this afternoon. In 1936 the "Economist" said:
  "The unexpected increase of 2d. per pound in the import duty appears to be the main explanation of the fall of about 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom absorption of tea, during April—November. 1936, as compared with the corresponding period in 1935."
  It is against this background that we consider what the Government are doing today. Consider the first price increases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer lost no time. He announced them in his Budget speech. The first price increases consequent on the new economic policy of the Tory Government were on flour and bread. The price increase on bread was a steeper one than ever before. By this means, as the Parliamentary Secretary explained in answer to a Question I put, the Chancellor is recouping £48 million.
  In short, the household budgets of this country have to provide £48 million for this current year to buy their daily bread. The Minister talks about compensating increases. What is the Chancellor giving this year by way of family allowances? In total, he is giving £23 million. This price increase alone is taking from the pockets of the people more than twice what the Chancellor is giving by way of increased family allowances.
  Let us take the parallel with the '30s. The Food Council in 1936 reported that the poorer families of this country were spending 20 per cent. of their total expenditure on food on bread and flour, and
  1738
  a household budget inquiry then held revealed that in some cases even as much as 50 per cent. of the household expenditure went on flour, bread and potatoes alone. We have the vicious circle. Because the price of bread is put up, poor people have in turn to spend more on the bread whose price is put up.
  Then we come to meat. I am very glad that the Leader of the House is here. He said a lot about meat in the last Parliament. In June the price of meat is to be increased by 4d. I let the meat trade speak for themselves. This is what the President of the National Federation of Meat Traders said at their annual conference recently at Scarborough:
  "Another aspect of the reduction in the subsidy on meat is that the end of rationing is brought closer, not by supply meeting demand hut by the cost exceeding the consumer's purse."
  Following bread and meat, we come to the increase of 10d. in the price of tea, which is another working-class essential. On 7th April I questioned the Minister about tea. I told him what the stock position was. He denied it. What did he give to the House as the reason why he could not increase the tea ration? He said that he could not increase the tea ration because:
  "…world production is increasing very slowly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2267.]
  Two days later he announced the increase in the tea ration. I should like to know what happened to increase our stocks so drastically during those two days. I should like to know what transformed world production during those two days.
  I know that this was the fact: that the tea trade indicated that they would make things so hot for the Minister if he did not say something, because they were embarrassed by the stocks they were holding, that he made a statement two days later to the contrary effect to the one he had made before. He could increase the ration now, but he will not do it because he will not let people have tea at the cheap price. He is building up buffer stocks, and he intends to wait and see what effect the increased price has on the households buying tea. That is what he is waiting for. And if the old age pensioners who were refused the tea bonus last Christmas cannot afford to buy, then he will deration, not by supplies being adequate, because they are not yet up to

  1739
  pre-war levels, but by people not being able to buy.
  As I say, this is only the beginning of the old Toryism; a return to the '30s, but a return with a difference, and what a difference, from the picture painted by the party opposite during the Election. Then everything was going to be plentiful if we could only have a Tory Government. They spoke about the housewives bravely trying to feed their families on 2 ounces of this and 10d. of that. But the 2 ounces have become 1 ounce, and the Minister does not know whether he can maintain even the 1 ounce for the rest of the year.
  In this way and a thousand others the Tory Party created the impression that merely by abolishing controls and doing away with or limiting bulk purchase everything we wanted would be obtained. Even the "Economist" is falling out with them and losing patience with them. This is what it said last week:
  The notion that physical shortages might he overcome by making a bonfire of controls, an idea nourished by some foolish boasting from Lord Woolton, has already evaporated."
  I agree with the "Economist" in this particular. We had all this talk about bulk purchase, but the Government had been in office for six months and they have not dared to do anything about it. Why? Because the Minister knows quite well when he is in office that bulk purchase is our lifeline as far as our food supplies are concerned.
  I asked him last week to give me particulars of the bulk purchase food agreements. He did not publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT; he was too bashful. He published them in an admirable. but more obscure publication, the Ministry of Food Bulletin." Why was he so bashful? He intervened in the local government elections in the North-East. He published an article entitled "This Week's Battle for the Councils," and he hardly mentioned food. He talked about housing. Is this part of the new co-ordination? If we want a statement about housing is it to be given by the Minister of Food, or, if we want a statement about food, is it to be given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
  As I say, however, the Minister made some mention of food. He said he had
  1740
  signed the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the 15-year agreement with New Zealand. In other words, he told the people, "Vote Tory because you have a Minister who is signing bulk purchase agreements." The people, however, paid no regard to that. They said that those were the agreements which the Minister and his friends were deriding as recently as six months ago.
  When we look at that "Ministry of Food Bulletin," we find that out of 50 bulk purchase agreements, 38 are with Commonwealth countries, two with the Irish Republic, and three with Denmark, and then there are the Argentine and Uruguayan contracts. Is it not nonsense, and mischievous nonsense, to talk about tearing up bulk purchase agreements? The Minister should go to the Dominions and the Commonwealth and talk about this. These are the mainstay of Commonwealth commercial relations and the mainstay of future stability of food supplies for this country.
  I will concede, however, that the Minister is at least improving a little. When I asked him yesterday about butter, he did not suggest sending out private enterprise business executives to discover the butter. He said it was not there. And when he addressed the meat traders recently he was not very optimistic about the prospect of meat. He spoke with such lucidity that, if the Committee will allow me, I will quote the report of what he said. It is as follows:
  "Whilst there was not enough meat he (the Minister) must continue rationing and price control. While there was rationing and price control it was difficult to allow private purchase of meat but until they had private purchase of meat there was little hope of having enough meat to end rationing. If anybody had the answer to that situation he would like to know it."
  Obviously, the Minister does not know. What he is doing is what the meat traders are apprehensive about. He is lessening demand by putting some meat beyond the purse of the purchaser. He is reducing demand, but reducing demand does not improve supply. In the long run it has the opposite effect. The fundamental problem facing this country is not the reduction of demand but the improvement of supplies.
  We have reserved home production for another debate, but I will follow the Minister through the position of imported supplies. A lot has been said on the

  1741
  other side of the Committee today about tea. The position is improved. I should have mentioned, of course, that when I challenged the Minister on the second occasion about turning a somersault on the question of tea, he was quite rude to me. He said we ought to have improved the ration two years ago. He did not even know that that was exactly what we did. We increased it to 2½ ounces.
  Mr. Remnant: And reduced it again very shortly afterwards.
  Mr. Willey: We improved the ration as soon as the stock position allowed.
  I think we can say that the oils and fats position is not less satisfactory than it was last year, and it is interesting to see that we have had a very substantial import of lard which will be helping us out. But I presume that that is coming from dollar sources, though the impression has been created that it is quite impossible to obtain food from dollar sources when we want cheese.
  I am very intrigued with the sugar position. In the first three months of this year we have imported considerably more sugar than we did last year, and last year we imported considerably more than in 1950. In fact, in the last three months we have imported twice as much dollar sugar as in the preceding year. Exports of refined sugar, however, have fallen very heavily indeed. The exports for March are only half of what they were 12 months ago. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an explanation, because if we have sugar here, for whatever purpose, I do not think we can afford to allow our fruit to go to waste.
  To turn to livestock products, the Minister himself apparently realises now that we are facing very great difficulties. He has not suggested sending out any private buyers and he realises that that would not alter the position. Imports of meat this year are far less than they were in 1950. It is very doubtful whether the Australians will be able to help us this year. I disagree with the Minister about the Argentine. I agree with the Food and Agricultural Organisation's report which says there is every reason to believe that the present downward trend of meat exports from the Argentine will continue.
  As the Minister said, the prospect for bacon is that we shall have less imports this year; and in butter and cheese we
  1742
  face a grim prospect indeed. Perhaps it would be worth while, for the record, if the Committee knew that we only had once before a one ounce ration of cheese, which the Minister is now doubtful whether he can maintain. We had a one ounce ration when Lord Woolton was the Minister and the present Minister was his Parliamentary Secretary. They are the only two who have ever shown the organising genius to distribute a one ounce ration of cheese. All this, as we are bound commonly to appreciate now, is the result of currency difficulties and the result of absolute world food shortages.
  Brigadier Clarke: And six years of Socialism.
  Mr. Willey: But, in this situation, what could be more mischievous than all this talk that all that was necessary was to send private buyers abroad—businessmen to comb the world? The Government have been in office six months and have not yet sent abroad a single businessman to start combing. I appeal to the Government publicly to renounce these past mischiefs because, unless they do, they will not get the public to appreciate their present difficulties.
  I appeal to the Government to think again of what they are doing, because the tremendous effort of the people of this country, to which the Parliamentary Secretary has often referred, depended very largely—not only since 1945, but during the war—on the recognition by the people of this country of the validity of the principle of fair shares.
  I call upon the Chancellor and the Minister to reflect again upon their present policy of slashing the food subsidies. Nothing has more profoundly disturbed the trade union movement. I think the Chancellor could make an appeal to all of us to play our part in trying to get economic stability if he would do his part by announcing immediately a standstill in the cuts in the food subsidies. He has got an opportunity. He said in the Budget debate that he was going to make cuts on a host of other things—not only the cuts I have mentioned. If he will say he will not continue pursuing his present fiscal policy, I think he will get better results from the people of this country.
  Finally, let me make a more general appeal. I join with my hon. Friend the

  1743
  Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and ask everyone to pay regard to the position in the world. This moment, as my hon. Friend said, 15 nations are threatened by the greatest invasion of locusts known within living memory, but aeroplanes have gone out from Britain, from the United States and from Soviet Russia to fight them. In a troubled and divided world this may seem something of very little significance and very little importance, but, as the Food and Agriculture Organisation has said in their appeal, three-quarters of the world cannot live in safety while a quarter is starving to death. I hope that our legitimate concern with our own welfare will not blind us to this stark reality.
  This great problem will not be solved by sending out businessmen to comb the world. It demands constructive statesmanship, and I believe that the tragedy of all this is that it is in the very process of seeking a solution to our domestic problems, about which we. unfortunately, differ—it is in the process of seeking a solution to our domestic problems that we may find world peace, because fair shares is not only something that means a lot to the people of this country, but is something which means a lot to the peoples of the world, and if we were consciously and deliberately to try to evoke the principle of fair shares not only at home but abroad, we might seize the slender opportunity—but an opportunity none the less—of world peace.
  9.29 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): Whatever one may think about the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), we can at least begin on a note of agreement. This country's participation in the agencies of the United Nations, F.A.O. included, is an expression—and, in the view of many people, a vigorous expression—of our recognition of the world food situation in relation to the world demand for food. We have shown willingness to place at the disposal of that organisation the 'expert 'nutritional and other resources which this country can make available.
  The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), took, if he will not think me
  1744
  presumptuous for saying so, a serious and reasoned line, and based his argument substantially on the world shortage of food, the steps which that demanded, and the steps in the procurement of food which it inhibited. Latterly, and particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, we passed to the food subsidies. I think the Committee would wish me, in replying to this debate, started on so serious a line, to seek to get to grips with those two main problems—the problem of the procurement of food in a world suffering such shortage as the right hon. Gentleman described, and secondly, the question of the subsidy policy and its effect on this country.
  But before I turn to those two main issues upon which I should like to concentrate my remarks, let me refer to some of the more detailed points which were raised in the debate. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) was in an unusually challenging mood. She challenged the arithmetic of my right hon. Friend when he said, as he confessed, on the basis of calculations done for him, that regardless of the rise in the price of meat to which he referred there will be an increase in the meat ration of approximately 2d. The mathematics of this is that at existing prices the increase is 1.88d., but at the new prices it is slightly over 2d. She also made reference to the increased prices of cheese and bacon, as did other hon. Members, as something happening outside the Budget exercise.
  I would refer the hon. Lady to the fact that those two increases, with the increase in the price of milk, were not part of the Budget exercise which the Chancellor described, but were necessary for the reason that when this Government entered office it found the level of subsidies running, not at £410 million, but at £430 million; and they had been running at about £430 million for approximately five months. If the Government were to sustain the £410 million subsidy level, they had no alternative but to find £20 million, from such increases as seemed appropriate, in the last three months of the financial year.
  Mrs. Mann: The right hon. Gentleman said that in two years the Labour Party had increased the price of butter by Is. 2d.—a statement afterwards found to he incorrect. Surely the hon. Gentleman

  1745
  will agree that it was doing it pretty quickly to put 10d. on the price of cheese in two months?
  Dr. Hill: It was doing it pretty quickly, but as the preceding Government had allowed that increase of £20 million over the subsidy level of £410 million to stand for five months before 1st November last —[Interruption.] I shall be happy to develop my argument, given the necessary silence for the purpose. As to the hon. Lady's retort about butter and the increase which my right hon. Friend said had taken place in just over two years, I shall be dealing with that a little later, and I shall demonstrate that the statement of my right hon. Friend was an accurate one.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) challenged the validity of the calculation made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the increase involved by the subsidy exercise in all its parts would be 1s. 6d. per week per ration book holder. Let me say that that remains the estimate of the Government, and nothing has happened to vary it.>lb/>
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) raised the question of releasing pork from control. I would say to him that that possibility is under consideration. [Interruption.] Surely my right hon. Friend should consider all the implications of this matter. But there are substantial difficulties, as everyone knows; and not only those referred to in the debate. There is, of course, the difficulty of the supply—for great though the increase in the pig population has been, there is still a shortfall.
  There is the difficulty, as has been properly emphasised by the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central, and others, in the whole of this field, of meeting the commitment into which we have entered and about which there is no difference between the two sides of the Committee —the commitment to give guaranteed prices to the farmers. I concede the point made by the right hon. Gentleman straight away: a good deal of hard thinking will need to be done about other ways of securing this same end before a substantial change can be made in the character of trade.
  Reference was made to eggs and to sugar, but I think I should, owing to shortness
  1746
  of time, make reference rather to a very important issue which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland)—the problem of the Icelandic fisheries. The reply to the representations of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has only just been received—in fact, I think it was received today—and it is being studied. This is an exceedingly difficult situation. The action of the Icelandic Government arises, as they believe, out of the decision of The Hague Court on the problem of Norway. In that difficult situation I would ask my hon. Friend not to press the matter further now, but to accept my statement that very careful consideration is being given to the reply, the study of which should precede, I suggest, any further discussion.
  I now come to the main issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I suggest that I should be allowed seriously to consider this matter, which was seriously put. The argument which he put to the Committee could be summarised in this way: the world is short of food: private enterprise can do nothing about it.
  Mr. Webb: No.
  Dr. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman said that for private enterprise to compete for that insufficient supply of food would of itself raise prices without securing an increase in world supplies. He said that in his approach to the problem he was not doctrinaire. In fact, he accused my right hon. and gallant Friend of the doctrinaire attitude.
  About the general issue of Government bulk buying which is the issue to which I wish to come; clearly there are arguments in favour of bulk buying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—in certain circumstances, such as the circumstances of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I suggest that hon. Members, who have heard the other side with courtesy and silence, should listen to the argument which I wish seriously to put to them.
  It is clear that a case can be put forward for bulk agreements where they implement undertakings entered into, say, between allies, and that a case can be put forward for such agreements where the basis is that of Commonwealth relations or trading with the Colonies. But the

  1747
  argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that in circumstances of insufficiency of food in the world in general the method of bulk purchase is appropriate and indeed, the only way.
  Mr. Jack Jones rose—
  Dr. Hill: No, I cannot give way. I hope the Committee will give me the consideration of hearing the arguments put forward. The one factor which the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of or did not include in the argument he put to the Committee was that all too often in bulk purchase agreements there is a price effect which acts as a positive disincentive to future production.
  Let me elaborate the point. A good deal has been said about the possibility of bulk purchase leading to international friction. Much has been said about the loss in skills that it involves.
  Mr. Follick rose—
  Dr. Hill: I cannot give way. Much has been said, rightly, about the loss of quality that it involves. But I suggest that if there is an argument of even greater importance it is that where the price in such contracts or long-term arrangements is out of touch with reality in the form of the world price, and where such money is not going to the producer but is siphoned off for other non-food purposes in the process of payment, the bulk purchase arrangement in the end has a discouraging and disincentive effect on the food producers of the world and is harmful to the people of this country.
  Even so, where contracts are entered into, it is all too common for subsequent agreement to be reached on increased prices. Consider what happened under the bulk purchase arrangements with the Argentine in the last five years: 378,000 tons of meat were received by us in 1947; 280,000 tons were received in 1948; there was a slight increase to 294,000 tons in 1949: we received 236,000 tons in 1950; and we received 87,000 tons in 1951. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] Bulk purchase as we have seen it, while justified on certain grounds and in certain circumstances, has been accompanied, in the case of this principal exporting country over the last five years by a steady decrease in the amount of meat.[Interruption.]
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I hope the Committee will give the Parliamentary Secretary a hearing.
  Mr. Manuel rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman well knows that if the Parliamentary Secretary does not give way, he is not entitled to speak.
  Mr. Manuel: I have been treating the Parliamentary Secretary very kindly.
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Member has been here for a very small part of the day and I do not propose to give way to him.
  New Zealand—I say it without political implication—has set out to serve the needs of this country and has succeeded in so doing; which is something for which the whole country should be grateful.
  Mr. Jack Jones: A long-term agreement.
  Dr. Hill: In the case of the agreements which have been entered into with New Zealand and Australia on meat and with the Commonwealth on sugar, there is in each case a clear clause contemplating the possibility of a return to private trading, that return not being inconsistent with those agreements.
  May I pass to the question on which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, laid great stress, the problem of the subsidy—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about cheese?"] Since it is desired that I should say something about cheese, let the position be simply put. Last year this country imported from dollar sources 47,000 tons of cheese, an amount sufficient to maintain a 1-oz. ration for two-thirds of the year. This country is unable to afford the dollars for North American cheese this year. That is the reason for the cut in the cheese ration.
  Let me come to the Budget exercise. I have referred to the fact that when the new Government entered upon office they found the subsidy outgoings running at some £20 million above the level of £410 million. Subsequently, as the Committee well know, the Chancellor estimated that when further cost increases were taken into account subsidies would be running at the order of £50 million a year over the ceiling of £410 million. In his Budget statement my right hon. Friend contemplated, first, a reduction from £410 million

  1749
  to £250 million, and secondly, an expansion of the exercise to bring in a sum of the order of £50 million by which the subsidies were running over the £410 million level.
  There are, I suppose it can be said, two philosophies behind the food subsidy position. On the one hand, there is the attitude that the subsidy should be so arranged as to ensure that the neediest member of the community can buy the food he needs at fixed prices and, having decided that level, to subsidise everyone equally, whatever his means. The previous Government did not adopt that extreme principle for, as my right hon. Friend demonstrated today, in the rather more than two years from 1st April, 1949, to 31st July, 1951, the price level in this country went up by £250 million a year. Let the Committee remind themselves that the figure includes not only the changes in subsidy level but the increased prices throughout that period.
  The only compensating advantages for that rise in the cost of food were the changes in National Assistance rates, amounting in total to £28 million and the increase in retirement pensions last year, amounting to £33 million. In other, words the background against which to examine what Her Majesty's Government have done and the test by which to judge the sincerity of what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say, is the history of the last two years.
  The other approach to this problem is to make sure by a policy of social benefits that no one is prevented from buying his needs in food and, subject to this, to leave people to spend their own money wisely or foolishly as they may decide. That means that, subject to a fair and successful system of social benefit payments, people should pay what food costs and know what it costs, and spend their money on necessities or luxuries as they may desire.
  If we examine the Budget picture as a whole, we find that whereas, by the Chancellor's action, the level of food subsidies has been lowered by £160 million in a full year the gains to the people, including social benefits and Income Tax reliefs—[Interruption.] I know that hon.
  Gentlemen do not like this, but the gains to the people of this country amount to £308 million a year.
  Mr. R. T. Paget rose—
  Dr. Hill: The technique of hon. Gentlemen opposite—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope the tone of this debate will be kept up to the end and that the hon. Gentleman will be heard to the end.
  Dr. Hill: It is good to see the vigour of so many hon. Members who have not been here during the course of the debate.
  Miss Herbison rose—
  Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady persistently declined to give way throughout her speech.
  Miss Herbison: I did not.
  Dr. Hill: Despite the jeers of hon. Members opposite, and admitting that there may be much discussion as to the distribution of the reliefs which make up the total of £308 million, the plain fact remains, unwelcome though it is to hon. Members opposite, that on balance £160 million was added to the cost of food and £308 million returned to the people of this country.
  Mr. Hamilton: Eightpence for four-pence.
  Dr. Hill: Finally, much has been said in the course of the debate to suggest that our balance of payments difficulties have little or nothing to do with our food position today. May I give some examples of the additional foods which would be available if we had the currency? Sugar, oils and fats—[Interruption.] The attempts of hon. Members to secure that my remarks will not be heard are fruitless. Sugar, oils and fats, cheese, meat, bacon, dried fruit, canned salmon; all are available in the world if we had the currency to buy them.
  The Opposition are seeking to exploit the inevitable consequences of the measures to deal with the inheritance they left. The very existence of the crisis is denied for their purposes. In other words, the Opposition are seeking to separate cause and effect, and so to turn the inevitable hurts of our struggle for solvency into the festering sores of party strife.
  Mr. Webb: The Government have been completely out-argued throughout this debate.

  1751
  I beg to move, "That Item Class IX, Vote 7, Ministry of Food, be reduced by £5."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 268.

  Division No. 135.)

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Paget, R. T.

  Albu, A. H

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Pannell, Charles

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Hall, Rt. Hon, Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Parker, J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Peart, T. F.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hannan, W.

  Porter, G.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Hardy, E A.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hargreaves, A.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

  Baird, J.

  Hastings, S.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Balfour, A.

  Hayman, E H.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bartley, P.

  Healey, Dennis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J

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

  Richards, R.

  Bence, C. R.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hobson, C. R

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Benson, G.

  Holman, P.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Beswick, F.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bevan, Rtfl Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Ross, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Royle, C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Boardman, H.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green>

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A.

  Short, E. W.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Janner, B.

  Shurmar, P. L. E

  Bowles, F. G.

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

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Simmons, C.J. (Brierley Hill)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Slater, J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Snow, J. W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Jones, T. W (Merioneth)

  Sorensen, R W.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

  Castle, Mrs B. A

  Kenyon, C.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Chapman, W. D.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Clunie, J.

  Kinley, J.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Coldrick, W.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Sylvester, G O.

  Collick, P H.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Crosland, C. A R.

  Lipton, Lt.- Col. M.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Danies, P.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McLeavy, F.

  Tomney, F.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Deer, G.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Viant, S. P.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wallace, H W.

  Dodds, N. N.

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

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

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Weitzman, D.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Edelman, M.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Messer, F.

  Wigg, George

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Ewart, R.

  Monslow, W.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Moddy, A. S.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Morley, R.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Follick, M

  Moyle, A.

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

  Foot, M. M

  Mulley, F. W.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Murray, J. D.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Nally, W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Glanville, James

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

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Yates, V. F.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Oliver, G. H

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Grey, C. F.

  Orbach, M.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oswald, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Padley, W. E

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marples, A. E.

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

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Alport, C. J M.

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Godber, J B.

  Maude, Angus

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Gough, C F. H.

  Maudling, R.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gower, H. R.

  Maydon, Lt.-;Cmdr, S. L. C

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Mellor, Sir John

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

  Grimond, J.

  Molson, A. H. E

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

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J M

  Hare, Hon J. H.

  Nabarro, G D. N

  Baldwin, A. E

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Banks, Col. C.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Harrison, Col. Harwood (Eye)

  Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)

  Barlow, Sir John

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

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Noble, Cmdr A. H P

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Nugent, G R H

  Beamish, Maj. Tuften

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Nutting, Anthony

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Heath, Edward

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Higgs, J. M C.

  Odey, G. W

  Bennett, F M. (Reading, N.)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W D.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Birch, Nigel

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Orr-Ewing Charles Ian (Hendon, N)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Osborne, C.

  Black, C. W.

  Hope, Lord John

  Partridge, E.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Horobin, I. M

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Brain, B. R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Pilkington, Capt R. A

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Pitman, I. J.

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

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H

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

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr N. J

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

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

  Hurd, A. R

  Profumo, J. D

  Bullard, D G.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (IIford, N.)

  Raikes, H. V

  Bullock, Capt. M.

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

  Rayner, Brig R

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Redmayne, E.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

  Renton, D. L. M

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

  Jenkins, R. C. D (Dulwich)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Jennings, R.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Channon, H.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Kaberry, D.

  Russell, R. S.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Cole, Norman

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Colegate, W A.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Conant, Maj R. J. E

  Lambton, Viscount

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert

  Lancaster, Col, C. G.

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

  Cooper-Key. E M

  Longford-Holt, J. A

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Scott, R. Donald

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

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.

  Crouch, R.F.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Shepherd, William

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

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

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Smiles, Lt-Col. Sir Walter

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)

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

  Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)

  Davidson, Viscountees

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Speir, R. M

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S W)

  Stanley, Capt Hon. Richard

  Donner, P. W

  Low, A. R. W.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Doughty, C. J A

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)

  Drayson, G B.

  Lucas, P B. (Brentford)

  Steward, Henderson (Fite, E)

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A L

  McAdden, S. J.

  Storey, S.

  Duthie, W. S.

  McCorquodale, Rt Hon. M. S.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight).

  Studholme. H. G.

  Fell, A.

  McKibbin, A.J.

  Summers, G. S

  Finlay, Graeme

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  MacLeod, Rt. Hon Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Teeling, W.

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarly)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

  Fort, R.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Thornecroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Foster, John

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

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Fraser, Hon Hugh (Stone)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir Reginald

  Tilney, John

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecombe & Lonsdale)

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Turner, H. F. L

  Gage, C. H.

  Marlowe. A A H

  Turton. R. H.

  1754

  1755

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Waterhouse, Capt, Rt. Hon. C

  Wills, G.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Watkinson, H.A.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Wakefield, Edward, (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wellwood, W.

  York, C.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Brigadier Mackeson and Mr. Drewe

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS, CARDIFF
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Redmayne.]
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: The question I wish to raise tonight is entirely a constituency matter, but I know that the House will appreciate that from time to time constituency matters have to take priority in the attention of hon. Members.
  On Thursday, 8th May, I addressed a series of Questions to the Minister of Health concerning the hospital service in Cardiff and I received written replies in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary, who I am glad to see in the Chamber after her, I trust, happy visit to the Principality today and yesterday.
  The Questions I addressed to the Minister asked the number of people on the admission waiting lists of the Cardiff Royal Infirmary, St. David's Hospital and the Llandough Hospital respectively. The hon. Lady replied that the numbers are 1,863, 161 and 1,318 respectively. That gives us a total of 3,342. But neither the Questions nor the answers gives the full picture of the waiting list for the Cardiff hospitals; for my figures of the actual list for the Royal Infirmary and the Llandough Hospital amount to nearly 6,000 people on 31st March last—5,688 —and this is without counting St. David's Hospital.
  The apparent serious discrepancy between the reply of the Minister to me and the figures which I have just quoted can easily be explained, because both sets of figures are correct. But the larger
  1756
  total includes those people on the waiting list who are not resident in Cardiff. The essential fact, which I trust will be in common agreement between us, is that there is a disturbingly long waiting list for admission to the Cardiff hospitals and there is consequently a correspondingly long waiting period which everyone deplores, and which serves only to aggravate the complaints from which these unfortunate people are suffering. It is because of this long delay that I have sought this Adjournment debate tonight.
  Since the operation of the National Health Service Act, Cardiff has been recognised as the teaching centre for the whole of Wales. I concede at once that it is a good thing for the Principality to have a teaching centre of this sort. We are very proud that the Cardiff hospitals were selected for this purpose. Both the Royal Infirmary and the Llandough Hospital are hospitals of which we are proud. But the Llandough Hospital, as the Minister will know since her visit there yesterday, is one of the finest in Great Britain. I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister went out of her way yesterday, so I am informed, to visit Llandough herself and to see the place about which I want to speak.
  Both the Cardiff Royal Infirmary and the Llandough Hospital are required to accept patients from a wide area outside the City of Cardiff. Before the introduction of the National Health Service, the Llandough Hospital was under the control of our local authority and, therefore, catered in the main for citizens of Cardiff and district. It is abundantly clear that although the new arrangement serves Wales as a whole well—and South Wales very well—Cardiff citizens are at a serious disadvantage compared with their previous position.
  Our largest general hospital is St. David's, a well-organised and well-conducted hospital of which we are very proud. But it has its own problems to which I shall refer briefly. It is crystal clear that more hospital beds must be

  1757
  made available in Cardiff. The Board of Governors, who I believe are appointed by the Minister, for the United Cardiff Hospitals have recognised this need for more beds and have submitted to the Ministry a scheme for a new teaching centre at the Heath, Cardiff. But for all practical purposes, I believe that this hospital is not a likely proposition for many years.
  I asked a Question about it last week. I asked the Minister when building was likely to begin on the new hospital. The hon. Lady, in a written reply, was kind enough to say that she had nothing to add to what the Minister told me on 15th November last. I looked up that reply and I found that the Minister told me then that he was not in a position to tell me anything. Therefore, the prospects for this hospital are, I suggest, very remote. It will cost something in the region of £5 million. The only grant which has been forthcoming towards it this year has been a grant for boring purposes.
  The plans have yet to be agreed upon, and then they will have to be submitted for approval before we can talk about building. Indeed, the hon. Lady's Department has imposed a cut of £12,000 this year on the estimated ordinary capital expenditure for hospitals in the Cardiff area. We are most anxious to have this new teaching hospital. We need it, but our need for beds is too urgent to allow us to wait for that hospital.
  Fortunately, there is a ready solution to our difficulty. The Llandough Hospital, with which the hon. Lady is now familiar, is capable of expansion for the very purposes we have in mind. It has the necessary land, the boiler house, the kitchen and the administrative block for between 800 and 900 beds, and it could help us within a few months to reduce substantially the waiting list at our hospitals. I earnestly hope that the Minister will realise that it is imperative that Llandough should not be wasted as it is at present. It is a magnificent hospital with about 350 beds in use at the present time. We could have 900 beds there. The land is there and all the facilities are available if permission could be obtained to get on with the building. Delay is a false economy which can only be practised at the expense of human suffering.
  There are two other issues to which I want briefly to refer because they are
  1758
  complementary to the main issue of the waiting list. The first is accommodation for the chronic sick and infirm in our city. We are very proud of our homes—I hardly know the term we should apply; "hostels" is a cold meaning word—that we have for our old people, but the chronic sick and infirm who ought to be in hospital are increasing in number in our city.
  The hospital which has been used is St. David's Hospital, which is in the very heart of my constituency. I am very proud of St. David's because of the service and the spirit of everyone connected with it. But the wards in St. David's are continually being taken away from the use for the chronic sick and infirm and are being used for other purposes. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to assure me that steps are being taken to ensure adequate and proper accommodation for this special category in our community, because the old folk have a very special claim upon us.
  My last point is, of course, likely to be a little more controversial, though I trust not. The consultants seem to have a priority in obtaining admission for their patients to the Cardiff Royal Infirmary. I addressed a Question to the Minister last week on this subject, and she said —I do not really blame her; I can quite understand her giving such a reply—that if I would let her have examples she would inquire into the matter.
  I ask the hon. Lady tonight if she will inquire of the Board of Governors how many beds have been allocated to consultants for their patients during the past 12 months. I know of instances where people have paid their three guineas in order to jump the queue and to get into hospital. One cannot blame them for doing that if they have the money and if there is a chance of getting in quicker. I know people who are very reluctant to let their names be used, but it is not fair to those who on principle refuse to pay the fee in order to see the specialist first or to those who cannot afford the three guineas. It is morally wrong.
  I have sought in this debate to deal with urgent issues of very real concern to Cardiff citizens. I have not sought, deliberately at least, to gild the lily or to overstate the case. Indeed, I have tried to be guilty of English understatement, which is not easy for a Welshman. But I do urge the Minister to give

  1759
  some sign when she stands at the Box that she not only appreciates the gravity of our problem in Cardiff, but is going to show real initiative in tackling this problem.
  We are a very patient people in Wales when we think that justice is being done, but if we see signs of slackness or lack of interest, then impatience is our virtue. I trust it will not be necessary for us ever to show that particular quality towards the hon. Lady and I ask her to do her utmost to see that Llandough Hospital is extended and the extra provisions made available.
  10.25 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): It is by a happy coincidence that I have just had two days in the Principality, and in Cardiff, and have been able to see some of the hospitals about which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has spoken with such great knowledge and feeling. I would say, and I am sure he would agree with me, that when the National Health Service Act came into operation in 1948, Wales was woefully short of hospital accommodation and there was a very substantial leeway to be made up. I think it is fair to say that not only has the Principality had its fair share of the general moneys, but that each successive year an effort has been made to make up, within the financial limitations imposed upon us, some part of that leeway.
  The hon. Member will be aware that already that effort to make up some of the leeway is reflected in three projects which are already in operation—the new maternity home which is to cost £400,000 and provide 80 beds, the new orthopaedic hospital which is to cost £500,000 and provide 240 beds—and one of the longest waiting lists is for orthopaedic cases—and also the conversion of an infectious diseases hospital into an ear, nose and throat hospital, which provides 52 beds for children and is now in commission. These are evidence that the Principality is having a fair crack of the whip within the limitations imposed upon us.
  I should like to deal in detail with the new hospitals mentioned—the proposed new teaching hospital and also the Llandough hospital. I had the great
  1760
  pleasure of being shown round that hospital only yesterday. The hon. Member would be the first to challenge my Department if we were to override the decision come to by the Welsh Board of Governors or the Welsh Regional Board in Wales.
  I know that the proposed new teaching hospital has been the subject of great discussion and argument within the Principality amongst those who feel that 'there are very great difficulties about the expansion of Llandough Hospital and that it will not fully meet their desires for a new teaching hospital; and among those who think that a little in hand quickly is better than a larger prospect in the future. But I think it is fair to say that the decision has been made by the authorities within the Principality, and my Ministry are supporting the decision so made on the spot.
  Mr. G. Thomas: I intervene only to ask if the hon. Lady is aware that the Board of Management or Board of Governors really want two things. I am asking that if she cannot give them the larger, will she please give them the smaller?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The decision has been made, as I said, and every second person I spoke to—and I spoke to several hundreds in the last two days—put forward one point of view or the other, so I am pretty well apprised of the discussion on both sides. The new teaching hospital is a project which has majority support in Wales. A site of 50 acres has been taken for it and surveyed, and it is proposed to build there a hospital of 800 beds.
  Representatives of United Cardiff Hospitals, the University of Wales, the Welsh National School of Medicine and the Welsh Hospital Regional Board are already working on the project. It is a lengthy and intricate task. It will cost approximately £5 million, and the Principality want it to be the best in existence when it is finished. They are preparing a schedule of accommodation, because they have decided that there shall be an architectural competition, and there is not inconsiderable discussion locally on what must be included in this project. Final decisions which will form the basis for competition are expected to be ready probably at the end of the year.

  1761
  Again I say that this is the decision of the authorities in the Principality, and the hon. Gentleman would be the first to challenge me if we made any effort in the Department to override it. It will probably mean that it will be two years before building could be started, but the planning of this great scheme, which is a very large and very intricate one, is at the present time proceeding without any restraint, without any restriction. There has been no halt in all this, and, in fact, we have provided the permission for which they asked this year to allow them to go ahead with planning the architectural competition, and there has been a grant of £10,000 which, I was assured, would not all be spent this year.
  So there is no restraint whatsoever on the progress being made by the Welsh authorities on this great undertaking. We hope that after the plan of the planning authority has been accepted, and after the skilled and fortunate architect has submitted the winning plan; that after probably a two—year stage—and this will not be for probably at least another two years—when we hope happier economic conditions will prevail, that the building of this great project will be able to go forward.
  As for the Llandough Hospital, which, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, is a very fine and spacious hospital, there are at the moment 328 beds used. I understand that the Cardiff Corporation originally intended it should have 600 beds. The main services are there—water, and vast and very fine kitchens, which I had the pleasure of seeing yesterday.
  I do appreciate that there is a solid body of opinion amongst those who are on the Board of Governors that they would like to see that extension go forward immediately, and I feel that the hon. Gentleman shares their views, but the decision not to extend this hospital and to make this hospital into the teaching hospital for Wales is a local one, which has been threshed out and decided by the authorities of Wales, and it has been made in the light of the evidence available to them and of those who serve medicine in Wales. One of the greatest disabilities is, I believe, its inaccessibility. It is not as accessible as the new site in Cardiff and the argument against this development of Llandough is that the Welsh Planning Authority has
  1762
  limited capital resources at is disposal, which can be used to better advantage elsewhere.
  I come to the question of the chronic sick. Hon. Members will be aware that in many cases relatives today are less inclined to continue looking after very old people. In some cases it is due to shortage of housing accommodation, which makes it impossible for them. One of our greatest difficulties, not only in Wales but throughout the country, is that once an old person is admitted, even if his health is partially restored, it is very difficult to get him out again and into somebody's home. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, great work is being done at St. David's where there are 246 beds and where there is a waiting list
  of 140—
  Mr. Thomas: Sick and infirm?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, chronic sick. There is a waiting list of 140 chronic sick. The turnover is lamentably slow, and, once a patient is admitted, even if he is restored partially to health, it is difficult to get him out again. I should like to congratulate Cardiff Corporation and Glamorgan County Council on the tremendous work they are doing in the home help service and in the nursing, and also in their old people's homes. I had the pleasure of visiting one of the homes at Dinas Powys yesterday afternoon. I should like to congratulate them and all those who are concerned with the care of the aged in the Principality. They are alive as we are alive to the great problem, which is one common to the country as a whole, that, with an increasing aged population, there is more reluctance on the part of young people to look after their elderly parents. It is a problem which is felt in every area, and not only in the Principality.
  I should like to come to a more controversial topic, which the hon. Gentleman raised. I discussed this matter yesterday with officers and members of the Board of Health, the Regional Hospital Board and the Hospital Management Committee and Board of Governors. The implication is a very serious and very grave one indeed. The implication is that, through the medium of private consultation, specialists are allowing such persons as may pay them a fee to jump the queue. Hon. Members will be in no doubt of the gravity of this charge, and

  1763
  they will also be conscious of the fact that no layman can properly judge whether or not one patient is more chronic than another.
  Mr. Albert Roberts: Should the decision not be for the management committee?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. The decision as to whether or not a patient has priority in sickness must be one for the specialist. It would be quite wrong if a layman, a member of a committee, or a Member of Parliament, assumed to himself the right to choose above a medical decision who had priority to go into hospital. The priority must be judged on the medical health and urgency of the patient, and that decision can only be made by the qualified specialist.
  The officers and members of the Welsh Board of Health and of the Hospital Board to whom I spoke are convinced that the strictest impartiality is maintained in admissions to the Cardiff Royal Infirmary and the Llandough Hospital, and they categorically refute any suggestion that there is queue jumping. But if the hon. Gentleman can produce any evidence I can assure him that I will be quite ruthless in having it investigated.
  I am sure he will agree with me, however, that it would be very wrong if this grave charge went out against specialists who are doing magnificent work in the hospitals in Cardiff. We must realise that there will be occasions when private patients will be more seriously ill than others who have been waiting. With long waiting lists for many ailments in the Principality, it is inevitable that people will get disgruntled and disheartened because they have not been admitted as early as they would wish to be.
  I must say again that the decision must rest with the specialist. He is the only person who knows the beds available in the hospital, and has the case papers of all the patients before him. If I may say so with respect—and we are all guilty of it—hon. Members sometimes write very vehement letters about patients.
  Mr. Thomas: I have written to hospitals. I plead guilty at once.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I would remind hon. Gentlemen that they see only the cases that are brought to their attention. They do not know all the cases on the
  1764
  waiting list, and they have not the specialist knowledge by which they can judge. We must rely on the specialist's knowledge to choose those in any section or group of patients who are the main priority case. Irrespective of the circumstances of any consultation it must be for the specialists in the medical profession to determine the relative urgency of patients who need admission. No layman, not even an ordinary doctor, is able to do it.
  If the work of these specialists is to be challenged—and I think it will be generally accepted by all that only they can make the decision—then it must be substantiated with evidence. We must be sure before we spread a charge as grave as this—and it is a very grave reflection indeed upon the consultant service—we must be sure that we have our evidence, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be only too happy and ready to look into any case he likes to bring before me.
  Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Lady help these people to be examined by a specialist free of charge, and then see how many of them go in?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: If people chose to go to a private doctor rather than an ordinary National Health Service doctor they are at liberty to do so. I repeat, it is a very grave charge indeed that the hon. Gentleman is levelling.
  Mr. A. Roberts: Does the hon. Lady agree that there will be an administrative officer who will play a part in the admission of patients?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, I do, but the medical decision must lie with the specialist. I took great pains to discuss this matter with members of the Welsh Regional Board, and Board of Governors and others, and if the hon. Gentleman has evidence I shall be happy to investigate it; but until I have that evidence, in fairness to those- who are doing this great work in Wales, under great difficulty because of shortage of beds, until we can prove that there is this queue jumping, we should not lay as grave a charge on these men who are doing such fine work.
  Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Lady get the figures I ask for?
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Situation (Brochure)
  Economic Situation (Brochure)
  Savings Certificates (Value)
  Savings Certificates (Value)
  Death Duties (Private Companies)
  Death Duties (Private Companies)
  Cost of Living (Assistance)
  Cost of Living (Assistance)
  Investitures (Allowances)
  Investitures (Allowances)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS(STAFF REDUCTIONS)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS(STAFF REDUCTIONS)
AGRICULTURE
  Pig Clubs (Feedingstuffs)
  Pig Clubs (Feedingstuffs)
  Marginal Land
  Marginal Land
  Sera and Vaccines (Standards)
  Sera and Vaccines (Standards)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Agriculture Act, 1947
  Agriculture Act, 1947
  Cottage Certificate, Essex
  Cottage Certificate, Essex
  Farms, Edingale, Staffordshire
  Farms, Edingale, Staffordshire
  Feedingstuffs (Anti-biotics)
  Feedingstuffs (Anti-biotics)
  Ellbridge Horticultural Station
  Ellbridge Horticultural Station
  Co-operative Grass-Drying Scheme, Romsey
  Co-operative Grass-Drying Scheme, Romsey
  Domestic Poultry-Keepers' Council
  Domestic Poultry-Keepers' Council
  Heneage Committee Report
  Heneage Committee Report
  FORESTRY COMMISSION(MOBILE MECHANICS)
  FORESTRY COMMISSION(MOBILE MECHANICS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE
  CIVIL DEFENCE (RECRUITMENT)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (RECRUITMENT)
  COUNCIL FOR WALES (REPORT)
  COUNCIL FOR WALES (REPORT)
  TOYS (INFLAMMABLE MATERIALS)
  TOYS (INFLAMMABLE MATERIALS)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
  MISSING DIPLOMATS
  MISSING DIPLOMATS
  CRUELTY TOWILD ANIMALS
  CRUELTY TOWILD ANIMALS
  BRITISH YOUTH PEACE FESTIVAL
  BRITISH YOUTH PEACE FESTIVAL
  D. C. THOMSON & CO., DUNDEE (DISPUTE)
  D. C. THOMSON & CO., DUNDEE (DISPUTE)
  DAY NURSERIES, KENT
  DAY NURSERIES, KENT
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Medical Certificates (Charges)
  Medical Certificates (Charges)
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Central Pool Distribution (Working Party)
  Central Pool Distribution (Working Party)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Dental Form, E.C. 17, Middlesex
  Dental Form, E.C. 17, Middlesex
HOSPITALS
  Waiting Lists, Kent
  Waiting Lists, Kent
  Administrative Staff, Central Middlesex Management Committee
  Administrative Staff, Central Middlesex Management Committee
  Mental Institution Inmates
  Mental Institution Inmates
  Broadmoor Institution
  Broadmoor Institution
  Mental Defectives, Norfolk
  Mental Defectives, Norfolk
  Regional Boards (Peers and M.Ps.)
  Regional Boards (Peers and M.Ps.)
  Management Committees (Publication of Proceedings)
  Management Committees (Publication of Proceedings)
  MOTHERS AND CHILDREN (RAIL FACILITIES)
  MOTHERS AND CHILDREN (RAIL FACILITIES)
  MOTOR PROPELLED TRICYCLES (PETROL TAX)
  MOTOR PROPELLED TRICYCLES (PETROL TAX)
EDUCATION
  Size of Classes, Staffordshire
  Size of Classes, Staffordshire
  School-Leaving Age
  School-Leaving Age
  Milk Supplies, Wales
  Milk Supplies, Wales
  Teachers (Private Schools)
  Teachers (Private Schools)
  School Meal Service (Costs)
  School Meal Service (Costs)
  Television
  Television
  Inspectors
  Inspectors
  Ex-R.A.F. Camp, Moreton Valence
  Ex-R.A.F. Camp, Moreton Valence
  Kenninglands School Camp
  Kenninglands School Camp
  Teachers (Political Views)
  Teachers (Political Views)
  Physically-Handicapped Pupils (Home Tuition)
  Physically-Handicapped Pupils (Home Tuition)
  APSLEY HOUSE (SUNDAY OPENING)
  APSLEY HOUSE (SUNDAY OPENING)
  VILLAGE HALLS AND COMMUNITY CENTRES
  VILLAGE HALLS AND COMMUNITY CENTRES
  COMMONWEALTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
  COMMONWEALTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
  DELHI (CIVIL SERVANTS)
  DELHI (CIVIL SERVANTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Soviet Herring Contract
  Anglo-Soviet Herring Contract
  Statistics Division (Staff Reduction)
  Statistics Division (Staff Reduction)
  Coronation Souvenirs (Imports)
  Coronation Souvenirs (Imports)
  U.S.A. Army Contract (British Tender)
  U.S.A. Army Contract (British Tender)
  Beryllium Copper Supplies
  Beryllium Copper Supplies
  RECONSTRUCTION WORK, PLYMOUTH (LABOUR)
  RECONSTRUCTION WORK, PLYMOUTH (LABOUR)
  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  GENOCIDE CONVENTION (RATIFICATIONS)
  GENOCIDE CONVENTION (RATIFICATIONS)
  OIL SUPPLIES (U.S.A. STRIKE)
  OIL SUPPLIES (U.S.A. STRIKE)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REFORM)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REFORM)
  AGRICULTURAL COTTAGES (HOBHOUSE REPORT)
  AGRICULTURAL COTTAGES (HOBHOUSE REPORT)
  ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEES (REPORTS)
  ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEES (REPORTS)
  QUEENSLAND FOOD CORPORATION (COMMITTEE)
  QUEENSLAND FOOD CORPORATION (COMMITTEE)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, LEICESTERSHIRE
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, LEICESTERSHIRE
  AGRICULTURAL LAND, SCOTLAND
  AGRICULTURAL LAND, SCOTLAND

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it may be for the general convenience of your Lordships if I inform the House, before we begin the business on the Paper, that we shall hope to conclude the debate on Transport Policy before we rise this evening. There will be no adjournment for dinner, but dinner will be served from 7 p.m. onwards. On the last occasion when the House sat late considerable difficulty was experienced by several noble Lords, because unfortunately so many of your Lordships were not aware that it was advisable to notify the dining room early of your intention to dine. In the end, over 100 Peers arrived for dinner without notice, and it was hardly to be wondered at that the staff were somewhat overwhelmed.

TRANSPORT POLICY
2.40 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to call attention to the Transport policy of Her Majesty's Government, as set forth in the recent White Paper (Cmd. 8538); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, rose just now I was on the point of congratulating the usual channels at having cleared the track of all the obstacles and set the signals at the right colour so that we can now go ahead; but evidently they have had to make some arrangements in the catering department. I do not think it is necessary for me to make many introductory observations upon the Motion which
1026
stands in my name upon the Order Paper. The number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak is itself evidence of the importance of the subject.
It has been said that this afternoon in your Lordships' House there will be fired the first shots in what will be a long and bitter battle. I can assure your Lordships that, so far as it rests with me, there will be no bitterness. I shall have some sharp criticisms to make, and some very blunt questions to ask; but I trust that I, at least, shall be able to say all these things with that courtesy which usually we all try to observe in your Lordships' House—the more so because I have such a high regard for the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government. In my opinion he has always been one of the leaders of British industry—a man who has risen to the heights in our industrial world along the hard way. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, if this debate tends to devolve rather into a discussion between two business men, I hope that that will not be uncongenial to your Lordships; in fact, I think: most noble Lords would find themselves very much at home in that atmosphere.
I think I can get right to the heart of this matter straight away. The policy, if policy it can be called, set out in this White Paper, is the complete overthrow of any thought of integrating, unifying, amalgamating—call it what you will—the rail and long-distance road haulage system of this country. The Government's policy, set out quite clearly, is to return to the bitter and intense warfare of the past between road and rail, hoping that in time and from the strife there will emerge something of a policy, which will save Her Majesty's Government the trouble of thinking about one. It is a frank admission that Her Majesty's Government made no study of transport economics throughout the time they were in opposition. They have no real policy; they really do not know what to do. The policy set out in this White Paper will settle nothing. It will not provide any solution to the problem that has been worrying all thinking people for years past. In fact, it is a complete negation of Government responsibility to the nation, to Lie taxpayer and to those who are employed in this great industry; it throws overboard all the opinions expressed and all the advice given for years and years by anyone who

1027
had any right to be classed as an authority on transport, including a long succession of Committees and Royal Commissions, and an even longer succession of Conservative Ministers of Transport, including the noble Lord, the Secretary of State.
This is what, in the words of this White Paper, is called:
"A positive approach by new and constructive legislation."
But it is what The Times newspaper has said to be not even a policy, not even a sketch of a picture of a policy, and certainly no basis for legislation. The Manchester Guardian, after what I thought was a very trenchant leading article, said:
"This is transport politics in terms of 'Let's pretend '."
I thought that a very adequate summing up.
I want to-day to ask the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, three main questions. I have given the noble Lord notice that I was going to ask these questions, so perhaps he will be able to answer them, though two have already been answered. First, I would ask what were the grounds upon which the Government came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to the complete disintegration of road and rail long-distance haulage as set out in this White Paper. My second question is: Before coming to this conclusion, did the Government make any investigation into the affairs or the operations of the British Transport Commission, the Road Haulage Executive, and British Road Services—any one or all of them? My third question is: Was there any consultation at all between the Government and the British Transport Commission before this decision was arrived at?
The answer to the first question I shall await with interest. The answers to the other two, or to the third one, were given by the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport, in another place when he said: No, there had not been consultation, but that there were now going to be some talks, the nature of which, I gathered, was that the victim was to be consulted as to the funeral arrangements. But there was no investigation at all into the operations and the affairs of a concern in which £80,000,000 of the public property was at stake. It really is to me, as a business man—
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): As a what?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not know whether that interjection was meant for the purpose of obtaining information or whether it was an effort of sarcasm.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I did not hear.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: To me as a business man it is unbelievable that consultation did not go on to find out what was right and what was wrong—that there was no consultation with the experts concerned. The decision of the Government was this: we do not like the present set-up and we think it is wrong; we have no proof and so we are going to put up for public auction to the highest bidder, without reserve, £80,000,000 worth of the taxpayers' property, and by so doing endanger the security of the £1,200,000,000 worth of issued capital of the British Transport Commission. With the best will in the world I just cannot understand it. Lord Leathers' worst enemy would never call him a scheming politician; his worst enemies, who are few, and all his friends, who are legion, would pay high tribute to his great business ability, as I have already done. Therefore I know he will not think the question I now address to him is unfair.
Would the noble Lord if he had been sitting in the board room of a private or a public company and this £80,000,000 represented shareholders' money and not taxpayers' money, have done the same? If he had, I can make the unhappy guess that he would have been out in the street "on his neck," and perilously near the county gaol. Of course, he would not have done that. He would have brought together all the people concerned and perhaps told them, "I do not like you. I do not like your fit-up. I think you have made a real hash of this. But tell me what has gone wrong. What have you done and what have you not done?" Surely the first thing he would have done would be to acquaint himself with the facts. But he did not even lift the telephone and ask a question.
Whom did he consult? He might have consulted a few ex-railway directors, a few of the "Old Guard." I make no complaint about that. They could have given him some information, if a little

1029
out of date. He might have consulted the Road Haulage Association. I make no complaint about that. They would have given him some information from the road haulage point of view. But he did not consult that body of men who, within the organisation of the British Transport Commission, have been working for four years on this problem of integration. These are not men who are steeped in railway technique or in road technique in isolation; they are men who, in a dual capacity, have been running both systems. This is the first time in the history of transport in this country that we have had such a body of men. They are unique. And they have accumulated a great deal of wisdom in grappling with what has proved to be an almost intractable problem.
I do not deny that the co-ordination or integration (whatever we call it) of railway and road transport, which has baffled the best brains for many years, has proved a far more intractable problem than any of us thought. But suppose the noble Lord or I had thrown our hands in at every intractable problem that has crossed our path, where should we have been? I dare swear that the noble Lord has had a few thousands to deal with in his career, as I, perhaps more modestly, have had my hundreds. Did the noble Lord then say, "This is too big for me; I cannot grapple with this"? Would the noble Lord have got where he is now, right at the top of the tree, if he had done that? If I had done it I dare swear that I should have been where I started—sweeping up the shop; and I do not think the noble Lord began his career in industry very much higher. Would the noble Lord have risen from the bottom of the ladder to the top if he had refused to grapple with intractable problems and had quit? Of course not.
A Minister does not find out the facts by sitting in the Ministry of Transport, admirable establishment though it be. I know it; I was there for a long time. I was not an overlord; I was at the other end of the bell-push. To get the facts, you have to go to the men who are actually operating the system. Were the Government afraid of the questions they would have had to ask if they had done
1030
that and of the answers they would have received? Were they afraid that the answers would not fit in with a certain Election pledge? Were they afraid that these non-political people in the heart of the British Transport Commission (they are not of my political persuasion)—I do not mean the heads of the Commission, but the real brains—would say to them that they were convinced that the policy underlying the 1947 Act was correct? Were they afraid that trey would be told that integration, however difficult, was the only solution to the transport economy of this country? Were they afraid that these experts (I do not like the word, but I must use it for want of a better), would tell him they were determined that it could be done and were working to that end?
If the noble Lord had made these investigations, what would he have found? The first thing he might have found was that British Road Services, at the end of the 1951 financial year, showed a profit of £3,000,000—a very uncomfortable thing to be found by any one who wants to present to the public a picture of inefficiency. I am not going to claim that a profit of £3,000,000 proves efficiency, or that it proves anything save that a profit of £3,000,000 was made. The noble Lord might have found out the facts about centralisation. We have had a great deal of talk about excessive centralisation. This talk has been based on ignorance or on hearsay or, in some cases, on a little knowledge. I am not going to claim that there is not far too much centralisation. But the noble Lord knows that when you start to amalgamate a number of companies—and he has done it many times—you have to bring everything into the centre to start with, see what common services you can have, find out what standardisation is profitable and how economies can be effected; and then, when you have clone that, you start pushing the rest out. You have then to try, as he and I have often tried, to find people to bear responsibility all the way from the top to the bottom. The noble Lord knows that that is the secret of successful operation.
If the noble Lord had looked into this matter, he would have found that during the last two or three years £40,000,000 had been saved through standardisation of technical services and their centralisation.

1031
To-day there are about twelve standard engines on British Railways, whereas before nationalisation there were round about 360—I do not know the exact figure. That means a great deal. I need not go into detail: noble Lords know what that means in maintenance, spare parts, and things like that. It is only fair to try to balance the two sides. I do not pretend to give it all to your Lords-ships this afternoon, but what I say in this part of my remarks is that if the inquiry had been made the facts would have been found.
What are the constitutional weaknesses? Nobody of any sense would claim that all the wisdom of the world was ever written into one Act of Parliament. I expect that four years of experience have shown quite a number of defects. They are all there and they could have been ascertained quite impartially, without any political prejudice—I myself may have political prejudices, but I know that the noble Lord has no prejudice and I will not bring him into that side of it. But an inquiry would have proved that a great deal has been going on. There are a number of noble Lords who have had a lifetime's experience of railways, and they know that one of the complaints we have always made is with regard to the lack of real costing knowledge, the lack of real facts, both of comparative economics and costs of operation, on the railways. Wonderful strides have been made in the economic comparisons between road and rail requirements under different conditions in different parts of the country.
All these facts would have been available. Had they been obtained, they would have thrown up the important factor that in this modern age, with modern industry developing along the lines it has, where the insistence by industry and individuals is for a door-to-door conveyance, industry will not stand the cost and the delay of excessive handling. You can no longer say to a man who lives on the outskirts of Birmingham and who wants to go to Margate that he must go on a certain route and change his method of conveyance about four times to get there. Anybody who tries to do that will only emulate the example of a gentleman who, many years ago, lived in a town near where I live. That gentleman went down
1032
to the seashore with his armchair and told the waves to go back, with the net result that he got his feet wet. The facts will show that the great necessity, and the great factor, in the economic running of the railways of this country to-day is the feeder services. Whoever controls the road feeder services to the railways controls the bridgehead to a large section of railway economy, and therefore to railway profitability.
At least, the noble Lord would have found out what was right—a very important thing for him to know—and what was wrong. And perhaps the noble Lord and the Government would have found out one thing that was even more important: they would have found out the human difficulties, the psychological difficulties. Here you have, in a huge organisation of nearly 1,000,000 human beings, loves and hates born of years. Some people have been on the railways so long that their minds will run on those rails for ever, and the iron has entered their very souls. Others have lived their lives on the roads. That is a difficult human problem which will not be solved by once again setting them at each others throats, in a wild scramble like that we had in the year 1933.
About a fortnight ago my noble friend Lord Macdonald moved in your Lordships' House a Motion on manpower. The noble Lord then made what I thought was one of the best speeches I have ever heard. He was followed by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood (he is not here to-day), who received the applause of noble Lords in all parts of the House for the human way in which he spoke. What was the burden of the speeches of both those noble Lords? It was that we politicians of all Parties had all gone wrong; that we had never tried to understand the workers, or taken them into our confidence. I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, saying: "Of course, you cannot move men about today like pieces on a chessboard." The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, paid a most glowing tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. But I really despair of some noble Lords opposite. They were quite sincere at that moment, and believed that it was in this direction that we had all failed.
But what has happened? Here the Government propose, without any

1033
thought, without any consultation, to put in jeopardy the jobs and livelihoods of 80,000 men and women. There is not one word in this White Paper as to what is to happen to them. After all, I am discussing this White Paper; I am not a crystal-gazer. There is not a word about whether these people are to be found other jobs. The noble Lord may say: "With the shortage of labour to-day, of course they will find jobs." But we could have said that at the time the Transport Act was presented by the late Government. In that Act there are elaborate provisions for compensating those whose conditions were worsened, those who had become redundant, and also so that they might have some security. There is not one word in this White Paper about that. What is to happen? Are they going to be found jobs? Are the conditions of employment going to be the same as they are to-day? Do not forget that the State has to be a model employer. Is the noble Lord prepared to give these 80,000 men and women employed by the Road Haulage Executive an assurance that they will be found jobs of equal worth, on the same conditions as those which they have now? If so, why is there not a word said about it? I feel that that is one of the most serious blots on Her Majesty's Government; I think it is really terrible.
When all the action, wise or unwise, is taken, when the dust and heat of this battle is over, Her Majesty's Government and successive Governments will have to carry the burden of the £1,000,000,000 invested in the railways. There is no proposal that the railways should be handed back. Can the noble Lord blame me if I look for some other reason? Why have these proposals been put forward? He cannot blame me for thinking that he has an "overlord" who has, in effect, said to him: "The Sword of Damocles is hanging over me. I have to fulfil an Election pledge. This is the one pledge of all which I cannot break. I have to do this, and you have to find the way." Can he blame me for thinking that? By any other test these proposals cannot be sustained. I come to the same conclusion and, what is more serious, a very large section of the British public have come to the same conclusion, as the Economist. What do they say? They say:
1034
"The White Paper is a set of contrivances to make the resale to private hauliers of lorries now owned by the Transport Commission look respectable."
It is the shabbiest piece of political chicanery in the history of this country, dressed up to make look respectable.
Now let us turn to what it is proposed to do. As the noble Lord will understand, this part of my speech must be largely composed of a series of questions. I do not expect the noble Lord to answer, and I shall not feel aggrieved if he does not. But they are questions to which the answers will have to be found. I refer to paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this White Paper. It says that the whole of these assets are to be split up into operable units. What do the Government mean by "operable units"? Is it a division? Is it an area comprising 1,000 vehicles right down to a group of 100, or is it just a few odd lots of vehicles, put together as a collection? Does it include the plant, the premises, the stores and the equipment? Is there to be any reserve price? The White Paper does not say so, and I have come to the conclusion that there is not. The whole lot is to be sold to the highest bidder. What is to happen to the 2,000 vehicles which are held in reserve? What is to happen to the new vehicles which the British Transport Commission have on order with the manufacturers of this country, to the approximate value of £10,000,000? I doubt whether the noble Lord knows that that order has been placed. He could have known, and he could have answered all these questions if he had made one inquiry. What is going to happen to this order? Very early in the life of the Road Haulage Executive it was necessary that they should get down to some sensible grouping, not only of styles of vehicles but of types. I happened to see the vehicles which they took over from private enterprise. I do not know how many makes of commercial vehicle there are in this world, but I dare swear that every one was represented in the mixed bag that was taken over from private enterprise. That was in the nature of things, but these vehicles could never be organised into any operable unit.
Are the Railway Executive or the British Transport Commission going to be allowed to tender for their own assets? Are the Railway Executive going to be allowed to buy any of these vehicles?

1035
If not, the Railway Executive will be in an even worse position than the railways were before nationalisation. Before nationalisation, the railways of this country owned 3,500 long-distance haulage vehicles. They wholly owned 45 long-distance haulage companies to a capital value of £6,000,000. Now it is said that they will not be able to run one road haulage long-distance vehicle; that they will have to be content with their few parcel delivery vehicles. This is a monstrous suggestion. I have put to your Lordships that the future pattern of transport means feeder services to railheads, and the section of industry, private or public, which owns those feeder services has the railway economy by the throat. Under this fantastic idea the Railway Executive or the British Transport Commission are not to be allowed to own a long-distance haulage vehicle. That is quite incomprehensible to me. I just do not know whose brain could have devised this scheme, because nobody knows anything about it. Nobody can explain what is going to happen.
It has been estimated (I do not know whether it is official, but I read it somewhere) that the Government expect to lose at least £30,000,000 of the goodwill—I will deal with the goodwill in a moment. But suppose that these vehicles do not sell and that private enterprise does not buy, then what is going to happen? Who is going to run the rest? What is going to happen to those vehicles with which the Government are left—the dregs and the dirt. Speculators are not going to buy anything but the "plums." They will buy the good batches of vehicles in the thickly populated areas, where they can get a quick return for their money. But supposing they do not buy them in the other places, who is going to supply those services? Are you going to resuscitate from the dead the Road Haulage Executive? What is going to happen? I do not know and nobody else knows. And at what rates will these services be supplied? These are very important things. We are not told. Suppose that a wild estimate has to be made. Suppose they sell half these 40,000 vehicles. What is going to happen to the other 20,000? Are you going to have another auction sale, or are you going to leave large areas of the country bereft of any
1036
road transport at all? I wonder whether this has been thought out?
What about this question of price? In paragraph 10, it says:
"Since the goodwill of the former businesses … disappeared, its undertaking is unlikely to be sold at the price at which it was bought."
The goodwill has gone. Then it goes on to say:
"On the other hand, the units to be marketed will be going concerns and purchasers can he expected to pay for the trading rights and opportunities which go with them.
Well, my Lords, I should have thought that a potential profit-earner—a going concern—could be sold with a goodwill. Of course, I know that it all depends whether you are a seller or a buyer, but I can assure the noble Lord that if I were the seller of a thing like this, and could offer an operable unit with trading rights and opportunities, I should put a pretty good figure on it for goodwill. But here are the Government, virtually the owners of £80,000,000 worth of taxpayers' property, putting out a prospectus and saying "Of course, this is not worth very much: the goodwill has gone." I wonder what the noble Lord and I would think if any company with which we were connected were to put out such a prospectus as this in connection with an auction sale of our property.
And now, one of our chief salesmen—I am going to call your Lordships' attention to the most scandalous speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport—addresses the guests at a luncheon at which his prospective buyers are present, and says to them, in the terms of this White Paper "Of course, these assets are not worth very much: you know the goodwill has gone." That is crying "stinking fish." Yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was a very successful stockbroker in the City of London. If this were not tragic, my Lords, you would "laugh your heads off" at it. Fancy a stockbroker going to a city luncheon with all his prospective clients and saying "I have got here some shares to sell, but they are not worth very much"! Has lunacy ever gone further? I am not exaggerating at all: this is what is going on. Perhaps we shall have some answer from the noble Lord on this point.

1037
The next four paragraphs, 11, 12, 13 and 14 deal with the railways. I have no objection to decentralising if it proves to be right, but I cannot understand how it is going to work. I have read in one newspaper that it will be very difficult to have healthy rivalry, for instance, between a railway line that runs from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, and another that runs from Paddington to Bristol. I do not know—perhaps in the course of his speech the noble Lord may tell me about it—what is meant by this "healthy rivalry." But I think it is fair to mention that before nationalisation there was very healthy rivalry between the main line railway companies—as much as you could hope for; but the results, to say the least, were not such as to make their finances in a very healthy condition. And these suggestions are not to be embodied in anything, not even in the Bill. It is a scheme "hereinafter to be explained." I remember the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, getting very heated in a discussion Vehicle we had in this House at the time of the Transport Bill over schemes "hereinafter to be explained."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Revealed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Revealed. I have the memory of the noble Viscount working himself up into a synthetic Passion on this, and talking about the South Sea Bubble and all that sort of thing; but he has been a party to this one—to a scheme "hereinafter to be explained"—or "revealed."
There is another point. This plan is not really reviving competition between road and rail. It is reviving competition, or setting up competition now between a private enterprise service with no restrictions at all except those under the 1933 Road and Rail Act, and a nationalised service which has all the statutory responsibilities upon it. I ask the noble Lord to bear this in mind, for who is going to run the unremunerative services? Who is going to run all those services that private enterprise cannot be expected to run without being involved in a loss? After all there will always be some outlying parts of the country where people must be given a transport service, and it has got to be given to them at the smallest possible loss. It has been said—and the theory is very plausible—that what you want to do with the railways is to take away these responsibili-
1038
ties of common carrier, take away the responsibilities for having to run the unremunerative services and then say that you are going to run only services which are profit making. That sounds very good, but the first day that the British Transport Commission tries to do that, the Order Paper in another place will not be large enough to hold all the questions from the irate Members of Parliament, representatives of constituencies affected. At the present time no one has authority to order any service to be run except the British Transport Commission. The licensing authorities under the Road and Rail Traffic Act have no authority to tell the operator he has to run a service. The Ministry of Transport have no authority to say when a service must be run. The only people who can say that are the British Transport Commission, and they get their authority from the Transport Act of 1947.
I should like now to say one word about the levy. I do not think that any proposal has ever been made in this country which has been ridiculed so much as this one has. The noble Lord's best friends have told him in no uncertain voice what they think of it. I have not read in any newspaper in this country a single word of commendation of it. I think it is the most crazy thing that was ever invented by the mind of man. It is completely inoperable. This levy is estimated to produce £4,000,000—and that is a very tentative figure. The sum is to be divided into two categories. Part will be used to overcome the shortfall owing to the loss of the goodwill, or the shortfall of receipts resulting from the sale, the amount being amortised over a certain number of years; and the other is to pay compensation to the railways for the amount of remunerative traffic that would go from them to the roads—because the Government expect that this scheme will involve the railways in a loss of traffic. The levy, the White Paper says,
"will not be used for any other purposes, for example, to make good loss of railway revenues due to a recession in trade or a failure on the part of the railways to secure reasonable economies."
But this business can flow from rail to road because the railways do not show proper enterprise. If they do not show proper enterprise, the levy will be paid, so this is really a blanket on good enterprise. The less enterprise they show, the higher will be the levy. Have you

1039
ever heard of such a scheme in your life? And all this is going to be adjusted once every three years by the Transport Tribunal. I feel very sorry for them.
I am not going to waste time, however, on that because—I will not make a prophecy about this, because Her Majesty's Government can do anything—if anything like a wise counsel prevails, this scheme will never see the light of day. I do not propose to occupy any time on that point except to say this. I understand that to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to visit the Trades Union Congress and that the burden of what he is to say will be "wage restraint." Can you imagine anything more of a disincentive for wage restraint than a levy? Can you understand it? To-day £17,000,000 is asked for by the railway unions in increased wages; that, if granted, will not be an avoidable expense and the charges will go up. Railway charges will go up, traffic will flow to the roads and the levy will be paid. I beg the Government to think seriously about this. I will leave it at that. I need not say much more. I am not going to say anything about the Transport Tribunal and the way the White Paper says that now we are to have a Transport Tribunal and a Minister to correct them. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is the authority on that. He will know all about these "wicked Ministers" who can, for foul political purposes, alter the decisions of the Transport Tribunal, especially round the time of council elections, so I will leave that to him. He will be able to explain exactly what it means.
I have detained your Lordships longer than I should have done, but this is such a serious matter that I have tried to put really commercial considerations before the House. I am going to tell your Lordships that I do not intend to divide the House. The reasons why I do not intend to do so are two: first—and I want to address these words very seriously to the noble Lord the Secretary of State—I believe the arguments which I have advanced have sufficient weight for the Government to have second thoughts, after considering them; because, after all, that is one advantage of discussing a White Paper, that it gives time for second thoughts before Bills are intro-
1040
duced. Secondly, there is a grave national interest confronting us all, irrespective of Party. It is no use the Conservative Party pointing the finger of scorn at us and saying that if we have returned to us the responsibilities of government and reverse this policy, we shall, by so doing, he wreckers of the national interest. It is no good the Conservative Party saying that, because the Conservative Party are doing exactly the same thing.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I wish the noble Lord would speak up. It is very difficult to hear him.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is no good them sitting in a glass house and throwing stones. My right honourable friend, Mr. Herbert Morrison, who speaks with far greater authority than I can command, has said that we are ready to consider changes which experience and the public interest show to be desirable. We are. But the one thing that must he clear is that it must be in the public interest—not, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, a sordid pay-off for an Election pledge which, the noble Marquess said the other day in connection with something else, was just bribing the electors. I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, this debate began with a statement on the arrangements made for the continuance of this debate this evening, to cover, if possible, the long list of speakers. I feel that I should begin by saying that my personal arrangements for this evening unfortunately involve an engagement with the B.B.C. which, as it involves others, makes it impossible for me, as I should otherwise like to, to listen to those noble Lords who follow me. I apologise to them in advance. I can, however, I am glad to say, considerably shorten what I have to say, partly because some of the things which I had meant to say have already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and still more because I am sure that most of the other things that I might have said in criticism of this White Paper will be said by those who are to follow me.
As the noble Lord who preceded me pointed out, the White Paper has had a very poor Press. I need not go over all that has been said. I need only give the Economist's description of it as
"disappointing and inadequate."

1041
The Manchester Guardian's description of it is
"a bad scheme,"
and The Times describes it as a
"Sketch for transport"
and not
"the material for a Bill."
I would refer to one other point in The Times leading article, which emphasises the absence of any consultation with anyone in preparing this Bill. This measure, I think, can be fitly described only by borrowing some words from Touchstone. The While Paper comes before us as "an ill-favoured thing, but the Government's very own." I can only hope that the noble Overlord who has been cast for the pat of Touchstone will be able to commend this Audrey better than ever before.
As I have said, I am not going to cast any aspersions on this White Paper, because there will be so many to come later. I am going to take a slightly different line. I want only to ask a few questions of detail. One has already been touched on by the noble Lord who preceded me. I do not know whether or not he is right in his supposition. Are the 11,000-odd vehicles which formerly belonged to the railways and which passed, presumably, to the Road Haulage Executive to be included in the sale back to private enterprise? If they are to be included, then it is clear that the railways will lose what they have always in the past regarded as essential feeders to the railway system. I should like the noble Lord who is to answer to tell us exactly whether the White Paper does mean that or does not mean that.
Next I hope that he will be kind enough to interpret for me and for the House the word "eventually" in paragraph 8. That is a word which appears in the last sentence, where the Paper says that the 25-mile limit imposed under the Transport Act will be abolished at once in regard to the vehicles which are bought back by private enterprise, and "eventually" for all vehicles. I need hardly say (as any noble Lord who remembers what I said when this matter was in debate in 1947 under the Transport Bill will know) I have no love at all for the 25-mile limit. The 25-mile limit means that a vehicle subject to it cannot be more
1042
than 25 miles from its operating centre. It can run as far as it likes, provided that it goes in circles. The 25-mile limit is a means of promoting the efficiency of transport by giving it free rein to run in circles but not in straight lines. I hope that limit will be abolished. But what does "eventually" mean? Because if I am a private enterprise person, thinking of offering a price for some of these vehicles which are to come back to me, a material consideration in fixing my price will be whether I think I am buying a privileged position or whether I think I am almost immediately going to be compelled to compete with others. It appears to me that the Government will have the choice either of getting a lower price on selling these vehicles back, or of keeping the other vehicles for a longer term under the 25-mile limit.
Thirdly, I hope the Government will be kind enough to interpret for the House and for me the words in paragraph 9 as to the meaning of
"greater latitude in the granting of new licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933."
Your Lordships will see that it says that there will be
"greater latitude … where need for a fuller or more convenient service is shown."
I would ask the noble Lord to answer this simple question: is it more convenient to be able to get a service at half the price that you are paying for it? Does the price of the service enter into its convenience? It is obviously more convenient for me to be able to get a service for £1 instead of £2. Under this "greater latitude" provision, will people who wish to apply for licences be able to show that they propose to charge lower prices, or will they have to show, as has been the practice in the past, that practically no service at all can be provided if they do not come in? I ask the noble Lord whether he will kindly interpret those words to the House.
Now I want to come to a rather different point. If the Government are going to continue drafting the Bill that is to follow on this White Paper without consultation, this and similar occasions in the House are the only opportunities for discussion on the Bill before it is drafted. I hope, most seriously and most sincerely, that the Government are not going to draft the Bill straight away as

1043
they have drafted the White Paper. I ask them to reconsider not the details of the White Paper so much as their whole procedure. I should like to introduce what I have to say by referring to the words used by a very distinguished noble Viscount whom I see opposite me on the Front Bench—Lord Swinton—when the Transport Bill was under discussion in this House in 1947, and when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, introducing the Transport Bill on behalf of the Labour Government invited the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to be enthusiastic about that Bill. The noble Viscount replied that the Bill was "a strange adventure." He thought that any impartial judgment on it would describe it as "a leap in the dark," whereas only the most enthusiastic would go so far as to say it was a "stumble in the twilight." I suggest to the House that to any impartial mind the White Paper of 1952 which we have before us to-day is a leap in the dark backwards to try to get to something that you have left behind—and a leap wholly in the dark.
I should like to put up a plea for a little light before the Government leaps, and asks the country to leap with it, backwards from where we are to-day. I ask for that particularly because there are many important practical questions in regard to this Transport industry which are not answered in the White Paper, and which in fact have little to do with the question of who owns the vehicle concerned. There is the vital question of what would really represent fair competition between the different forms of transport, the railways and the roads. Underlying that are difficult questions as to equities, finance and taxation, which will certainly be brought out in the discussion but which in some cases go considerably deeper; questions in which there is the issue between the railways, which have provided their own permanent way, and road transport, which get their roads provided for them, subject to taxation. The suggestion is made, too, that if the railways had happily been nationalised many years ago, the whole of the money sunk in permanent ways would have been repaid, so that they would now have the permanent way for nothing. This is the kind of argument that can be used on both sides, irrespective of who owns the
1044
railways or the roads. Considerations of this kind have a vital effect upon how the charges for the two services are fixed. Then there are the questions of the relations of the various agencies, the Minister, the Transport Commission, the Executives, the Tribunal, and all the other different people—sometimes, perhaps, more than one Minister—who appear to come to the discussion of transport questions. These are not really dealt with fully or sufficiently by the White Paper.
Quite a different set of questions arise which apply equally whether we have private enterprise or public ownership: the protection of the public from monopoly, whether public or private. That is important, because, as we all know, the "A" and the "B" licences (the "A" in particular) have been hard to get. Even before the Transport Bill was passed the industry was rapidly becoming almost a closed industry. I come now to one more question which is not touched upon in the White Paper and not affected by the question of ownership—namely, the avoidance of waste of resources by restrictions upon what particular vehicles may do. I refer particularly to "C" licensed vehicles, of which I believe there are 800,000. The vehicle under "C" licence is not allowed to carry anything except the goods of the person owning it, which means that a large proportion of those vehicles must run empty half the time. Is that really a promotion of efficiency? That is a matter about which I, sitting with the Liberals, have a quarrel with both other Parties. In the debates in 1947 I described the "C" licence provision as "compulsory inefficiency by Act of Parliament." That question is not affected by anything in the White Paper, but I hope that at some time it will be effectively inquired into.
All these questions, which are vital to the efficiency of the transport industry—and that means the satisfaction of the users of the industry—have nothing whatever to do with the ownership of the vehicles and are not affected either by doctrinaire Socialism or doctrinaire anti-Socialism. What I am asking is, that somehow, by inquiry, and irrespective of any political doctrine whatever, the Government should take steps to give serious consideration to what is really needed in transport. To make an inquiry takes

1045
some time, but I suggest that no real loss of time would be involved in this case. Suppose that this Government were to do what the Government did, I think in 1925, when they had under consideration the very difficult problem concerning the coal industry. They then appointed a Royal Commission on Coal Mining, which consisted of few members, none of them connected with the coal mining industry. It consisted of four people. My noble friend Viscount Samuel, who sits by me here, was Chairman; there were two business men of great standing, General Sir Herbert Lawrence and Sir Kenneth Lee, and myself. I remember that I was asked to join that Commission by no less a person than the present Prime Minister, who then occupied the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. We began our work at the end of August and we signed our Report six months later, about the end of March. I suggest that it would be possible to have a Royal Commission of comparable size, with instructions to report in six months—or I would rather give them eight months, which would enable the views of all the people who use and want to use transport, as well as all the experts, to be considered.
If that were done, no time would really be lost, because if the Government proceed on the present lines they will be in for a very stubborn fight in both Houses of Parliament. The time of Parliament will be taken up on this question. I suggest that there are more important things for which Parliament can and should be used than the discussion of practical details of the transport industry. Indeed, there is one other measure which to me seems naturally to come before a measure for reversing the nationalisation of transport, and that is a measure for reversing the nationalisation of steel. In general, I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that it is not desirable to set up a tradition of one Government reversing the actions of the previous Government. Going back into past history, I think that one of the most striking cases of that kind was when an Education Act passed in 1903 by the Conservatives, which had aroused great opposition among many Liberals, in practice was left untouched and proved very beneficial indeed. It was not reversed, though many people wanted it reversed.
1046
Now I ask your Lordships to look at these two measures concerning steel and transport. Transport was nationalized—so far as it has been nationalized—in 1947, by a Government with a very large majority, and obviously with a strong mandate for what they were doing. Steel was nationalised by what I can only describe as a rather shoddy transaction, and by a Government with a very small majority indeed, who needed to alter the powers of your Lordships' House in order to get the Bill through. In the case of steel, I think there is every justification for immediate reversal without further inquiry, because the Act ought never to have been passed. But that is not at all true of transport.
Are there not other things of vital importance with which the Government and the Opposition alike could concern themselves in the next six months, whilst my suggested Commission is sitting? There is our great economic danger. There is our great (we do not know quite how great), international danger. Cannot we try to avoid practical issues like transport? I suggest that we should not lose time if we referred this matter to some impartial authority, thereby giving everybody who really knows about this industry and is interested in it a chance to speak. That authority could then give us a considered, impartial report upon the whole matter, judged on its merits. We really should not lose time. The question is, should we gain by it? It may be asked: suppose we had a Commission, is there any chance of agreement on what it may recommend? No one can promise agreement. I cannot say that the Royal Commission to which I have already referred produced the General Strike; but it certainly did get a number of its recommendations carried out. I think my noble friend sitting beside me would be able to satisfy your Lordships that nearly all the recommendations of that Commission were in due course carried out, and the Commission brought great improvements in the industry.
On this question whether it is worth while having an impartial inquiry without being certain of getting agreement on its recommendations, I would refer to some words that were used by the noble Marquess who is now the Leader of the House, when the Transport Bill was under consideration in 1947. In the debate then I asked for an inquiry before

1047
road haulage was nationalised, and I said I was ready to abide by the decision of that inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who spoke for the Government of the day, in his reply said that it was useless to have an inquiry because we should never get agreement. The comment of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on that statement was that it did not seem to be a very strong argument for the Government's case. He went on to express much sympathy with my speech, which he described as making a brilliant and persuasive case for the kind of inquiry for which I had asked. Well, if there is no chance of agreement on a really impartial report, after exhaustive inquiries about transport, how miserable will be the prospect for this industry—an industry so vital in this economic crisis! If the Government proceed on the lines which they appear to have adopted up to the present, it will make the industry simply the continuing sport of politics. In another place Mr. Herbert Morrison has already announced that a Labour Government would immediately reverse what is proposed in this White Paper. To put it no higher, there is at least an even chance that the next Government may be of the kind to reverse this policy.
I appeal to this Government, therefore, that, instead of trying to legislate at once with that possibility before them, instead of continuing to keep transport in the arena of politics, they should try to take it out of politics for a time and see whether we cannot get some kind of agreement as to what is really the best course, irrespective of Socialist or anti-Socialist Governments. I appeal to noble Lords on this side of the House to accept and, indeed, to favour the holding of an unfettered and impartial inquiry, without giving previous notice of rejection of its results, as Mr. Herbert Morrison has given previous notice of rejection of the White Paper. I trust the words used by Mr. Herbert Morrison in Parliament only a month ago when he said on the question of transport fares increase:
"There is a case for a financial inquiry into transport and possibly a wider inquiry of the B.B.C. kind."
That view was supported by the Leader of the Liberal Party in the other place, Mr. Clement Davies. I appeal to the Government most seriously, instead of think-
1048
ing about details of the White Paper to think again about their procedure, and I ask the Opposition to welcome an impartial inquiry, with no issue barred, if the Government decide to institute it.
Look at the alternatives. You can proceed to draft a Bill and spend all your energies on talking and fighting on it in Parliament. Alternatively, you can take transport out of Parliamentary politics for six months and have it discussed publicly and expertly by a Royal Commission, at the same time forming public opinion upon it. I hope that the Government will at least think again on this possibility, and I hope that the result of that thinking will be that we shall be all agreed to try to save this vitally important transport industry, to save it, if we can, from being the perpetual shuttlecock of Party politics.
VISCOUNT LONG: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? He said earlier on, as I understood him, that he was never in favour of the 25-mile radius for the road hauliers with whom I worked for seventeen years. May I ask him whether he voted for the Bill which my noble friend Lord Teynham introduced in 1950 to increase that radius?
LORD BEVERIDGE: I voted for increasing the 25-mile limit to forty miles, when that matter was before your Lordships' House, if that is what the noble Viscount is referring to.
VISCOUNT LONG: I have looked up Hansard and I find that the noble Lord's name does not appear in the list of those who supported my noble friend.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I have always wanted to have limits of forty and eighty miles. The answer to the noble Lord's question is "Yes." I will go and look up Hansard to see what happened on the occasion he mentioned.
4.6 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this question this afternoon, since it gives me the opportunity, which I welcome, to explain the Government's policy on transport and to clear up some misconceptions which seemingly still

1049
remain. In spite of all that has been said so far, we are firmly convinced that we have produced in the White Paper a sound scheme. We believe that it is in the best interests of inland transport, and of trade and industry, and that it makes a positive contribution to the solution of the transport problem which has vexed the country over the past thirty or forty years. But it is not a simple matter and I hope that by running over the ground in this way to-day I shall be able to satisfy some of the doubts which the noble Lords, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Beveridge, expressed, and which may well exist in the minds of some other noble Lords.
I must, if your Lordships will forgive me, hark back for a moment into history for a proper understanding of the context in which our policy is placed. Right up to the First World War, the railways stood unchallenged as the primary means of transport within the country. But by the 1920's, though still dominant, they had to encounter serious competition from road traffic. Motor mechanics and drivers who had learnt their trades in the Army entered the road haulage business and succeeded in taking some of the best paying goods away from the railways—"creaming the traffic" as the transport economists say. These and other reasons led to the setting up of the Royal Commission on Transport, which many of your Lordships will remember. The deliberations from 1928 to 1931 of the Royal Commission resulted in two Acts, the Road Traffic Act of 1930 and the Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933, which for the first time imposed considerable restrictions upon the operations of road vehicles.
Nevertheless, the position of the railways still remained insecure and at the beginning of the last war urgent consideration was being given to the solution of this problem. The war temporarily shelved the problem and so far from there being much more transport available for the traffic offering, the virtual closing of some of our ports and the increased military traffic threw quite a different sort of strain upon the whole of our inland transport resources. However, in the midst of our war-time preoccupations we saw that the road-rail problem of the twenties and thirties would re-emerge as soon as the war ended. And in speeches which I made in this House during the war I pointed to the need for
1050
some integration of transport after the cessation of hostilities. At the same time I took pains to say that the problem would not be solved on doctrinaire lines. I also said, and I quote the very words:
"The only criterion must be what will best serve the interests of the nation."
In the event, it did not fall to me or to this side of the House to propound the plans for such an integration, and it was left for the Party opposite to bring forward a scheme. I am afraid that the plans which emerged suffered from all the demerits of doctrinaire planning and ideological misconception. It resulted in the Transport Act of 1947, which in our view, and I think in the view of the country generally, is a bad Act—an attempt to regiment into a rigid plan, and to place under one central public corporation, the great mass of our transport services. Transport, above all things on this island, must remain flexible, and able to give individual services to trade and industry at all hours of the day and night and for all different kinds of traffic.
I make no complaint about the way in which those responsible for carrying out the Act have done their duty. In the face of great obstacles they have done their best to make the thing work. But the evils of the Act have been too much for them. The centralised control of the railways has brought some benefits, it is true. But, on the other hand, it has led to too much uniformity and has destroyed much of the initiative and enterprise and, indeed, pride of service which formerly existed under the old great names. In road haulage the disadvantages of over-centralisation has been even more marked. Before nationalisation, much of the success and value to industry of these services came from the close personal contact maintained between the hauliers and the customers. The attempt to weld these thousands of haulage undertakings into an unwieldy national organisation has led to no public advantage, and the customer has been served less well. At the same time it has dispossessed thousands of small hauliers up and down the country and brought much hardship in its wake.
I do not propose to go more deeply into the failings of the present system. I submit that it is a truism by now that the Road Haulage Executive have failed to give the service which traders and industrialists had come to expect from

1051
private enterprise. I need only quote to your Lordships the extent to which trades have turned over to running their own vehicles under "C" licences. At the time of nationalisation, there were under 500,000 of these "C" licences, and that total has grown now to over 800,000. When one reflects that, in the nature of things, a large proportion of these vehicles running on "C" licences must normally be running empty one way on each journey, one gets some measure of the failure of the British Road Services to provide the standard of service that the customers need. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, suggested that some investigation into the Commission's organisation and services might have been undertaken before we formulated our proposals. Such an investigation, however, would be a very long process, and it is by no means certain that it would lead to any agreed conclusions among those who conducted it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I hestitate to interrupt the noble Lord, because I know the difficulty under which he has to work, but this is important. I neither implied nor suggested that any investigation should take place by anybody outside. My criticism is that the Government and the noble Lord and the Minister of Transport never made one inquiry.
LORD LEATHERS: I shall come to that point in a moment, and I think quite effectively. No great research was required to ascertain the views of those who used the Commission's services. The noble Lord is himself well aware of them. The fact is that no public corporation could keep under control a job of the magnitude entrusted to the Commission by the Act. Without further inquiry it is clear enough that small- and medium-sized individual businesses are an essential element in road haulage if it is to give the best service of which it is capable.
Thus, in our view a new approach is needed. Our proposals are based on the conviction that success can best be achieved by allowing private enterprise to play a greater part. We think that a measure of competition will stimulate better results than could be achieved by an imposed system of so-called integration. Our plan means integration, but
1052
integration by a practical and businesslike means, rather than by theoristic conceptions. Your Lordships may ask—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, implied this—why we have not contented ourselves with the proposal merely to raise the 25-mile limit which at present restricts the operations of the "A" and "B" licenced haulier still outside the net of the Road Haulage Executive. As your Lordships will remember, this was one of the proposals of the Conservative Party at the time of the Election. It struck me all the more forcibly, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seems to have lent himself to favour this course.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I must protest. It was not I, but the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. I never said such a thing.
LORD LEATHERS: If I am making a mistake, I apologise. I have looked this up and I thought that the noble Lord himself vigorously opposed the proposal in your Lordships' House, when my noble friend Lord Teynham sponsored a Bill to this effect two years ago. If that is not true, I ask the noble Lord to forgive me.
Even a modest relaxation of the 25-mile limit would have depressed the revenue and depreciated the value of the Road Haulage Executive's undertaking to such an extent that they could not have continued. I have that information from inside. Although all the consultations to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has referred may not have taken place, there have been exchanges of views with those in the Commission which entitle me to say that if we had uplifted the 25-mile limit to 35 miles or 40 miles, that would have ruined the Road Haulage Executive. It would have let the private operator immediately into some of the best paying routes of British Road Services. And since in our view private enterprise can always give a better service than the Executive, the latter would in consequence find itself beaten in competition. The Executive would then become a liability upon the British Transport Commission, with consequent disruption of the latter's finances in a way that will not happen under our proposals. Furthermore, it would have given an unfair advantage to the short-distance hauliers

1053
still remaining in business over the long-distance hauliers whose businesses have been nationalised. Thus it would be impossible, in our view, to split the traffic between the Road Haulage Executive and the private operator in any manner likely to secure the public advantage.
So we came to the conclusion that there was no half-way house. Either we left the nationalised concern as we found it (which I believe all sides will agree was unthinkable) or we took the bold step of abolishing entirely the Road Haulage Executive and making other arrangements for a proper relationship between road and rail. Can your Lordships deny that we have been right in taking this decisive step?
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he passes from this matter of the 25-mile limit. I understand that the White Paper proposes that eventually the 25-mile limit will be abolished completely for all "A" and "B" licences. From what the noble Lord has just said it is clear that that might affect the price that might be paid for these concerns. If "eventually" means quite soon, the price will be very small. The levy to be put on all other vehicles, including the miserable "C" licences, will have to meet that cost as well as all other costs. Is that not so?
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I think I have exactly what the noble Lord has put. It is one thing to say that if we raise the 25-mile limit that would ruin the Road Haulage Executive's business, but it does not mean that if we allow those now under the 25-mile limit to come in a little later, it would have the same effect on hauliers who have bought businesses in the meanwhile. The British Transport Commission's remaining road vehicles will be subjected to the licensing system. The abortive sections of the Act relating to road passenger and harbour schemes will all go. In return for diminution of their monopoly, the British Transport Commission will be given greater latitude in fixing their charges—a point to which I shall return later.
May I go back for a moment to our proposals for the liquidation of the Road Haulage Executive? The undertaking will be divided into self-contained operational units which will be offered
1054
for sale to the public by a Government realisation agency specially set up for the purpose. In many instances these units will comprise premises, as well as vehicles, equipment, spare parts and stores. They will vary widely in type and size so as to give ample opportunity to the small haulier no less than to the big organised firm. This will give ample opportunity, too, to the man who is already engaged in short-distance work within the existing 25-mile limit. Owing to the changes which have taken place since long-distance road haulage undertakings were compulsorily acquired by the Commission, it is impossible to put the clock back exactly to 1948, or to return their undertakings to the hauliers whose businesses have been expropriated. The road haulage concerns acquired by the Commission have lost their identity on being absorbed in the British Road Services organisation. Vehicles have been re-grouped and in many instances replaced by new vehicles of different type or size. Many premises serving a small number of vehicles have been disposed of, and the Executive have tended to concentrate operations and maintenance on bigger depots, each serving a larger number of vehicles than was common under private enterprise. The ex-hauliers who wish to return to the industry will, however, be able to put in a bid for units which suit them.
While the Executive's undertaking is being disposed of, we must, we feel, retain the existing 25-mile limit—augmented by the permit system to go beyond the 25-mile radius—for these private operators still working in the short distance market. This limit should continue in force until the sale of the undertaking is substantially complete—that may be roughly a year, but I cannot tell for sure.
LORD CHORLEY: Does the noble Lord intend to put a reserve price on these units, or is he going to let them "go for an old song"? That is about all that they will fetch.
LORD LEATHERS: No. Private enterprise, I am sure, will be glad of the opportunity to go back into their rightful business; and they will know that what has been made by way of profit by the Road Haulage Executive is no gauge at all as to what profit they will make, because they will work with an economy that will startle your Lordships. Some

1055
of your Lordships may say: "Why should the 25-mile limit be retained so long? Why not abolish it immediately upon the passing of the Act?" It must remain for some time in fairness to those who come into the business afresh or anew and take over the assets of the British Road Services and, therefore, the duty of the Road Haulage Executive towards the public. If such temporary protection were not given there might well be a scramble to cater for certain of the public needs while others were neglected, and important interests of trade and industry would suffer. It is better to turn over to private enterprise both the long-distance haulage traffic and vehicles to carry it, in a single operation, leaving existing hauliers to take care of the short-distance traffic in the meantime as they do now. Any adjustment between the two classes of hauliers whereby many of them may in future combine some long distance journeys with their principal activities of short distances, and vice versa, can best come later. I would remind your Lordships that we are not depriving the short-distance haulier of the right to bid for some units in the longer-distance haulage, so that he can gradually get an extension of his trade by that process. In this way the necessary and beneficient measure of de-nationalisation will be accomplished with a minimum of interruption to the transport services available to the country's trade and industry. And, as I have already said, the short-distance man, with the advantage of an existing base from which to expand can bid for the lots put up for auction, and with any lorries so bought can immediately strike out into the long-distance field.
LORD OGMORE: Would the noble Lord mind reading a little more slowly? I am trying to follow what he is saying, and it is very difficult when he is going at this speed.
LORD LEATHERS: That is one of my faults, I must confess. I will do my best to conform with the noble Lord's wish.
The temporary retention of the 25-mile limit may be irksome to those who have for so long been crying out for more relief from the restrictions which at present beset them, but the existing hauliers are those whose main interest in the past has been in the short-distance
1056
field, and the Government are bound to do the best they can with the present situation as a whole. To deal with such matters as the mileage limit in isolation would not help to solve the transport problem; indeed, it would make it worse. During the change-over, the British Transport Commission—and this is one of the many matters which we shall be discussing with them—will have to carry on their road haulage undertaking, making any necessary adjustments as each lot of vehicles is sold and transferred to new ownership.
And here I would like to say a word about the staff of the Road Haulage Executive. Believe me, my Lords, I dislike as much as anyone the uncertainties caused by this sort of thing. But the fact remains that the Party opposite must take responsibility for taking the first disastrous step.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I remind the noble Lord that the first person to suggest—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord has been good enough to allow me to ask a question. May I remind the noble Lord that the first person to suggest the nationalisation of the railways was the present Prime Minister?
LORD LEATHERS: We are dealing at the moment with the road haulage side. Under our plans, the vast mass of the managing, operating and maintenance jobs will remain, but they will be with private enterprise instead of with the Executive. There may well, I am bound to admit, be a reduction in the number of the clerical staff. Inevitably with the process of nationalisation there has gone hand in hand a building up of a sizeable administrative tail, and from what I have heard there is some waste of manpower there which we can ill afford—and it runs into very large numbers. However, plans for compensation for those who may suffer from displacement are being worked out on recognised lines and will be included in the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, he will, I am sure, understand that this is a most important matter. Compensation, I take it, will be paid alongside the

1057
plan that is in force at the present time which the late Government established under the Transport Act. May I ask who will pay that compensation? Will the State pay it; or will the private hauliers who buy back the vehicles pay it?
LORD LEATHERS: How unfair, my Lords, it would be to ask private enterprise to pay such an item for people who are superfluous to the work. They will be able to run their organisation without a very large number of the people to whom I have referred, and whatever is the ruling authority for the compensation, that will apply to this case.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry, but I must insist. The noble Lord has not answered my question. In point of fact, he is completely wrong. There were smaller staffs employed by the Road Haulage Executive than there were by the private hauliers. That is a figure which the noble Lord could have got, had he made inquiry. Compensation has been paid recently to the extent of nearly £40,000, because the Road Haulage Executive found a redundancy of staff employed by private enterprise.
LORD LEATHERS: If that is the case, there is no point for me to answer.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do be serious.
LORD LEATHERS: Indeed, I do not think it is correct to say that to-day the Road Haulage Executive have not got more clerical staff attached to their road haulage side of the business than ever occurred under private enterprise.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is not what I asked. What I asked was, who is going to pay the compensation.
LORD LEATHERS: Whatever compensation is provided for in the Act as it stands will, of course, be honoured. Any suggestion that these men will be worse off is a deliberate—shall I say?—misrepresentation of the truth. Our proposals are designed to give them more work; they are designed to allow for the expansion of road haulage and so, after perhaps an initial period of uncertainty—that is most likely to arise—the individuals concerned should find themselves better off. Above all, I hope that we may see early signs that this
1058
prospect is realised by that most important link in the chain of operations, the long-distance lorry driver himself.
I should like to say a word about the railway side of our plan.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord leaves the subject of road haulage—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Would the noble Lord allow me to say something?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, certainly.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: What I want to say is this. The noble Lord spoke for over an hour, which he was quite entitled to do, and he was listened to in perfect silence, though he made, from our point of view, a rather provocative speech. After the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, has spoken there will be a debate, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is to wind up. I think it is only fair to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who has a rather difficult and detailed piece of exposition, to allow him to develop his case.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Marquess. May I ask him a question for the purposes of clarification? I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, for what may have appeared rude interruptions—they are not really. May I take it that all the questions we wish to ask will be answered by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when he winds up? If that is so, we are perfectly happy.
LORD LEATHERS: I hardly think that an undertaking from me is called for, because that would follow in the natural event. Our proposals are designed to give these men more work.
I should like now to say a word about the railways side of our plan. It is not proposed to denationalise, but to reduce the excessive centralisation of the railways. For this purpose, the Commission will be asked to prepare a scheme for the Minister's approval. This scheme

1059
will deal with such matters as the areas into which the railways are to be divided for management and operation; with their constitution and their relation to the Commission and the functions of those in charge of the areas. Areas will have a greater measure of independence than the present regions, but it is clear that the railways will still have to be treated as a whole for some purposes, such as finance and charges. Scotland will be a separate area. In the matter of charges, the railways have of recent years suffered from the lengthy procedure which has to be followed when rising costs make it necessary for charges to be raised. Indeed, part of the accumulated deficit of the British Transport Commission can be ascribed to this fact. We certainly hope that no further increases will be necessary. But if they are, we propose a speedier procedure which, while still protecting the public, will enable the railways to gain more quickly the revenue needed to meet increased costs. Moreover, it is our intention that the railways shall also be freed from certain restrictions fettering their right to lower charges. Subject to reasonable safeguards, they will have power to adjust individual charges or groups of charges downwards to meet the competition of the more stimulating conditions for which we plan.
I now come to the proposed levy on road transport, which your Lordships will doubtless find the most novel and, may be, the most controversial part of our proposals, and which we, for our part, regard as the keystone of our policy. First, let me say that the levy must not be viewed in isolation, as it has been by some critics; it must be seen as part and parcel of a practical plan providing for working arrangements between road and rail. We are giving the road greater freedom in the knowledge that this is often the cheaper and more convenient form of transport, and in the conviction that trade and industry will thus benefit. But if road is allowed to expand at the expense of rail, the railways should be able to make corresponding economies. If these economies are fully compensating, well and good; but it is more than likely that the railways will be faced with an unavoidable loss of net revenue by having to maintain assets essential for
1060
other purposes but not being used to the full. Unless some other arrangement is made, the railways would have to make good any such loss by raising their charges on the rest of their traffic. We propose, therefore, that there should be a levy on road goods transport. The levy, as is stated in the White Paper and as it is most important for everyone to realise, is limited in its application to two purposes—and two only. The first is to enable the Commission to liquidate any capital loss it may sustain in the sale of its Road Haulage undertaking, including the cost of sale. The justice of this first call upon the levy I am sure your Lordships will grant. Was it to be expected that any loss incurred should be met by the Exchequer or by the Commission? No, my Lords. It is much fairer that trade and industry, who are going to get so much better a service out of our plan, should meet the cost. And the cost will not be heavy, seeing that it can be spread over a very great number of vehicles, and seeing that the period for amortising any loss can also be spread.
The second purpose of the levy is to enable the Commission to meet any net loss incurred by the railways owing to the transfer of traffic from rail to road arising out of the new plan. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this second element in the levy has a strictly limited purpose. It will operate only where there is a definite transfer of traffic from rail to road, and then only to the extent that the consequent loss of revenue to the railways cannot be offset by compensating economies. Any reduction in railway net revenue due to other causes would not be reflected in the levy. I have seen suggestions in the newspapers that the levy gives the railways a blank cheque, which takes away from them all incentive to efficiency. But this is not so. The second element in the levy will be increased only to the extent that the roads attract additional traffic and that the railways cannot make countervailing economies. The levy in no sense represents a "feather-bedding" of the railways. I am sure that it will be a matter of pride to the railwaymen to make every possible effort to avoid having to make any use of this second part of the levy. The operation of the levy will remove the main objection to an expansion of road haulage, and we therefore intend that new carriers' licences shall be more

1061
freely granted. Thus a more proper relationship between road and rail will gradually establish itself, without cost to the State, without causing serious financial difficulty to the railways and without imposing an undue burden on road transport. This process will be gradual but far-reaching.
The amount of the levy will be decided from time to time, probably at intervals of three years, by the Minister of Transport, after obtaining the advice of the Transport Tribunal. It will be fixed for the initial period at a figure of about £4,000,000 a year. Your Lordships will see that this is not a burdensome figure, when I tell you that it represents no more than a very small fraction of a penny per ton-mile. Moreover, when spread over more than half a million vehicles, as it will be, it is seen then in true perspective. I have seen criticism that road haulage is being called upon to pay this sum when vehicles are already paying large amounts by way of excise and petrol duties. But this £4,000,000 is something quite different from a tax, and is specifically designed to enable the road haulage industry to come back into business; and to enjoy greater freedom without treating the railways unfairly. Surely, my Lords, it is a small price to pay for freedom. We have felt bound to bring "C" licensees—that is, traders carrying their own goods—within the scope of the levy, except for small delivery vans. "C" licences are granted without let or hindrance, and their numbers has more than doubled since the war. At the same time, their owners use the public transport system where it suits them, and are almost invariably dependent upon it in some way for the conduct of their business—for example, for the delivery of raw materials. Before I leave the subject of the levy, I should deal with the criticism that this means an automatic increase in the costs of distribution. That is neither correct nor fair. I have explained how small the incidence of the levy will be on any particular operator, and I feel sure that private enterprise will certainly be able to absorb the sum involved by operational economies.
I have seen many speculations about the future organisation of the Commission and its Executives. This is essentially one of those matters which we shall discuss with the Commission. At this point,
1062
perhaps I should deal with Lord Lucas's question to me about consultation with the Commission. We did not work out Government policy with the Commission. It must be for the Government to formulate the broad lines of policy in this as in any other field. The function of the Commission is to carry out the duties assigned to them by the Transport Act, and it would have been unrealistic to expect the Commission to be able to take a completely dispassionate view of proposals which so deeply affect their structure and functions. They are, of course, being consulted about the practical application of the principles embodied in the White Paper, particularly in the matter of future organisation. In some shape or form there will have to remain, it seems to me, a central body to which the Area Railway Boards can be responsible in such matters as finance and charges. This body will also weld together the financial results of the London Transport Executive and the various bus companies in which the Commission hold a share, the docks and inland waterways and the hotel and restaurant services. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we are right not to entertain rigid or preconceived notions on this topic. In these matters of organisation we hold ourselves ready to hear the views of those who now run the different services.
Before I close, I want to say that although there is no mention in the White Paper of coastwise shipping Her Majesty's Government do, of course, appreciate the bearing of our proposals upon that form of transport. It may be that some owners are apprehensive of the effects of the freer competition which we envisage. I do not myself feel that there is much in this point. But I know well from my own experience, both as a shipowner and as a Minister of War Transport, the value of our little ships; and we shall certainly be glad to look at any points which coasting shipowners may put before us.
My Lords, I take my stand by these proposals. We are working hard upon a Bill to embody our intentions. It will be a complicated measure and it will fill in all those details which you will want to see. But naturally you will not expect me to anticipate that Bill or go further into detail than we have already done about our intentions. In due time the

1063
Bill will be before Parliament and as the years go on and new life is seen to be put into our inland transport system by these proposals, and we see once more the private haulier plying his trade up and down the countryside and giving that first-class service upon which he rightly prides himself, I have no doubt that posterity will look back and thank us for placing these proposals before Parliament.
4.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, in spite of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I think that few would claim that the nationalisation of transport has been a success as regards the provision of an integrated and efficient transport system. For that reason I welcome Her Majesty's Government's new approach to this very difficult problem; in fact, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who in a previous debate declared that the present transport organisation is inadequate and asked for an inquiry in order that more facts could be brought before us. I think that that is unnecessary, since for many months we have had all the facts before us. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has asked for a Royal Commission; but surely that would be bound to cause considerable delay and to produce the greatest uncertainty in the industry at the present time. On the other hand, I hope that Her Majesty's Government, before introducing a Transport Act (Amendment) Bill will have full consultations with all sections of the transport industry and with trade and industry generally. I think that that is vital.
Lord Lucas suggested that if Her Majesty's Government started to sell the road haulage vehicles they would be hazarding the taxpayers' money. But I should have said that it was the Socialist Government that hazarded the taxpayers' money when they nationalised the industry. Lord Lucas also told us that the Road Haulage Executive made a profit of £3,000,000 in 1951. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that is only trade profit or whether it includes the interest payable on the stocks. Of course, it is easy to make money if you go about it in the right way and do what the Transport Commission have done only recently. I can give an example of a certain private road haulier in one of
1064
the Eastern counties, who quoted a rate of 15s. for a load of wheat. He was refused a permit. Afterwards the Road Haulage Executive came in and did the business at 25s. On that basis, of course, it is easy to make money.
I am convinced that the only basis for an efficient system of transport is for reasonable and fair competition between road and rail. For this reason I feel that the railways must be relieved of their various difficulties which come from their public obligations as common carriers. This is a vital point but I do not propose to enlarge upon it, because another noble Lord is, I understand, going to deal with it. I should like to deal for a few minutes with the question of decentralisation of the railways. The White Paper lays down that the new autonomous areas:
"… may follow the general pattern of the present regions."
Now, from the point of view of control, this would be admirable, but I fail to see how competition with railways themselves will materialise. In the old days, competition arose from the fact that there were at least two alternative main routes between North and South and between East and West. It might be worth while considering having more units than is proposed under the system in the White Paper, and I would suggest going back to the system which existed before the amalgamation. I do not see how we are going to have competition unless there are alternative routes. I also think it will be worth considering that in time each unit should have its own capital structure. I believe that one day it may be necessary for proper competition.
I am sorry to see that the proposed levy is to be applied not only to road haulage operators but also to the "C" licence holders, because it must be remembered that traders are certainly prepared to use an efficient transport system rather than their own vehicles, which must in any case be an additional expense to them. I suggest that they are being unfairly penalised. There is no doubt that the large number of. "C" licence holders to-day would be greatly reduced if an efficient road transport system again became available to them in this country. Speaking personally, I should like to see the whole system of levies on an entirely different basis. I should like to see the country divided

1065
into six areas, Scotland being one area, and on a horizontal basis. In each area the road haulage operator would be permitted to have free movement on one licence. Should he wish to move into another area he would have to pay for an additional licence for that area.
For example, if a trader was anxious that his goods should be delivered by road rather than by rail, say from London to Newcastle, the road haulage operator would quote a price which included the cost of additional licences to pass through each area. Different coloured licences might be used for each area. Under this plan, the railways would have fair competition from the roads, and the funds received from the licences could be used for the same purpose as indicated in the White Paper for the levy. It would be far more equitable, I cannot help feeling, than the direct levy on a ton-per-mile basis which is proposed in the White Paper. The road haulage operators would have a large east-and-west area of movement, and on one licence. On this basis I think the "C" licence holders could be fairly included in the scheme. It must not be forgotten that road haulage is already paying very heavy taxation indeed; in fact, I believe that some £335,000,000 is raised by motor taxation, whereas only £33,000,000 goes into the roads. It is unfair that road haulage should have to pay an increased tax by direct levy, whatever their movements may be.
Now, whatever this Government may decide to do, I hope it will be possible to defer the levy for one year until the whole new organisation has settled down, and during this period to support the railways from a portion of the motor tax funds. The railways certainly had a raw deal during the war, but in the war the Government gave a guarantee of £43,000,000 per annum by way of rental. Owing to the heavy traffic the railways actually made a substantial profit over that figure. What happened? This substantial profit was taken by the Government of the day and used for general taxation purposes. Therefore, I see no reason why some of this capital should not be returned to the railways for capital expenditure, in order that they may improve their services and be enabled to get on a Competitive basis with the road services. The figure which was taken
1066
from the railways amounted to something like £195,000,000. I cannot help feeling that, if some of that money were returned to the railways, in twelve months' time, or perhaps a little longer, a subsidy would be unnecessary. I am sure that the railways can be made to pay if they are re-organised and placed on a fair basis. This is undoubtedly the opinion of many railway experts who know their business. I cannot help feeling that a direct levy on the road haulage industry will establish a dangerous precedent, because any Government may at any time increase this levy as a form of taxation. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider its form of application.
It is true that the White Paper states that the levy need be increased only to the extent that the roads attract additional traffic from the railways and will not be used to make good loss of railway revenue due to recession in trade. But I really cannot see how that is going to be assessed. It would appear to me a very difficult and almost impossible accounting matter. I do not think any Government would have much difficulty in increasing for general taxation purposes the levy in its present form. I welcome the intention, as set out in the White Paper, to repeal the powers of the Transport Commission to make area schemes for passenger road transport services. I hope that provision will he made in due course for many of those people to recover their own public service passenger vehicles which were taken from them under the 1947 Transport Act. I think it is true to say that the number of these omnibuses amounted to something like 14,000 when they were acquired by the Transport Commission. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will hear this point in mind. I hope that, before the final draft of the Transport Act (Amendment) Bill is decided, Her Majesty's Government will confer fully with all the organisations concerned who have at heart the provision of an efficient transport system.
4.53 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the White Paper strikes me as rather being rather like my last week's egg ration. One part of it—I refer to the denationalisation of transport—was extremely good and I welcomed it because anything that tends to restore the flexibility that private enterprise transport used to have is for the

1067
good of all, and will greatly reduce the number of "C" transport licences on the roads to-day. But the other part, I am afraid, is a "completely inedible egg," so far as I am concerned. I view the levy as being a most dangerous precedent. If one goes back to 1928, one remembers that a tax of 4d. was put on petrol. It was done in order that, with the ordinary surplus, it should be the means of providing for rating reliefs in productive industries. The productive industries included the railways, so, as that 4d. has never been repealed, the railways are still getting their benefit from it. That 4d. in 1928 produced £12,000,000. A similar sum to-day produces £28,000,000. Could not some of the £16,000,000 difference be used to provide the £4,000,000 now required? I think that that is a reasonable request.
Also, the petrol tax, which was introduced in 1928 at 4d., has now become half-a-crown. It is noticeable that the trainer (if one may so irreverently refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who introduced that petrol tax is now the owner who wants to introduce a levy. It makes me more suspicious than ever. Is the £4,000,000 that is introduced to-day going to be turned into £30,000,000, in the same way as the 4d. became 30d.? With regard to the levy itself, it is said that it is imposed to meet the loss of money when the transport is sold back to private owners. Is not it a little curious, and possibly a little unjust, that you should ask people to pay a levy which is in effect being paid to provide for the help of those who want to enter into competition with them? You are putting the levy on all and sundry, but it is to pay for those who want to go back into the trade, which strikes me as a little unjust.
Moreover, I am not quite so optimistic about the number of people who want to get back into the trade. I think there may be a great many units which will find some difficulty in attracting purchasers. So far as the payment to the railways is concerned, I should like to emphasise the point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham: Who is to decide which of the railway losses is due to the roads "pinching" the traffic from the railways, and who is to decide that the railways have not lost that traffic through inefficiency? That strikes me as
1068
something which will indeed need a Solomon, and I do not believe that such a Solomon lives in this country. I regard the levy as a very dangerous thing. The Government say they are going to leave out the small local delivery van. But what about the delivery to the man who uses the small local delivery van—the milkman? His milk comes by road. Is his van that collects the milk to be charged a levy on his journey to fetch the milk, yet not on his journey to deliver it? There are many curious complications. I beg the Government to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham—not to do anything about this levy for at least twelve months until it is seen whether it is absolutely essential and whether there are not some other means of doing the same job.
4.59 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, it is understandable that we on this side of the House should regard this White Paper with disfavour, because it tends to destroy a structure which we have built up and which we think is making good progress. It is understandable, also, that noble Lords opposite should feel some anxiety and perturbation about the enormous amount of criticism that has been vented against the White Paper by responsible newspapers, and even by papers of high technical standing. What seems to me difficult to understand is why, in face of that informed opposition and criticism, the Government should persist in the scheme which they have outlined in this White Paper. I do not know what impression my fellow noble Lords gained from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, but I confess that to me it seemed that the noble Lord was less concerned with improving our transport system than with the political desire to try to undo nationalisation. That was my distinct impression.
If one tries to analyse the statements made by the noble Lord in his speech to-day, one has the feeling that it contained no real criticism of the operation of the nationalised system but that his feeling was that it was better to have the railways and road transport run separately. I confess that I felt that there was a good deal of artificial heat about the present situation. When one looks at the matter it seems to me that we are

1069
attempting to attach far more importance to that section of the road haulage industry that is nationalised than is warranted by the facts. I would strongly urge the noble Lord to read, in the current number of the British Transport Review, an article by the Public Relations Officer of the British Transport Commission. He says:
"Next to the idea that the taxpayer pays the piper, the notion that the Commission is an all-powerful monopoly colours most current criticism of operating efficiency. It cannot be said too often that the Commission holds no monopoly in transport and is unlikely ever to do so. The facts speak for themselves.
"The greater part of road transport, both freight and passenger, is operated under private enterprise. The State undertaking owns and operates some 55,700 goods vehicles (including those owned by the former railway companies), compared with nearly 120,000 operated by private haulage firms and as many as 781,800 operated by traders to carry their own goods. Even in long-distance road haulage, where the Act intended the Commission to have a qualified monopoly, there are over 7,100 private firms whose vehicles have three-year permits to carry established traffic."
I do not want to extend the quotation but I would suggest that that article may be read.
When the noble Lord says that the increase in the number of "C" licences is an indication that the people using them are dissatisfied with the service they are receiving, I want to suggest what I think is the truer explanation—that we are, in fact, facing an almost revolutionary change in the system of transporting goods from one place to another; that for some purposes the railways are becoming obsolete and that for other services road transport is becoming the better and more economical method of haulage. Therefore, the present Transport Commission, aware of this kind of problem, and applying themselves very carefully (from what I can judge) to it, have said that a certain amount of integration is certainly necessary. Again, I would refer the noble Lord to this particular number of the British Transport Review, which gives a long list of schemes of integration, both carried out and contemplated, as part of the larger system.
I have the fear—which I think is justified—that the intention behind the White Paper is not so much to improve the transport system as to give to private enterprise what the nationalised system took away front private enterprise. That, I think, is rather marked, when we con-
1070
sider what is said by so important a paper as Modern Transport, which I think the noble Lord will agree is a paper of some standing in the transport industry. This paper says, first, in connection with denationalisation:
"We regard the first of these proposals as purely destructive and wholly unjustified by the progress which has been made over the last four years by the Road Haulage Executive."
But in regard to paragraph 10 of the White Paper this journal says something which seemed to me to be rather significant, namely:
"…the machine which has been created with so much labour and expense is to be broken up and offered at 'physical assets' value to public tender. And who are to be the purchasers? We understand that in process of formation are syndicates who are insisting upon the maintenance, at art rate for the time being, of the 25-mile radius restriction while they themselves will be free of it. Thus it is to a wide yield of private monopoly rather than to the small operator, with whom so much sympathy has been expressed, that publicly owned haulage seems destined to pass."
I do not know what evidence the writer has for making that statement, but there is a statement front, as I say, a responsible authority.
Then we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport speaking, so far as I can see, to the only body which really welcome this White Paper—namely, the Road Haulage Association—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is the pay-off.
LORD GREENHILL: He said what was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Lucas—and I quote from the Manchester Guardian:
"Even the short time of nationalisation has dissipated goodwill to the four winds of heaven."
What is the significance of a statement of that kind? If private enterprisers are to buy back these assets, which on the admission of the Minister are row very much less because there is no valuation, what are the prospective purchasers to think when they come to offer? First of all, let me say that I do not agree that valuation has disappeared. It may be true that the individual firms from whom the businesses were bought can no longer say there is a valuation, but that valuation has not disappeared; it has merely become merged in the large body of purchases which have

1071
been taken over by the Commission. And to that extent the total of these valuations is to be found in the figures of the Commission.
When it comes to these private buyers buying these things, it is obvious that they will expect to get them at a price from which the question of valuation has been entirely eliminated. They will certainly try to keep the price as low as possible, because I understand that the chairman of the Road Haulage Association said at the same meeting that he assumed the Government were prepared to lose £25,000,000 on that transaction. Since he has already made up his mind that £25,000,000 will be lost by the Government, obviously that figure will be taken into account when he, or members of his Association, begin to tender for these vehicles. No, my Lords, I really think the position is this: that the Government are concerned less about the working of the transport undertaking than about this question of nationalisation, about which members of the Party opposite, both here and in another place have shown so much heat; and they will take whatever means they can to regain this valuable part of the transport undertaking.
I suggest that a distinction should be drawn between the ownership of the transport undertaking and its organisation. From my own not very wide experience of transport, I find that there is room for modifications in certain parts, for a little consideration in regard to organisation, for questions concerning the granting of licences, and several other things. But I am also sure that in the four years that transport has been run by the Transport Commission they have applied themselves very seriously, and to a large extent effectively, to dealing with precisely these problems. Given a little time, the machine would begin to run smoothly and effectively, and we should then see the benefit that we anticipated we should get when the industry was first nationalised. For that reason I think that there is no need for a Royal Commission, that there is certainly no need for denationalisation, and that if we give the present Commission the chance to continue as they are doing now, in a very short time we shall be glad that the system was nationalised.
5.12 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before I begin my speech I want to put to the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench a question which I hope he will be able to answer. It has been said in another place and also outside Parliament that if denationalisation takes place and there is a change of Government and the present Opposition come into power, they will immediately again nationalise transport. I want to ask whether noble Lords opposite have that intention, because, so far as my own mind runs on this subject, it is a matter of the greatest possible importance. I do not hold quite the optimistic view that my noble friend Lord Leathers seems to hold, that we shall get people into the transport business with this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, because they would have only until the next Election, unless we got back into power—and, please God, we will! Looking at it from a business point of view, I cannot see myself, for instance, going into the road haulage business in those circumstances. Therefore, having spoken to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, before the debate began, I wonder whether he can give me a direct answer to this question: if denationalisation takes place and the result of denationalisation is proved to be satisfactory—with reduced fares, a new impetus to industry, assistance to the export trade, and so on—will the Labour Party, when the term of government of those on this side of the House is over, immediately nationalise the industry again? I should like an answer to that question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I think what he had better do is to read what I said in Hansard. My noble friend Lord Pakenham did mention this matter to me before we came into your Lordships' House. What I think the noble Lord has to consider is this. I said that it is no use noble Lords opposite pointing the finger of scorn at us—
LORD TEVIOT: I am not pointing the finger of scorn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, but you say that if we reverse this policy we are wreckers of the national interest. Equally, we can just as well say

1073
that, through reversing the policy of the last Government, the present Government are wreckers of the national interest. It bits both ways. I think the noble Lord will have to obtain what solace he can from my exact words and the exact words in this connection of my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison. Beyond that, I can only quote the wards of one who used to be a great leader of the noble Lord: you must "wait and see."
LORD TEVIOT: I rather anticipated that I should not get a definite answer to my question. That statement has been made, and I come to the conclusion that noble Lords opposite are not prepared at the present time to say that they will do as was suggested by Mr. Morrison in another place, and also I think by the T.U.C.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That would be a very foolish assumption for the noble Lord to make. The noble Lord is quite as capable of forming his assessment of statements made as anyone, else. It would be safer for him to do that, and not to assume one thing to the other.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said, but he has not yet answered my question. I give it up.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have had to.
LORD TEVIOT: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has gone, because I should like to answer an observation he made just now. He said that my noble friend Lord Leathers, when dealing with the policy produced by this Government, was stating some political idea of getting away from nationalisation and back into private enterprise. There is no politics in this matter at all. Looking at the situation realistically, I am certain that what is at the back of my noble friend's mind is the desire to relieve the country from great loss and bad service, and to try to help industry to reduce prices for exports. So far as I can see, this is one of the ways in which that can be done. As I think my noble friend said, nobody can dispute the fact that losses have been very great and that the results of nationalisation are not satisfactory. There is no doubt whatever on that point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is the noble Lord referring to the Road Haulage Executive?
LORD TEVIOT: On the nationalisation of transport, the results are not satisfactory.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why not denationalise the railways?
LORD TEVIOT: Anybody who travels on the railways or goes about on the roads can repudiate the idea of the noble Lord opposite, that nationalisation has been a great success.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not said so.
LORD TEVIOT: But just now, when I said that it was unsatisfactory, you disputed the fact.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Let us get this matter clear. I do not want to mis-quote what the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord said that the Transport Commission had lost a lot of money. If there has been a loss of money it has been on the railways, but the noble Lord and his Party do not propose to denationalise the railways. If the argument is based on nationalised transport being a money losing proposition, why not denationalise the railways? Why not put them up for auction?
LORD TEVIOT: It is very difficult to make a speech. The noble Lord was "ticked off" by the Leader of the House just now, arid I wish the noble Marquess were here at the moment. One cannot develop any argument with the noble Lord bobbing up and down the whole time. Let me give him a little information about which, no doubt, he is quite aware. On authority that I do not dispute, I understand that in 1950 the figure was £14,000,000 down; in 1948, only £5,000,000 down, and in 1949, it jumped to £20,000,000—I am talking about losses. The total over the whole period amounted to £40,000,000, and we have now had enormous increases in fares and freight charges. Any Government coming into power who had the welfare of the country at heart could not avoid immediately doing something to try to relieve the nation of such a burden. That, I am sure, is in the minds of my noble friend and in the minds of the Government, and that is why I support

1075
them and not noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, no doubt travels on the roads a good deal, and he must have noticed how many empty lorries there are about. That is a situation which must be dealt with. One used not to see those vehicles going about empty in the old days—the "bad old days" I suppose noble Lords opposite would call them. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the course of his speech asked: Who will run the schemes which are going to be set up?—at least that is what I understood him to say, and I took his words down as they came from his mouth. I will tell him this, in answer to his question: it is certainly not going to be a case of "Jobs for the boys." The noble Lord knows perfectly well what I mean.
I should like now to tell the noble Lord something apropos of what happened to me about a year ago in Glasgow. One early morning, when I was about to travel by train to Edinburgh, a porter spoke to me. I did not know his politics, but he told me that whereas in the old days there would have been four porters doing a particular job there were now sixteen. I said to him: "You do not really mean that?" He replied: "That is so. Everything here is chaotic as the result of over-staffing." The noble Lord rather suggested that nationalisation had reduced the numbers of employees.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I never said anything of the kind.
LORD TEVIOT: It struck me that that was the suggestion which the noble Lord made. I am sorry if I am mistaken, but that was certainly what I gathered from his remarks. Another matter mentioned by the noble Lord was standardisation of engines, and he certainly seemed to think that that was a great thing to have accomplished. I have heard from friends of mine who have knowledge of railways and who have studied this question that there is ground for criticising this step. They tell me that powerful engines are now drawing comparatively light trains which could easily be drawn more economically by smaller engines better suited for the purpose. They suggest that the standardised engines should be kept for the purposes for which they are
1076
best fitted and that other services could easily be run with diesel engines or some other type of smaller engine. So it seems to me that there is no great credit to be taken by reason of this standardisation.
The noble Lord also said a word or two about class-consciousness. The existence of that is a pity. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, had made a speech here the other day which we all applauded. I only wish that I had been here to hear it. I read the report of that speech in Hansard with great interest and I heartily approved it. The spirit which was expressed in it is the spirit I want to see made manifest on the other side of the House, and, generally, in the Party which noble Lords opposite represent. I have appealed to noble Lords before, and I repeat that the great thing we must aim at is unity of purpose in the future. With regard to this question of class-consciousness, I am glad that the noble Lord who opened this debate recognised that a splendid spirit was shown by my old friend, David Kirkwood. If only everyone in the country would follow that out and deal with these questions in that spirit, we should soon find a great difference in the state of affairs.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I entirely agree with his support of Lord Kirkwood's speech. But what is the noble Lord complaining about? That is what I am not clear about.
LORD TEVIOT: What I have been complaining about is that, so far as I can ascertain from reading the newspapers which report fully the remarks of members of the Socialist Party—Members of Parliament and others—that spirit is not generally shown. The noble Lord knows that.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not know it at all.
LORD TEVIOT: I only mention the matter. I know, of course, that noble Lords opposite do not like it. They never like the truth. I am telling the absolute truth. If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I can send him exhibits in support of what I have just been saying. It will be quite an easy matter to find them.
I wish I had received an answer to my first question, because it seems to me that

1077
it is one which has to be taken very seriously into consideration in dealing with this immense problem in the future. With the enormous demands which exist for all types of transport in this country and with properly managed arrangements for conducting it efficiently, it should undoubtedly produce a profit instead of losses such as have recently been shown. We cannot afford to go on taking these enormous risks. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like hearing these criticisms.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am quite happy.
LORD TEVIOT: You are—very well then, that is all right. Here is a gigantic piece of business that is not being run successfully to-day. It is all very well to say that before nationalisation things were not satisfactory. My noble friend, Lord Teynham, I thought, struck the right note when he said that the railways had experienced very difficult times, not only in the last war but in the preceding war, and that they had never had the opportunity to recover. I believe that when this question is dealt with by this Government your Lordships will find eventually that denationalisation of road transport will be followed by denationalisation of the railways, and the railways will get a fair deal, which, in my view, they have not had for many a day.
I thank my noble friend, Lord Leathers, for his most comprehensive and enlightening speech. I feel that we should, if we can, eliminate politics altogether from this subject. It is not a political question and it never ought to be treated as one. The Opposition Party rushed into this, and the noble Lord opposite said just now that we gave no reason for going back to private enterprise. So far as I can see, there is every reason. This undertaking at present is a ghastly failure. We want to put it right, and I believe that we can and will do so, because we shall get the right methods and the right brains. There is no doubt that users of transport to-day are very worried about the situation. They are not satisfied with the present state of affairs and they only hope to goodness that somehow or other—and I believe that it will come about—we shall gradually drag the transport industry out of the terrible mess it has got into as a result of the policy of noble Lords opposite.
5.29 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, the White Paper in its first paragraph says that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the Transport Act of 1947 has not achieved its avowed purpose. I entirely agree with that statement, but I do not think one would be fair in leaving it at that without first of all asking two questions. The first question is: Have we given the Transport Commission a fair chance—that is to say, time enough to prove whether or not they are working on the right lines? Secondly, have they, by the results they have so far achieved, shown that, given more time, they will be able to reach and achieve their avowed purpose? I think it is important to put these two questions and to answer them with absolute fairness. I am encouraged by the fact that many speakers have questioned the purpose of the Government in introducing this White Paper at all. Unless those questions are fairly put and fairly answered, the Government lay themselves open to the criticism that they are more concerned with ownership as an end in itself than with ownership as a means of providing the best possible system of transport for this country.
I put those two questions to myself and I am satisfied that I am being fair when I contend that the results so far do not justify leaving matters exactly as they stand to-day. My noble friend Lord Leathers brought out that fact clearly when he said that customers were being served less well. I should like to add that there are many employees of the British Transport Commission, from the top right down to the bottom, who have been untiring in their efforts and in their enthusiasm, and undoubtedly much has been done during the last few years to make good wastage of one kind or another, to overtake the lack of repairs during the war years and to effect many economies. Having given all the praise one can where praise is due, can one really say that there has been the dawn of a new era of transport for this country, in keeping with present-day demands, as regards both passenger; and goods, and in keeping with the present vital necessity to avoid waste of all sorts—waste of manpower (we discussed that last week), of material, of effort and of time; unnecessary duplication, frustration, and unwillingness at times to be frank and expose short-sighted vested interests?

1079
It is because I am satisfied that we are not working on the right lines that I welcome the publication of this White Paper. I welcome it as timely. Does it really get down to fundamentals, or does it tend to perpetuate some of the underlying handicaps from which transport may be suffering? There are many references in the White Paper which I welcome as decidedly encouraging, but I must admit to one or two misgivings in certain directions. For example, I welcome paragraph 8, which states the general principle that private enterprise is regarded as the most suitable exponent of road haulage policy, and this, as it says, will mean the eventual elimination of the 25-mile limit. As an objective, I think that is excellent, and I am sure that it is right. But at the same time I have doubts about the practicability of what I read as meaning the almost immediate dissolution of the Road Haulage Executive. It seems to me that it would be better if the dissolution of the Road Haulage Executive could come about by allowing private enterprise an opportunity to prove its own case.
I am afraid that the political uncertainty which has been mentioned by many speakers, due to what I regard as somewhat irresponsible threats in different places, may prevent private enterprise from being able to give of its best. As my noble friend Lord Sandhurst asked, shall we get people to come forward to buy all these undertakings? More important perhaps, shall we get the best men to come forward as purchasers? I am not entirely happy about that. I would repeat what many other noble Lords have said, that transport should never have been allowed to become a matter of Party politics. However sincere noble Lords opposite and their supporters may be, I feel that they did a great disservice to this country in bringing that about. I do not feel that the Party to which I belong was responsible for introducing bitter Party controversy into this question of transport.
Can we retrieve that position in any way? It will certainly not be easy. A possible way of retrieving the position would be, instead of offering the Road Haulage Executive vehicles straight away for sale to private tender, gradually to
1080
stiffen the licensing conditions under which the Executive's vehicles operate and at the same time gradually relax those under which private vehicles operate, so that eventually they could all operate together on comparable terms. I listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Leathers had to say on that point and from a financial point of view he put clearly the difficulties under some such system as that. I see these difficulties, but at the same time I think it is a point that still should be given consideration.
I was glad to see from the last paragraph of the White Paper that it is intended that the Commission's goods vehicles should come within the licensing system of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I regard that as very important. In suggesting a gradual transformation from nationalised road haulage to private enterprise, I may be laying myself open to the criticism of tending to create such a surplus of road haulage capacity as would add still further to the grave difficulties of the railways. That may be so, but I believe that it could be kept under control, or influenced by licensing authorities in the future. Virtually, we have two separate transport systems in the country, one superimposed on the other—a road system and a rail system, either of which alone could carry a major part of the whole demand. What does that mean? As I see it, inevitably it means a considerable measure of waste. Does it not also mean a measure of hidden subsidy (as one might almost call it), resulting in excessive charges? It may also mean—and I know it does, at times—exceptionally wide and welcome choice for some users. But is that not, to some extent, a luxury which, under the present difficult economic conditions in which the country finds itself, we can hardly afford?
We hear a great deal these days about the need for ruthlessly cutting down Government and private expenditure. Is it not possible that here, also, the question of cutting down should apply? It means, of course, that the users must be prepared to forgo some of the variety of choice to which they have been accustomed in more prosperous times. Obviously we must maintain the railways in as efficient a condition as possible, not merely for strategic reasons—that is paramount—but also because I believe that, given the

1081
right conditions, they offer a valuable form of transport in peace, though not necessarily in the form in which they are to-day or in the form in which they have grown up from the time when the only other ancillary form of transport was not the bus or lorry but the horse. I know that the Transport Commission have been pursuing a policy of cutting out redundant branch lines, stations, and installations of one kind or other. But progress in that direction, probably through no fault of the Commission, has not been as great as it ought to have been, for the simple reason that there have been strong local objections. We ought to bear in mind that these local objections have not in any way been influenced by political considerations: they have come just as much from supporters of noble Lords opposite as from the supporters of noble Lords on this side of the House. I feel that a great deal more could have been done to cut out redundancy had it not been for local vested interests of one kind and another.
If I may give an example of the sort of thing I have in mind, in the county I know best, Lancashire, there were in the old days something like four or five—there may even have been six—separate railway companies. It is inconceivable that, as a result, there are not to-day many types of installations—stations, marshalling yards, sidings and so on—which are still duplicated, which for one reason or another cannot be co-ordinated and from which the redundant ones ought to be cut out. I believe that a great deal more could be done in that direction. It would save overheads and costs, and the matter is therefore urgent. But here again the process is bound at times to be inconvenient to certain users, so it is unlikely, without some measure of Party political agreement, to be pursued with that energy which it demands.
Taking that background of streamlining our railway system, I certainly welcome the proposal in paragraph 11 of the White Paper for increased decentralisation. That obviously will be a stimulus to a measure of rivalry, and, in particular—one noble Lord asked what sort of rivalry one could possibly have that would be to any advantage—to rivalry in research, if nothing else. That does not necessarily mean that we have to do away with all wise forms of standardisation—I think we can have both going together.
1082
I welcome even more the proposal in paragraph 14 of the White Paper that:
"The Commission will be given greater latitude to vary their charges schemes.…"
I believe that that is really getting down to the fundamental matter. But why cannot it go a stage further? After all, the process was started before the war when, I think, the Transport Tribunal of the day authorised the system of what were called "exceptional rates." Why cannot we carry it further and give the railways complete authority in their own sphere without need to refer to the Transport Tribunal? And why not take the matter even a stage further, as my noble friend Lord Teynham suggested, and relieve them either of the whole or part of the responsibility of being regarded as common carriers? Why were the railways ever made common carriers? It was simply because in those days they had a complete monopoly of transport. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to this point when he spoke, and he poured ridicule on the suggestion. But if it is not possible to remove altogether the obligation as a common carrier, I am certain that it would be possible to go a long way towards relieving the railways of that responsibility. If that can be done, there are plenty of types of traffic for which the railways can be highly competitive: there are various types of long-distance traffic, both for goods and passengers, suburban traffic round London, and other types. There might be inconvenience at times for some users. Special arrangements would have to be made for the type of traffic which nobody wants; and some special arrangement would have to be made in the transitional period when the railways first had their freedom. But I believe that on those lines alone we shall arrive at a healthy system on which the railways can freely and profitably compete with the roads.
That brings me to the contentious point of the levy. I dislike the levy—although my noble friend Lord Leathers went some way to assist me on this point—because I see it as tending to perpetuate the railway system in its present form, and, more particularly, if it is to be adjusted every three years. We read in the White Paper:
"Secondly, the expansion of road haulage will no doubt result in some further transfer of traffic from rail to road which cannot be offset by countervailing economies in railway operation.…"

1083
Further down, paragraph 16 says that some provision will have to be made to counterbalance that. The difficulty I have in accepting that statement is that, whereas some countervailing economies are obvious, some are much more obscure. What inducement would there be for the railways to search out for the most obscure of those economies; and who is going to say whether they have been sorted out or not? Therefore, I am rather afraid that the levy might tend to en- courage the status quo in the railways, which I do not like at all. However, if the Government would think again on the lines I have tried to indicate, I believe that the whole question of the levy might itself be found to be redundant; and, therefore, the matter would not arise. That is all I have to say. I am afraid that in certain aspects I may have been somewhat critical. However, I welcome the White Paper, because it points in the right direction. I wish the Minister well, and I sympathise with him in the difficult problem that he has inherited, not from his immediate predecessor but from those there before him.
5.50 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, came under some rather sharp fire this afternoon while making his speech. Not merely his matter but even his method of presentation came under criticism. I am sure the noble Lord recognises that he belongs to a particular section of the Government which is under very heavy criticism at the present moment and I feel that an opinion is growing that reform of the overlords is even more necessary than reform of the Lords themselves. But I must confess that I was rather surprised at the intervention of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, to complain about the questions and interruptions which had been put to Lord Leathers in the course of his speech. Our system of carrying on the public business of this country is by debate, and surely it is the very negation of debate to protest against perfectly orderly interruptions, put forward for no other reason than to elucidate vexed points in order to assist the whole House to follow more closely, with greater competence, what is under discussion. When I heard the noble Marquess claim it as a merit that that
1084
side of the House had listened to a controversial speech in perfect silence, I really could not help thinking that that may not have been entirely due to a spirit of courtesy, but may have been due to an inability to interrupt the speech or to controvert the points which were being made.
LORD WOLVERTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that I was longing several times to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on several points? But having been in this House now for some years, I have found that it has not been the practice to interrupt speakers during the course of their speech. I think the noble Lord did interrupt too much.
LORD WINSTER: I must say that I have frequently heard interruptions of speeches in this House. Provided they are orderly and proper interruptions, I cannot for the life of me see why the slightest exception should be taken to them.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): If I may venture to interrupt—
LORD WINSTER: In view of what I have said it is hardly venturesome.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My noble Leader is not here, and I should like to say this. It is all a question of amount. Both in this House and in another place—I think the noble Lord, like myself, has been a member of both—the process of debate is usually conducted by speech answering speech, and not by a duet with an occasional chorus.
LORD WINSTER: I note what the noble Viscount has said, but I think that debate is now showing a tendency to be carried on not by a process of speech after speech but by a process of reading brief after brief. I repeat my point, that I think it is the very essence of debate that orderly interruptions to elucidate a particular point of importance are a perfectly proper and, in fact, a necessary feature. As I have mentioned this, perhaps I should say that nobody considers more heartily than I do that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, is quite able to take care of himself regarding questions which are put to him in the course of any speech that he may make.

1085
My purpose in rising is to call attention to one feature of this White Paper which has not so far been touched upon, and in fact it is only vaguely referred to at all in the White Paper. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, will agree that what I am going to say is relevant to the White Paper. I would ask the noble Lord: has he gone into the question of what will be the effect of these proposals upon the coastal shipping industry? That industry has already enough problems to face. Competition is increasing in the Baltic and in the North Sea. The existing position is causing some perturbation to those interested in the industry. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, before the war, the coastwise shipping industry was very nearly ruined by cut-throat competition from other forms of transport. I believe that the integration of rail, road, canal and coastwise shipping which was aimed at by the last Government certainly held out a measure of hope of establishing an equitable rate structure for the coastwise shipping industry, whereas I fear that what is proposed to-day may revive the old competition, depress coastwise shipping and so adversely affect wages and conditions.
Apart from those considerations, coastwise shipping is of great importance to the nation, because it has, of course, considerable strategic importance. I believe that this question of the coastwise shipping industry is under consideration in Geneva at this very moment. I would ask the noble Lord whether the coastwise shipping interests on all sides were consulted in the course of the preparation of the White Paper or, if not, as may well have been the case, is it intended to consult them at some time in the future about the effects of the White Paper upon that industry?
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I can only imagine that the noble Lord was not present in the House all the time that I was speaking—I could forgive him for that. But at one time I did make a special reference to coastwise shipping and referred to my own experience of it. I said that we shall be only too ready to take that into account and to receive their points in connection with it, and see how the thing can be worked out.
LORD WINSTER: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I apologise to him at once for having unfortunately not fully comprehended that portion of his speech. Another matter to which I should like to refer very briefly indeed has reference to the railways. I regret what the White Paper says about the railways, because I regard it merely as a sort of throwing in the towel and saying: "No, it is hopeless. The railways can never be expected to pay." An argument seems to be developing that what really matters is to decide which is the most efficient way in which they should not pay—is it the most efficient thing that they should not pay under private enterprise, or that they should not pay under State ownership? That seems to me very much a sort of Tweedledum and Tweedledee battle—under which system shall they lose their money? I, for one, do not think it impossible that the railways should pay their way. In the course of their existence the Railway Executive effected many great economies, and I believe were on the way to effect yet more.
While I think they effected economies, I could not bring myself to say that I always think they effected a great improvement in efficiency and punctuality, to give only one instance Unpunctuality has been becoming steadily the rule rather than the exception, and any complaints or remarks about unpunctuality to the authorities have come to remind me of the remark made by an Italian stationmaster when he was confronted by a British traveller who was furious at finding the Grand Express drawn up two hours and twenty minutes late in a tiny little wayside station in the north of Italy. When the traveller complained to the stationmaster, the stationmaster said: "Why talk to me about it? I live here. I do not want to go anywhere." It seems to be in that spirit that one's complaints nowadays about unpunctuality are received. I believe that by continuing to cut out uneconomic services and by many other improvements—I will not dilate upon them because they have been touched upon already in his debate—and above all by securing co-operation in all grades in promoting economy and efficiency (and we are bound to confess that the results in that direction have been rather disappointing: we have not had the results from those policies of co-operation that we should have liked), the

1087
railways could yet be made to pay. But I must confess that I am astonished by the system under which it is sought to promote competition between railway services while demanding of the roads that they should subsidise their competitor, the railway. That seems to me to be a remarkable form of competition indeed.
Finally, I wish to say this. I feel I am only one of very many people who are perturbed by what apparently lies before us in the conduct of some of our major industries. The two-Party system of Government, as I understand it, is supposed to have the great merit that it gives a certain amount of continuity in the carrying on of the government of the country; and we make it a source of great and legitimate pride that our foreign policy and our defence policy are almost entirely bi-partisan. We regard that as one of the features which make for great stability in the Constitution and in the conduct of our affairs. But when we come to the economic affairs of the country, the economy upon which all depends—because what is the good of having a good foreign policy and a good defence policy if you have an unsound economic policy by which the country seems to be going downhill?—the idea seems to be quite different with various Governments. There seems to be a prospect of our arriving at a state of affairs when every change of Government will witness a change in the method of running the business and industry of this country. What are we seeing in regard to transport? A process of nationalisation and denationalisation and a plain intimation that there will be renationalisation with the next change of Government. Although I have not yet heard it said from the other side, I should not be surprised if we got a corresponding intimation of re-denationalisation when the Party opposite once again comes into power. Is this really the way to run the industry of this country? There is an old saying that while the doctors argue, the patient dies; and this process will, I believe, have that effect upon our industries.
Two of our basic industries lie under this threat at the present moment—steel and transport: the two industries upon which at the present time all the other economy of the country rests. Take the
1088
question of transport which we are now debating. I am sorry I have not the reference with me, but I am thinking of President Truman having set up a commission to inquire into how far the cost of transport enters into the price of articles. I am almost afraid to quote this because, as I say, I have not the reference by me, and because the figure seems so great; but I believe it was stated by the Commission that this cost entered into the price of articles to the tune of something like 70 per cent.—that is, into the price of all articles, not of any particular class of article. Steel, as we all agree, is the very basis of our trade and commerce. Yet here we have these two great industries, steel and transport, under the threat of this process. I believe it is the case that doctors will tell you that the new system of shock treatment for lunatics is proving very effective: that they are getting very good results from shock treatment given by alternating currents. But if we are to apply this shock system to the industries of this country, while it may be a good way of treating lunatics, it is a lunatic way of running our economy.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, at the first reading of the White Paper, I shared the apprehension to which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has just given utterance, about the complete absence of any reference to coastal shipping—an industry which, after all, is no inconsiderable part of the transport system of this country. It employs well over 1,000,000 gross tons of ships—a figure which can be little if any less important than the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in connection with the road transport industry.
While it was comforting to hear Lord Leathers' reference towards the end of his speech to coastwise shipping, I was not sure at the end whether he was still of the same mind as I think he was when in this House some years ago he said that we must be careful, in planning the co-ordination of road and rail, that nothing is done to impede coastal shipping from fulfilling its full function. I could not help wondering whether he felt quite the same when he was engaged in co-ordinating unplanning. However, I take it from his remarks that in the

1089
main he did, and that those who are more closely concerned with that part of the shipping industry than I am will be able to settle this matter on the basis of the consultations which the noble Lord was good enough to offer.
I should not have taken up your Lordships' time (nor shall I for more than a few moments), were it not that a question of considerable importance about the general organisation of transport in this country seems to me to have been raised by a great deal of what has been said in this House this afternoon. The White Paper on the subject of road and rail transport speaks of some measure of competition, and there has been a great deal of talk about competition in general throughout this debate. But what I was not able to gather, and what I hope the noble Viscount who is to reply will deal with, is the extent to which such competition is to be what is generally called "regulated competition," and how far it is to be a sort of "free-for-all." It is undoubtedly true that great economies result from competition in general, but it is equally true that violent instabilities may result if this competition is pushed too far over limited fields and over short periods of time. If competition is in the public interest, so is stability. It seems to me difficult to imagine any transport system dependent upon the provision of regular and scheduled services, whether they be by road, rail or sea, or in the air, without at the same time some arrangement for ensuring at least a moderate stability of rates.
Far be it from me to defend the Transport Act of 1947; but so far as coastwise shipping is concerned, it did have, through the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, a salutary effect in the regulation of coastal rates and in their relation to the rates charged by road transport and also, to some extent, by rail transport. The coastal shipping industry was not nationalised, but there was a certain co-ordination that was in and not against the public interest; and it would be helpful to know how far it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that this sort of consultation and harmonising will continue to be a feature of our transport system, and how far they think it can be usefully modified or stimulated by such measures of competition as they are now introducing.
1090
I should like to say only one more thing, again about coastwise shipping, and again in this connection. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, referred to the importance of coastwise shipping in our national defence. That is not a matter which any noble Lord is likely to overlook, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. I am not suggesting, and I do not think that anybody else would suggest, that it is the proper function of a transport system to perform what are really the jobs of defence by stimulating, for warlike purposes, systems and units of transport which are inappropriate, or even uneconomical, in time of peace. It does not follow from that, however, that the Government should not be at considerable pains to see that a mode of transport so necessary in time of war should not be allowed to die merely because it does not, instantly and immediately, fit into a highly competitive picture in time of peace.
I am far from pleading that coastwise shipping should receive the sort of consideration that should be given to the railways, and the last thing any of us would ask for is a levy to enable us to meet more readily the competition which must be expected from the roads. If we are to maintain sufficient coastwise shipping to meet the undoubted needs of national defence, I think it will be necessary to ensure that there is some stability of employment for coastwise ships and that the Government do not, by introducing suddenly a severe measure of competition, discourage people who are already finding it difficult enough to replace their tonnage—which in a large number of cases is already old enough to need replacement—from getting on with the job with some feeling of confidence about the future. These people have no right to ask more than that they shall be allowed to earn an honest living by their own effort; but, equally, I think this country owes them no less than the opportunity to do that.
6.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, in a very striking, informative and constructive speech, referred to this White Paper and the policy that it foreshadows as "a leap backwards into the dark." The situation to which this White Paper points is all too clear. It is not at all shrouded in doubt. It points back to the old days of

1091
lack of control and cut-throat competition. Your Lordships will remember that, over a hundred years ago, this tragedy was played out for the first time when the original form of transport, the main form of heavy transport, the canals, was fought and beaten by the railways. That resulted in an incalculable loss of capital assets to this country. The same thing has happened in the twentieth century with the railways and their competitors, the roads. Are we going back, under the influence of what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, described as "beneficent denationalisation," to complete, unrestricted competition? The White Paper talks about the transport system being
"stimulated to adjust and develop itself in accordance with public needs."
There never was a transport system until the Act of 1947. Until then, there was nothing but a haphazard collection of private enterprises that sprang up in different parts of the country, unrelated to each other and unrelated to the national needs, entirely at the whim of private profit. It was only when the course of events showed clearly that closer control was necessary that this collection of transport agencies was welded into a proper transport system.
Now, Her Majesty's Government tell us that the Act has not achieved, and is not likely to achieve, integration. On what evidence do they make those statements? This system, instituted only four years ago, has only just begun to get going. The process of taking over the road haulage and other agencies takes time, and it is only now in the last year or so that anything of the results or the success or failure of this system can be judged. The first point I would put to your Lordships is that it is completely unrealistic to judge this system on such a short experience. I think competent people in the transport world would say that one would want twenty years to see the results of a reorganisation of the nature and the scale of the 1947 Act and get the ultimate benefit.
On this question of integration, I found a most illuminating and an extremely able definition of what the co-ordinated transport system ought to be. It was in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, made two years ago. He defined it as follows:
1092
"A properly co-ordinated system would be one in which each form of transport was able to render those services for which it was economically and technically best suited."
That I call a most admirable definition of "integration." Are we to suppose that that integration will be achieved by what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, calls "practical and businesslike methods"? Those methods that are foreshadowed in the White Paper sound to me more like an economic jungle. Moreover, there was recognition, long before the Labour Government came in and long before the Transport Act, that some restriction on methods of transport was necessary. The Road and Rail Traffic Act of 1933 recognised clearly that unlimited, unrestricted competition could not be tolerated in this country. We could not tolerate the enormous increase in commercial traffic on the roads. There was an ominous ring about the statement of the Secretary of State that carriers' licences would be more freely granted. Most of your Lordships know the roads of this country, and know the amount of heavy traffic that they carry now. The roads system, which has been only slightly modified from the stagecoach days, is expected to carry this enormous tonnage—and what is the result? It is not only a matter of 5,000 or 6,000 people killed every year and many more thousands injured, but it is a bill in hard cash that has been estimated at £150,000,000 a year in road accidents alone. To turn commercial traffic loose on the roads is going to increase the toll of accidents and slow up the remainder of the traffic on the roads.
The Transport Commission, who have been operating for some four years, have had before their minds all the time their statutory duty, laid down under the Act, which was to promote integration. We have heard a great deal about their failings but we have only to look at their reports for the two years 1949 and 1950 to see that a considerable amount has been done in the direction of integration. We probably all hoped that they would achieve a greater measure of success in that time, but many factors have operated against that; one is the natural ignorance of the general public, which is easily played upon by propaganda such as a document I have here protesting at the closing down of the St. Marylebone Goods Depôt in London. It is a neatly got-out little roneoed sheet issued by the

1093
local Communist Party, and it seizes on the fact that some 400 railway employees will lose their jobs at St. Marylebone. It does not explain that the elimination of this depôt is part of the measures of economy that the Railway Executive have found necessary. Wherever the Railway Executive have proposed to remove any facilities that they offered, immediately and in every case there has been a storm of protest from all sorts of interests, none of whom had any constructive suggestion to offer. That is one of the factors which has slowed up the elimination of unprofitable traffic and unprofitable branches.
There is another factor which is less reputable; it is not due to ignorance, but, I regret to say, it is due to prejudice. The Transport Commission in their Report for 1950, say:
"There have been many instances where the Road Haulage Executive has taken over undertakings only to find that the main customer or customers will no longer give their business to British Road Services."
That is a case of plain political prejudice which has gone far to hinder the Transport Commission in their efforts to carry out their duties. Obviously there have been other factors—the restrictions on capital, the shortage of materials, and so on. But do not let us think, and do not let it be thought from what has been said in this House to-day, that nothing has been done by the Transport Commission to carry out their duties and that no success has been achieved in the direction of integration and economy.
I should like to say a word about the proposed sales by open tender to private enterprise of the Road Haulage Executive undertaking. I understand from the Secretary of State's speech that no reserve will be put on these lots when they are put up to auction. Possibly some people may think that his optimism about the demand there will be is misplaced. That cannot be foreseen. I am no business man, but one knows of the shop that puts in its windows "Clearance sale. Everything must be sold," and one knows that that is a clear invitation to go in and get things at bargain prices. I think for Her Majesty's Government to deal in that way with the taxpayers' assets is a most irresponsible action; it is dissipating the resources of the country. Also on the matter of the Road Haulage Executive, there was some exchange be-
1094
tween my noble friend Lord Lucas and the Secretary of State on the question of redundancy of staff. I think the Secretary of State was under the impression that the Road Haulage Executive was more lavishly staffed than under private enterprise. Lord Lucas has told us that on taking over the Executive found that there was redundant staff that could be got rid of, and in the year 1949–50 I notice that although many undertakings were taken over and the traffic carried increased from 27,000,000 tons to 46,000,000 tons the staff employed by the Executive increased only from 67,000 to 75,000. It does not lock to me as though there was any undue inflation of staff in that direction.
May I now turn to the railways? This decentralisation is claimed to introduce healthy rivalry between the new railway areas and to correct the excessive centralisation which, it is said, has been caused by the Transport Act. The Transport Act, far from excessively centralising, broke down the four original railway regions into six. If Her Majesty's Government propose to break these down into smaller areas one wonders how they will work and, as other noble Lords have said, how competition is going to be achieved. Are we in favour of a system whereby small towns, like Barnstaple, shall have two different stations and for the two lines serving them to compete with each other for traffic? Some other towns are served by several railways. Can we, in the situation in which we are at present, afford this lavish provision of means of transport? They are to have "greater latitude" over their charges, but it is not clear from the White Paper how much discretion, how much latitude, there will be among the areas for fixing charges. Will the Scottish area, for instance, fix a different fare for Edinburgh to London, from the fare for London to Edinburgh? If Dr. Johnson is to be believed about
"The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees,"
one can imagine higher charges being put on the southward journey.
Again, what about the question of standardisation—we have not heard much of that—and whether these areas are to be allowed freedom to design and build their own locomotives and rolling stock? Shall we see the depôts at Eastleigh, Swindon, Doncaster, and the rest, each competing with all the others in building

1095
small numbers of locomotives for their own lines, and with enormous loss and waste of effort? I hope we shall hear something by way of an assurance from the noble Viscount that standardisation of material, which has made great strides and is showing very promising results, will not be lost sight of. My Lords, at this late hour (that is the conventional phrase at this hour of the evening) I hope I have said enough to pick up a few of the points. But I should like to add that we on these Benches feel most uneasy, to put it mildly, about this White Paper, which we regard as a very sketchy, poorly thought-out performance, one which might produce some short-term effect but has no relation to the long-term problems which will always be with us.
6.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must not be diverted from my original purpose, which was to offer some slight criticisms of the White Paper, into dealing with some of the very controversial points which were asserted without much evidence by the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat. But, I think, there are at least two questions upon which it would be fair to take him up. I have often diverted myself with the speculation as to what would have happened in the beginning of the railway era had Socialism then been the dominant political philosophy. We have heard the answer this afternoon. We should have had immense pressure from the stage coach pioneers to preserve our magnificent system of Macadamised roads, horses, carts, posting stations, trumpets and other obsolete paraphernalia. The noble Earl went even further. As I understood him, he was for restoring our grand old system of canals which preceded stage coaches. I understand the noble Earl's conversion to Socialism has been nothing more than an intense form of conservatism, which he might well have inherited from his noble forbears.
So far as we on these Benches see it, the objection to nationalisation is, of course, not that it is progressive, but that it is intensely, and to an ossified extent, conservative, precisely because it is in favour of the return to the stage coach, mutatis mutandis, and our grand old canal system, and all the rest of the be-
1096
loved outmoded forms of transport which the noble Earl defended so eloquently. We rather fear that nationalisation is not in the best interests of progress in this country. Then there was another extraordinary aspect of his speech, what I call the politically mythological part of it. I was so astonished at his words that I took them down as best I could. According to him, there was no transport system in this country at all before 1947. There was only a spirit spreading across the face of the water which created the Act of 1947. There was only (I quote): "a haphazard collection of private enterprises unrelated to the public interest"—and something else which did not catch up with. The whole of the rest of the legislation in the last century was ignored. The whole complicated system of the Railway and Canal Commission, the Railways Acts, going back to 1837, culminating in the Act of 1921, the transport licensing provisions of the 1930's, all meant nothing to the noble Earl, who reverts to the status quo ante, the establishment of the canal system which preceded the stage coaches in this country.
These particular excursions into mythology have offered me, at any rate, a point of departure from what I was intending to say, because it is a remarkable and, to me, deplorable fact that both great Parties of this country spend, I should think, seven-eighths of their time in arguing about the rival merits of private enterprise and public enterprise, as it is called. The rival merits of those two great systems really have very little to do with the real economic and political questions with which this country is faced. Indeed, the public are interested in this very largely ritual savagery between the two Parties only by the development on each side of this particular political mythology which attributes to private enterprise nothing but chaos, and to public monopoly nothing but inefficiency.
In my humble belief, the truth is that there are certain enterprises, such as the sewers, which are far better run by the public. There are others, such as hairdressing, which could hardly be relegated to monopoly, because individual tastes differ so very widely. In between these two extremes there is a debatable ground, part of which we are discussing this afternoon. But the ugly truth which

1097
will presently emerge is that between a really well-run private enterprise and a really well-run public monopoly there is precious little to choose. It is untrue that private enterprise believes in "cutthroat" competition, or chaos, or the disregard of the public interest—
LORD BURDEN: Will the noble Viscount address his remarks to the Secretary of State, who opened this debate on behalf of noble Lords opposite?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope, indeed, that the Secretary of State will listen to my remarks. That brings me to my next point—namely, that I apologise to him for not having listened to his. Unfortunately, I was sent for on urgent business almost at the moment when he rose, and as some of my remarks are intended to be critical of the White Paper, I hope that I may not have missed some of the arguments for it by the necessary abstention that was imposed upon me.
But, my Lords, there is debatable ground in regard to which there is really precious little to choose between the really well-run private enterprise and the really well-run public monopoly. At least, in my humble belief the greatest part of the political controversy in which Parties are engaged redounds to the great misfortune of the country as a whole. I personally think—I know noble Lords opposite will not agree with me—that among the very worst subjects chosen for nationalisation originally was the road transport industry of the country. Indeed, the only really plausible argument for it that I ever heard was that advanced by the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat—namely, that it was a great pity that we ever got rid of our stage coaches, and that we might at least weight down the scales of justice in favour of the railways before they disappear altogether in the heat of competition from the roads. That view has a certain speciousness about it, but I think it is the only argument in favour of the control of road transport in the first place. It does not, of course, necessarily follow that because the nationalisation of road transport was originally a blunder of the worst kind, its denationalisation at any particular moment, or at all, is necessarily the correct policy to pursue.
1098
It seems to me that that is the real point which ought to be discussed in this debate. I myself have some doubts about the matter. I do not for a moment wish to defend (because it seems to me to be the worst of all possible attitudes) the advance statement of the Labour Party, that they will re-nationalise if ever they get back into power. As the noble Lord, Lord Winster, indicated, I think that is both unpatriotic and undemocratic and also, in the end, subversive of Parliamentary government. If at the very moment they get into power every Party are going to spend their time undoing everything that their predecessors have done, we shall soon find Parliamentary government impossible. Not only is that an argument against denationalisation; it is also an equally powerful argument against announcing in advance that you propose to re-nationalise. Quite obviously, any Government faced with such an announcement in advance are bound to tell the Opposition that it is for the moment Her Majesty's Government, and not Her Majesty's Opposition, who are going to dictate policy, so far as policy can be dictated and not imposed by reason.
I confess that I feel certain doubts about the wisdom of denationalising road transport at this stage. The doubts which I feel are both on practical grounds and on principle. It is, of course, true that denationalisation of road transport was in the Election Manifesto. But I have always thought that when a Party is returned with a small majority its attitude towards its own Election Manifesto should be coloured to some extent by political realities. I, at least, can claim the credit for having said that before this debate, for I said it on the occasion of the debate on the gracious Speech from the Throne. I am not sure, therefore, that the fact that this proposal was in the political Manifesto is conclusive. Secondly, I believe that it will be difficult to find purchasers for a denationalised institution at the present time, quite apart from Mr. Herbert Morrison's threat in another place which, it seems to me, was designed to sabotage the sale when it came—and a very unpatriotic thing it was to do. Quite independently of the question of want of patriotism in some of the leaders of the Opposition Party, there will be a certain difficulty in finding purchasers for a denationalised institution at

1099
a time when denationalisation is obviously a matter of acute public controversy. The tenure which can be offered by any Government, in such circumstances, quite apart from any threats by the Opposition, must necessarily be a doubtful security, and that fact must necessarily depress the price.
I wonder whether the correct method of approach is to offer the entire assets of a large industry in such circumstances to public tender. Supposing it is, I still feel that there are other doubts to be expressed. It is manifest—indeed, it is admitted in the White Paper—that the process will involve the Government or the Commission in a good deal of loss. Is it desirable to impose a heavy loss on a public institution at the present time? Is it just to seek to recoup the loss by imposing a levy on goods vehicles, not all of which, on any view, will benefit by the proposed change? I myself have not been convinced by these arguments. I must finally add this. I have not been convinced that there was not at the hand of the Government a very much more prudent method of approach, even upon the assumption that it was necessary, or at least desirable, to denationalise the road transport industry. Their major premise in the White Paper is that they propose to increase the road services. I know that that does not meet with the approval of the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat. Being more diffident about such matters I assume that it is a correct major premise.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Perhaps the noble Viscount is not a pedestrian.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do sometimes bicycle, which renders me more allergic to heavy goods vehicles even than I should be as a pedestrian. But, assuming for the purposes of this argument that the premise of the White Paper is correct, would it not have been possible for the Government to proceed cautiously, by allowing some of the additional services to be put out to public tender and on to the old "A" licence system, instead of submitting the entire assets of the Road Transport Commission to public auction? I am not convinced that that would not have been a more cautious way of approach. Supposing it had been done, and supposing it had been done successfully, it would, at any rate in my opinion,
1100
have been more difficult for the Labour Party to undo what was done. It would have been very much more difficult to make a plausible case for undoing such an Act. Moreover, if, in competition with a public monopoly, private enterprise did succeed, what a splendid argument in favour of private enterprise that would be.
For these reasons, I feel a little critical of the White Paper, and I wonder whether perhaps it would not be a wiser course of action to have second thoughts about it. I hope that I may be forgiven for expressing a purely personal point of view, but I have been very much concerned to see a Conservative Government in this country for a number of years. I think that is what the country needs, and I think the reason it needs it is that what the country requires at the present time is a period of competent administration, without an undue measure of controversial legislation, designed to put this country back into the position which it ought to hold in the councils and economies of the world, by restoring our economic position and by restoring our political prestige. I believe that in these two latter tasks Her Majesty's Government have been notably successful. I believe that they will be further successful if they continue in office. But I am not sure that it will be possible for them to continue in office if they take upon themselves the burden of a number of controversial schemes dictated primarily by a doctrinaire approach to what I believe to be fundamentally an irrelevant issue—that of public enterprise and private monopoly.
6.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I find myself very much in sympathy with what the noble Viscount who has just sat down has been saying. I remember that when the Transport Bill first came into this House we had a long debate on Second Reading on the principles of private and public ownership, free enterprise, nationalisation and so on. Many of us, even at that time, expressed the opinion that it did not really much matter who owned the concern, but that it did matter very much how it was run. That, to my mind, is the point which lies at the back of all the questions of importance relating to transport and nationalised industries generally with which we have

1101
had to deal. I feel that in the White Paper the opinions expressed are not, perhaps, quite the kind which one would like to see. I see very little which leads us to hope that there is any belief that the railway service is going to survive successfully. Most noble Lords, I think, will agree that we must have a railway system in this country. I should like to see some expression of policy, some attempt to create conditions under which the railways will operate successfully. Then, surely, the road transport system can fall into its place.
Are there not many things in railway legislation which really call for reconsideration? I refer to the restrictions which have been placed on the railways for many years. There is the question of the obligation to carry which has been discussed by your Lordships, the questions of limitation and variation of charges, liability not to give undue preference, and so on. And there is a Transport Tribunal which, although it is in a new form in the present Act, is a descendant of the earlier organisation which was instituted in earlier times, as were so many of these pieces of legislation, for the protection of the public and of traders. Of course, it is too simple to say that this shall all be swept away piecemeal, but I think that conditions have changed so much that it would be well worth trying to think again how to arrive at a more satisfactory situation—how, for instance, to have regulations or Acts of Parliament varied in such a way as to promote an agreement on rates structures between road and rail which, after all, was not so far away before the war. On those conditions, surely there could be competition for service and efficiency between road and rail.
A railway system demands the ownership and management of a large number of local road transport delivery services, and I think it would be a great mistake to sell off nearly all the local delivery services at present belonging to the Road Haulage Executive, as proposed in the White Paper. Many of these could well be integrated with the railway system. Indeed, it is one of the criticisms one may make of the present Act that, although it aims at integration, it does not allow a close enough unit of management locally. I believe that "Executives" as defined
1102
in the Act are wrong and that there should have been regional or sub-area Executives. I am sure that there would have been better results if, for operating purposes, these had under their command the short-distance haulage and also the hotels, docks and inland waterways in their regions. I am one of those who believe in division on a geographical basis rather than on a functional basis, and I am inclined to think that events show that that is probably the right view. In the White Paper it is said that there is too much centralisation. While one cannot deny the advantages up to a point of standardisation and common policy on engineering design, construction and similar matters, it seems to me that there is a clear case for giving a great deal more autonomy to those in charge of geographical regions. I hope that that will be done as suggested in the White Paper, and also that serious consideration will be given to the alteration of the Act so as to remove the emphasis from these functional Executives and place the responsibility for transport operation in the region as a whole upon the regional Executives I suggest.
I should not like to see the whole of the road services immediately sold. I believe it is too early to do that. Many of the criticisms of the road haulage services could be removed by reducing the road haulage units to smaller size and attaching them to the area or regional administration. However, I believe that there is a good case for getting rid of the main long-distance haulage units. It would not be impossible to make arrangements whereby these could be sold as going concerns, as many of them were before the Act and as many of them more or less remain. A fair attempt at competition between the long-distance road haulage system and the railway system with its ancillary short-distance haulage seems possible, and that would be an experiment well worth trying. To go so far as that would need alteration of the Act, but I think that might be done without any very acute controversy. There would be differences of opinion, no doubt, as there always are, but I should like to see something of that sort as an experiment, with the common agreement that whatever the resultant Act of Parliament, it could always be improved. I think that those who were behind the present Act are bound to agree that it has a good many deficiencies.

1103
I am sorry that a levy on road haulage is proposed, because I think that that is a very bad principle. It is all very well to say it is not a tax but a levy, but to the operators it is exactly the same thing. Once started, any levy, tax or imposition can always be kept on after its original purpose has gone. Although the levy may not amount to very much on each vehicle just now, it may well become more: but it is the principle about which I feel so unhappy. I do not think it right that operators on "C" licences should pay this levy. A trader operates on a "C" licence because he can provide himself with a more efficient service than he could obtain from any other system. Under the White Paper proposals he will have to pay the levy, and it is not enough to answer that he can calculate whether it will pay him or not. He will have to pay it and will get no advantage from the companies who buy the other parts of the road haulage system and operate them outside the 25-mile limit.
I also feel unhappy about the levy because I look on it as a subsidy to the railways. I do not believe we shall ever make the railways independent and put them well on their feet unless they feel they are able to finance themselves. The right thing to do is to make circumstances such that they can pay their own way, to give them more freedom to get rid of obligations that are onerous, close down unremunerative lines and give up some services. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it is not easy, but I believe it is only on these conditions that the railways can run properly. It is a pity that we have this proposal for what in effect is a subsidy to the railways. It is the first time any subsidy to the railways has been proposed in this country. I hope the Government will think a little on this White Paper before they introduce legislation. Something ought to be done to improve the present haulage system, but I think we are going a little too far at one jump in this proposal.
6.59 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said very little about the transport user. In thinking out this problem, we ought to start with first principles and ask ourselves whether the scheme put forward in
1104
the White Paper will benefit the customer—and by "customer" I mean practically the entire industry of this country. I believe most definitely that this scheme would benefit the customer. I do not propose to give any examples of the loss of efficiency under nationalisation, but I think the fact that manufacturers and traders are not getting the service they require from the Road Haulage Executive is instanced by the fact that the number of "C" licences has risen from 500,000 to 800,000. Unquestionably the service required from road haulage is of a very personal and individual nature, and I do not believe that service can be given by a large nationalised body such as the Road Haulage Executive. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said that people are using "C" licence vehicles because they can have their goods delivered more cheaply by that means. I do not think that is the reason. I believe that it is because only by using "C" licence vehicles can they assure supplies coming into their factories on time and finished articles reaching their customers at the right moment. For those reasons I feel that the object of the White Paper is entirely sound.
Having said that, I must add that, when we come to how it is to be done, there are one or two points about which I am not completely satisfied. I am not satisfied that we are going to get the bids for these vehicles at the right price or, what is equally important, from the right people. It is essential that the people who take over these vehicles should be experienced road haulage men. It is a fact that, since nationalisation, certain of the biggest and most efficient operators are no longer in business here. I know of one who migrated to Canada, and two of his sons went to Rhodesia. I should feel happier if we could be told that some reserve was to be put on these groups, to ensure the right price, and also that some care will be taken that they are sold to people whom the Government are satisfied will do a good job. I also feel that in certain cases—it is not a new system under private enterprise—the Transport Commission should be able to operate some of their vehicles, as has been done by the railways for many years in the past. The levy is quite a new conception. All I say about it is that I believe there should be a delay of one year before it is put into operation, in order that there

1105
may be opportunity to see how it works. I would just remind your Lordships that the Road Fund is collecting something like £330,00,000 a year, whereas the roads are costing only something between £60,000,000 and £70,000,000 a year to keep up.
I turn, shortly, to the railways. I, too, hope that in reorganising the railways on a regional basis the specialised divisions will be abolished. One thing that has been mentioned today is the financial competition. But there is another form of competition—namely the rivalry of prestige which existed under the old four main-line railways The fact that you could advertise that the Great Western Railway had put on an observation car, or that the new streamlined train on the London and North Eastern Railway was improved, was of great importance; and it also meant improved individual service from those four companies. I hope that the same spirit will develop when we have decentralised regions, and that the people in the regions will feel that their region is twice as good as any other. Apart from financial competition, that is most important.
I should like to mention one thing that is perhaps somewhat irrelevant. I think that a mistake has been made in doing away with the monthly return fare. I mention that only because I believe that, in the long run, it will cause a loss. The number of unused monthly return tickets I sometimes find in my wife's dressing-table shows that the railways must make a great profit out of at least one of their passengers, and that could probably be multiplied one hundredfold. I am surprised that there is little mention in the White Paper of passenger road transport: beyond a statement of past history in paragraph 4 passenger road transport is hardly mentioned. I should have liked to hear that more power was being given to the licensing authorities to give private passenger road transport operators a fair deal in competition with those services which have been nationalised. There was an instance the other day (I am not questioning that the Minister was perfectly right in his interpretation of the 1930 Act) whereby, on appeal, a most efficient long-distance operator had his licence for a long-distance service to Scotland cancelled—or, a any rate, it will be cancelled after the end of this season. Subject to
1106
those few criticisms, I support in general the whole principle of this White Paper.
7.8 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not think that in modern times any Government measure brought forward with a great flourish of trumpets has ever received from the public generally, and from its own side particularly, such a cold reception as has this one. Practically every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has condemned it, either in general terms or in particular terms. On the other side of the House, Lord Ridley, Lord Runciman and one or two others whose titles for the moment slip my memory, damned it with faint praise: the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, damned it without any praise at all. He, in fact, is only repeating what Tories outside have said about this Bill. Only last night one of the London newspapers carried a report on the annual conference of the Transport Salaried Staff Association, now meeting at Folkestone. Mr. G. A. Tempest, a Euston traffic railway controller and member of the National Council of the Conservative Party, announced that, although a lifelong Tory, he was resigning from the Party as a result of the Government's policy on road haulage. Furthermore, he called upon all his colleagues in the transport industry who are still Tories to recant. Whatever effect that has on the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who has come rather late into political life, it will, I am sure, cast a gloom upon the spirits of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, a very experienced politician, and also the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who has Guided the fortunes of the Conservative Party with some success in recent years.
This White Paper is a friendless orphan, shivering in the icy blast of public opinion, and I can think of no other course for the Government to adopt, in view of the debate to-day, than to withdraw this White Paper.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: I have one supporter in the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. We must anticipate that that will be done. Nevertheless, in case the noble Viscount's opinion is not unanimously welcomed in the Cabinet I feel that I must continue with my speech and not end there. The noble Viscount,

1107
Lord Hailsham, in what was a most interesting speech—in many cases a sound speech, but not entirely—pointed out what in fact I was going to point out, but he did it much better, namely, that as the times through which we are passing are serious times the public are looking for sound administration by the Government and not for the doctrinaire approach which this projected measure envisages. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—and I am sure he expressed himself in the way he did only in the ebullience of the moment; he did not mean it at all—made comment on the leaders of the Labour Party and criticised them as unpatriotic.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What I said was that the attempt to sabotage public opinion by announcing in advance that, whatever happened, the policy would be reversed if the Labour Party got into office, was unpatriotic. I see no reason whatever to modify that statement.
LORD OGMORE: The word "unpatriotic" is obviously rather a wide term. We usually regard is as meaning giving aid and comfort to an enemy. The noble Viscount does not mean that, I know.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What I mean by "unpatriotic" is simply that it is not designed in the interests of the country; it is designed to sabotage by extra-Parliamentary means the authority of Her Majesty's Government—in other words, it is animated by unworthy and unpatriotic motives. I do not mean in face of an enemy in war; I simply mean that it was unpatriotic. And that is what it was.
LORD OGMORE: The Tory Party always regard as unpatriotic anything they do not like. I would point out that when the steel measure was passed, the Tory Party who were then in Opposition said that when they got into power they would reverse the process. We did not call them unpatriotic. We called them many things, but not that. May I point out that the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking g a Tory Conference, warned people who were engaged in the steel industry and in industry generally that if the Tories came into power the Steel Act would
1108
be regarded with great hostility. They were not the words he used, but they were words of that kind. Therefore, I think the less we use words like "unpatriotic" the better. My right honourable friend in another place intended to leave the possible purchasers of these assets in no doubt whatsoever of what would happen when the Labour Party got back. That might be said to be honesty and not unpatriotic.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Very helpful!
LORD OGMORE: May I say that I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Leathers? In the past he has been a great businessman and he has done great deeds, especially in war, for which the country is grateful. But what have the Conservative Party turned Lord Leathers into? From a perfectly honest businessman (and I am not one who says a businessman cannot be honest) they have turned him into an overlord of disorder and a co-ordinator of chaos—because that is what he is at the present moment. Only a fortnight ago, as my small son was going back to school, I went to the railway station on a Monday, to buy him a ticket for the following Friday because part of the arrangement of the railway system is that if you want to send a small boy to school and to send his trunk in advance you have to buy a ticket in advance, otherwise they will not trust you, however good your credit may be in other directions. The great railway system in this country was unable to tell me what the cost of the ticket would be and was unable to issue a ticket for the following Friday. To such an extent has this great system been reduced by the present Government and the present Administration, that they could not even quote the price of a ticket five days in advance. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has made great play with Lord Lucan's reference to coaches. But I am convinced that in the coach era you could buy a ticket five days in advance if you wished, and Conservatism and this Government can actually be described, as he described it, as "back to Methuselah."
There is a distinct difference between the Parties, and I want your Lordships to understand that we are at the parting of the ways in many respects in this White Paper. Hitherto, and certainly in 1945—as I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord

1109
Hailsham will agree; he and I were then on opposite sides in another place—the argument was not really whether there should be co-ordination of transport but whether that co-ordination should be carried out under a public authority or under private enterprise. That was the real argument in 1945. All members of another place and, I believe, all noble Lords in your Lordships' House—both the great Parties of the State—were quite convinced that it was necessary to have co-ordination. We have now gone back to the very early days of transport in this country. If in Tory annals the present era is known as the Churchill era, we have gone back to vintage, primitive Churchilliana—to the very early days of the Churchill times, when Mr. Churchill was fighting the Khaki Election. We have gone back before his Liberal days when he believed in nationalisation, when he advocated nationalisation of the railways and other industries and, in fact, so far as Uganda was concerned, he advocated the Socialist State to a far greater degree than anything we have to-day.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked the Government three questions. He asked, first: What was the necessity for the Government's decision in this case? He asked, secondly: What investigations were made before the decision was arrived at, and what consultations there were with the British Transport Commission. Thirdly, he asked whether their proposals wore the best possible in order to carry out their purpose. I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. His answers were these. Did he consult the British Transport Commission? No, said Lord Leathers, he did not, because it was not their job to handle broad policy—it was the Government's. But surely on technical matters of this kind one cannot conjure policy out of the empty air. You do not make policy in a vacuum. Before making up their minds the Government should have found out the facts, and from whom could they have found that out better than from the British Transport Commission? Did he make any investigation into the affairs and operations of the British Road Haulage Commission? The answer was, No, he did not. His answer to the question, "What was the necessity for the change?" was:
1110
that things were so bad that it was essential that there should be a change.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, in his interesting speech, posed a question. He asked whether there was a real necessity for the change and whether there was real evidence that such a change was necessary. When he came to answer himself, the evidence that he gave for making up his mind on his own question was thin. But still, he did ask it, which is more than anybody in the Government did. As my noble friend Lord Lucas has said, the Road Haulage Executive have been in the saddle for only one year. Before that they were getting prepared and making the necessary arrangements to run properly. They have been running for only one year. I ask noble Lords opposite—many of whom have had great experience on private business—how can you judge the affairs of a great organisation after only one year of effective running?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is three years, is it not?
LORD OGMORE: Well, I know it has been in existence for three years. The first two years were pretty well taken up in making the necessary arrangements, and I understand that last year—the figures, it is true, have not been published—they made something like £3,000,000 profit. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will confirm that or otherwise. There is no doubt about it, from investigations such as one can make in a private capacity such as mine, that the service is getting better every day. I think it is clear that in fact the present Government had made up their minds before they came into office that they were going to do much as they are now doing, and that it did not very much matter whether the British Road Transport system was being effective or not; they were, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, implied, so actuated by a doctrinaire spirit that they were going to tear down the edifice which had been so painfully erected during the last few years. What was the necessity for the Government's decision? The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, has replied that the only necessity really was that they gave an Election pledge—and this is possibly the only Election pledge that they may be able to carry out. He went so fast that it was

1111
not always easy to gather what he said, but if he did not mean that, I can only say that this was a fair assumption to be drawn from the practices of the Government in this respect.
I want to ask a few questions of Lord Leathers, and of the Government. We are told that the increase in the "C" licences was a measure of the traders' dissatisfaction. Is it not a fact that the increases in "C" licences were for the 15 cwt. and 30 cwt. trucks, and that, so far from being a measure of the dissatisfaction of traders, it is the best possible evidence of the success of the Labour Government and of the great assistance they have afforded to the small trader? The small van is carrying things which in the old days were carried by the errand boy riding, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does, a bicycle. And so it is an overwhelming example of the success of Labour policy, and not at all an example of the dissatisfaction of the traders. The next question I want to ask is this. We have been told by Lord Leathers that it is impossible to extend the limit of 25 miles for the "C" licence holders. This is one case in which he did consult the Road Haulage Executive, and they told him that it could not be done and that it would wreck the whole system. Is it not a fact that this was one of the electoral pledges of the Conservative Party? Did they not say in their electoral manifesto, Britain Strong and Free, that they would do this? Why have they not carried it out? Why have they thrown this into the limbo, with many other examples of broken Tory promises? The noble Lord spent a quarter of an hour in demolishing his own Party's case and in proving that the Tory Party would not carry out their promise. It was a promise which may in certain areas have had a considerable effect upon the return of their Member. There was great dissatisfaction amongst certain classes of traders on certain of these points—we give you that. There were traders who had been affected adversely, and no doubt they helped the local Conservative candidate.
VISCOUNT LONG: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He has been making references to "C" licence
1112
holders, but does he not mean "A" or "B" licence holders?
LORD OGMORE: Yes, of course, I meant the "A" licence holders. The "C" licence holders I mentioned with regard to the 15 cwt. vans. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his intervention. My next question is whether there will be a reserve price on the units to be sold. That is a very important point, but I will not labour it because it has already been dealt with effectively. It seems to me quite possible that there will be a ring of buyers and that, in fact, no reasonable price will be obtained in an auction. Such things have often been known before and, indeed, such cases are probably more frequent than cases in which there are no rings. I think that this may be a great drawback to any fair or reasonable price being obtained by the Government.
Then there is the question of the regional basis, the areas for the units. Are the people who buy these units to be allowed to career around the country going into any area in which they have a small customer or even one small transaction? Who is to run the units unsold? Who is to be the residuary legatee of "old iron"? The Government or whoever are concerned will find themselves at the end in the position of having to run a fleet of transport consisting of nothing but "junk," and to carry on business in parts of the country where no private enterprise concern will operate. Who is going to pay the compensation—the Government or the British Transport Commission? Finally, what is the position of the Railway Hotels Executive? The fact that there are so many questions unsolved, and so many questions that I have not mentioned because they have already been dealt with by other noble Lords, including supporters of the Government on the Benches opposite, show how "half baked" this scheme is. My own great objection, apart from some minor ones, is that there is no coordinated plan for transport. This is really defeatism, as has been said. This White Paper describes itself as a statement of transport policy. But there is no transport policy in it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, who has had such great experience of shipping, pointed out in his interesting

1113
speech that there is nothing about coastwise shipping, yet it comes very much into transport policy. There is nothing about air traffic. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will not put me back with the canal advocates when I say there is nothing about air in this White Paper. Here we are on the verge of a great air age, when there is a network of services in this country operated both by the Corporations and by private enterprise, when B.E.A. is on the threshold of new helicopter services radiating from all parts of this country to London and from London to the Continent, and yet there is nothing about it in the transport policy of this country. As I say, it is early Churchill at its very worst and not, unfortunately, the later Churchill who believed in co-ordination and in national planning.
It is no good saying that there will be no friction. There is friction already, even in the nationalised industries. It may surprise noble Lords to know that British Railways have refused to accept posters from B.E.A. because there is competition between the two and it would affect their travellers. There is going to be far more friction when they turn back a good part of this industry to private enterprise. I can see that the air side is going to be very adversely affected, because they have not the big pressure groups, the interests, that these vast organisations such as road and rail have. I am afraid they are going to be crushed out unless the Minister is very strong, and I do not see how he can be very strong when he has to balance two balls, one in each hand, one so heavy and the other so light.
I am coming to the end of what I have to say. I suggest that the Government are like a bather. They desire to plunge into the river of free enterprise and free competition but, instead of plunging in, they dip a toe into the water and then shrink back. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in his interesting speech said or implied, it is very difficult in these days to have real private and free enterprise. The real private enterpriser would say: "Set the people free. Strike off the shackles. Let the natural abilities of our people have free play." But the Government have not done anything of the kind. This project in the White Paper is not a plan for private enterprise at all. It is nothing to do with
1114
free enterprise. This is private monopoly, not free enterprise. If it was going to be free enterprise, they would not have maintained the "A" and "C" licences. In free enterprise there is no reason why anybody should not run a lorry anywhere. Why have "A" and "C" licences? Why have any licences at all? Why subsidise the railways to the tune of £4,000,000 per annum by their competitors? Where, in any private enterprise State, where, under any theory of free competition, does one competitor subsidise another? Finally, the Conservatives used to call us, as a term of derision, a "Government of planners," as "planning" is a term of abuse in the Conservative dictionary. I say that this Government is a Government of spanners—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Spanners?
LORD OGMORE: Yes—spanners, because they are throwing spanners in the works of national recovery.
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has given us an admirable example of the way in which, when there is very little to be said for the system and the business you are defending, you can put up a number of ninepins that exist only in your own imagination, and knock them down. I have not a great deal answer in the points which have been raised. Frankly, although I listened with the greatest attention to the noble Lord's speech, I really do not think I have anything at all to answer in that—except perhaps one thing. He, as other speakers did, asked me why we had not, before we decided on our policy—not on the details of its application but on the policy—consulted the Transport Commission. That is a thing, he said, the Labour Government would never have dreamt of doing. May I ask the noble Lord this question? Before he decided upon his policy in the last Government, and before he introduced the Transport Bill, did he consult the Road Transport Federation or any of the other bodies which were concerned with transport? Of course he did not; and I am not complaining.
LORD OGMORE: I did not gather that that was a rhetorical question; I thought it was factual. If it was a factual question, I personally had nothing to do

1115
with the Transport Bill, but I am quite certain that those in the Government at the time who were concerned with the Transport Bill consulted all interests who could give them valuable information.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Really, that is most interesting. I take note of it and I have no doubt that the Road Transport Federation and others will be interested to learn of this revelation of history: that before the Labour Government decided to nationalise road transport and announced their policy, they took careful counsel with the road transport organisations. I am greatly interested to hear it. The Bill which was introduced in another place seems to have been a very odd outcome of that consultation. If that is all the value of consultation and what it has led to, then really we can hardly be told that we should have consulted the Transport Commission at that stage. The noble Lord, of course, is quite wrong in his facts, but I do not complain that he is, because policy—no doubt the noble Lord would hardly accept this statement because he accepts the principle: "I am the leader; I must follow them"—is a function of government, and the decision of policy is a function of government. On the application of policy you want a great deal of practical advice. I am perfectly certain that if we had gone around hunting for somebody to give us a policy, like Japhet in search of a father, he and his colleagues would have been the first to twit us for not knowing our own minds. But we do know our own minds quite well about this matter.
The noble Lord who opened the debate in a long and remarkable speech posed some questions with which I will deal. At the same time he said that he, at any rate, knew what the motive was: that the whole of this policy was just to give road haulage back into private hands. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, went a little further. He said it was "to give it back to their friends." Small minds look for small motives and small and unimaginative objectives. I can tell them at once what our aim and object was. Our aim has been to see how we can best make the whole of transport serve the national interest, whether it is railways, roads, docks or coastwise shipping—all of those are necessary and all
1116
are covered. And our approach to this matter has not in the least been theoretical or ideological; it has been practical.
Personally—I have often said so to this House—I have never held any academic views about nationalisation. I want to see whatever system will work best, and by "work best" I mean give the best, most economical and most efficient service. If it is right to leave an industry nationalised. I should leave it nationalised. I think it is quite right to leave the mines nationalised. But if nationalisation of an industry has proved demonstrably wrong and injurious to the whole community, as has without a doubt the nationalisation of road transport, then I say it would be quite wrong to leave that industry nationalised. I am bound to say that when the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, passed from the more entertaining to the more constructive or, should I say, destructive part of his speech, I thought his argument was a little disingenuous, or at any rate was too clever for me, in my simplicity, to follow. He said that nationalisation was quite wrong. He said that the nationalisation of road transport had been a grotesque failure. So it has. But then he said: "But you must not go and denationalise. What you should do is to keep on the nationalised organisation, losing lots of money and rendering bad service to the community, but bring in a competing organisation, which the Road Transport Commission themselves have said they could not compete with if it were brought in, in order to show that nationalisation will not work. Then you will have converted people against nationalisation." I am bound to say that is a bit too clever for me.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Possibly because the noble Lord has not accurately stated what I said. I neither said anything like that, meant anything like that nor could be understood as having said anything like that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I certainly so understood it. I shall read the noble Viscount's speech with interest tomorrow. Perhaps he praised the nationalised system—I think not.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to make my speech again, but evidently the noble Viscount wants me

1117
to explain. I said, in the first place, that I regarded nationalisation of this industry as being peculiarly wrong. Secondly, I said—arid I still see nothing in what the noble Viscount has said to interfere with it—that it does not necessarily follow from the fact that nationalisation was a blunder, that denationalisalion is not, in the circumstances, a blunder, too.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We must try and find a third way, and I am bound to say I de not see where the third way lies. The noble Viscount certainly said that he would introduce some competing element which would succeed whereas the other would fail. I repeat, frankly, that is a great deal too clever for me. If we are satisfied—as we are and as can be demonstrated beyond a peradventure—that road nationalisation has done the greatest possible disservice to the trade of this country at a critical time when it is vitally important that trade and industry should be well served, then it would be extremely cowardly and wrong not to denationalise it. I leave it there.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Viscount is going to leave it there, perhaps I may say that he has again repeated what I did not say. My suggestion was that if it is true, as the Government have said in their White Paper, that it is desirable to increase the services in some way, it might be desirable to assign the increased services to private enterprise without destroying the Road Transport Commission. It may be too clever for the noble Viscount, but he ought at least to get it right the second time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Now the noble Viscount has said exactly what I have twice put to him. I shall be on record to-morrow, and so will he. If this thing has failed—and we all admit it has failed—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You do not.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are in the House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If it has failed—and certainly in our opinion and in the opinion of every trader it has failed—then he says: "Leave the thing which has failed in existence but bring in a
1118
competing organisation with it." I say that that would be wasteful and foolish and a cowardly and wrong thing to do.
The noble Lord opposite has spoken a great deal about "integration." Really the noble Lords are hypnotised by words. It all depends upon what you mean. It is just like co-ordination; co-ordination is all right if you get the right man in the right place—and Lord Leathers is an admirable example of the right man in the right place. Really, to use the word "integration" as if it were a charm is the act of either a simpleton or a charlatan—and certainly I will not say which it should be. What do you mean by it? In practice, what integration has meant has been a conglomeration, a piling everything you can collect on a heap; you have had size and centralisation, the folly of grandeur and, incidentally, the suppression of all competition, and higher rates all round. The only thing that everybody, or nearly everybody, is agreed upon is that it has not worked in practice. I do not say that that is the Transport Commission's fault. I do not think it is. I think you gave them an absolutely impossible task to do. The last thing that you should integrate, the thing that above all depends upon flexibility, personal service and being able to offer what is wanted at any time to any customer, is road haulage. As regards size—and this goes for the railways as well—anyone with practical experience knows that one of the worst dangers you can have in a business is letting it get too big. If the business is homogeneous it is risky enough—the old railways for example, were big enough; a great many people think they were too big—but it is absolutely fatal when you combine in one vast organisation—or disorganisation—a large number of businesses of infinite difference and variety.
The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who is not here—I know he had to go—said: "We must have action How are we to get it? Get action by a Royal Commission." You cannot wait for that. That would satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, except that he would think the Royal Commission came too soon, because he said we must have a period of twenty years to try the thing out. It may be all right to have a nationalised business, but the taxpayer cannot go on losing money

1119
for twenty years—and no other sort of business would stand that. Why should we have a Royal Commission when we know the facts and know what we intend to do? There is only one thing which requires further inquiry—which should be as rapid and effective as it can be made—and that is the relation between railway passenger transport and road passenger transport; that, we admit and say frankly, does require further investigation. But that is no reason why we should not go on with all the other things that can and should be done. It would be unreasonable to expect every detail of decentralisation and improved management to be given in the White Paper or even in the Bill. The essential question surely is: are the principles right? The application of those will be worked out. When you come to the details of decentralisation of railway management, which we regard as absolutely vital, there it would be wrong to set yourself down to an absolute, sealed pattern in a Bill from which you could not depart. As a matter of fact, it will probably require to be modified from time to time in the light of experience.
Let me take the principles and see whether they are right, because it is upon the principles that this White Paper and this policy rests. We say that the existing organisation is too big. I wonder whether anybody in his heart really denies that. We say that the existing organisation is too uniform. I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Ridley said. I can promise him that when we come to decentralise we mean to have real decentralisation, and not to continue the functional control which goes the whole way down. That, to my mind, is the negation of decentralisation. Not only is it too big for efficiency, but this bigness inevitably breeds uniformity. What we need is local experience, varied initiative and the old local pride. It was not just a jest when people called the Great Western Railway "God's wonderful railway." It may have been a bit of a laugh at it, but at the same time there was a good deal of justifiable pride behind these humorous sayings. Another principle is this. I would say, as a maxim: Only centralise where you must; decentralise wherever you can. Do not just decentralise where you cannot avoid it.
LORD GREENHILL: Would the noble Viscount define the word "centralisation," giving his own definition and not necessarily committing the Government?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will give my own definition. I believe that you should control at the centre only those things which must be controlled at the centre. It may be said that that is general.
I do not want to keep the House too long, but as this is the first run-over that we have had, I may have to speak at some length. Take labour conditions. Those must be uniform. You have to have centralisation in that, although in a great deal of labour relations you need decentralisation. Finance certainly has to be centralised. You could not have a Scottish region which might be very much out of pocket and losing money carrying on its functions with a region which is making a great deal of money. I believe that by decentralisation we shall see a good deal more making of money on the railways. When you come down to everything that can be decentralised, you can have local initiative and different practices and trials, in running one region against another—the manager of one region may consider that a particular system of shunting, or whatever it may be, whether the matter is technical or commercial, is better than another. It is in that regard that I want to see the individual initiative and individual experience of the local management tried out. Have I made that clear?
LORD GREENHILL: Yes. But I still do not see why you cannot combine central direction with a decentralised carrying out of the functions in certain areas. I do not see that it is necessary to make all this fuss, decentralising the whole of the undertaking, presumably with watertight compartments and some kind of tenuous link between those compartments, instead of running from a centralised core, leaving a certain amount of freedom to each of the decentralised parts.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: By "decentralisation," I mean exactly what has not been done so far in this nationalised industry. What we have had in the nationalised industry so far is the maximum of functional control at the centre. I have a great deal more to say. I do not ask the noble Lord to agree with me,

1121
but I think he will admit that there is all the difference in the world between his ideas and mine.
LORD GREENHILL: No.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If there is not, then I am quite delighted. We shall both go forward together, and he will support the proposals for decentralisation when they come forward. But I do not want that uniformity of function or of technical direction always to come down from the centre. I hate watertight compartments.
LORD GREENHILL: So do I.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then we are at one. I am delighted. But if we are at one, the noble Lord must denounce the way the business has been run hitherto.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I ask the noble Viscount whether he thinks there was decentralisation and local initiative in the old railway companies?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There certainly was much more than there is to-day. I could give hundreds of examples of it, but I do not want to speak for more than two hours.
LORD BURDEN: We only want an explanation. This first run-over is very important, and we should like to get some of the points clear. We should like to know what is meant by "decentralisation." For instance, is it intended to break down the carriage and wagon department, arid all those separate departments in relation to which we are talking about functional control from the centre?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That particular question shows how wise I was to say that we will not put all the details of decentralisation into a blue print. But we are certainly going to carry it out exactly on the lines on which it is not being carried out to-day in the nationalised organisation.
The test of whether we have failed or succeeded not, as the noble Lord said, whether at last the Commission have made a profit—by which he means it has made a million or two, although I do not know what has gone into overheads, or what has been allowed for interest on stock. Of course in the long run, after two or three years, having eliminated all competition and having steadily put up
1122
rates, anybody could make a profit. After all, on that basis anybody could succeed in making what is called a profit. The real test of failure or success is: has the trader got the service that he needs? There are examples galore to show that he has not, and everyone has them in mind. There have been interminable delays.
In an earlier debate in this House, example after example was given of goods which hitherto had been taken in twenty-four hours having to wait for a fortnight. I will not go through them. I myself on that occasion cited a case where goods had gone from Darlington up to Newcastle, from Newcastle down to Hull, and then from Hull back to Beverley—circulating like minutes in a Department, round everywhere. It is almost like saying "The day we went to Birmingham, by way of Beachy Head." There was the example of consignments which were not collected in time and so missed the boat—a great help to export! We had endless examples of market gardeners who were not able to get their goods to market in time. Apparently it did not matter that they got there in the afternoon! The whole essence of the matter was that they should get to the, market in the early morning. Over and over again, traders have been unable to get the quick individual service that they need. One might almost think that trade was made for transport, and not: transport for trade. Of course, the final and absolute proof is this enormous increase in the number of "C" licences. The noble Lord said that the whole of this increase had taken place in the licensing of tiny runabout vans. That is not so at all; it is about half and half.
LORD OGMORE: I said that my information was that it was an overwhelming amount.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have made inquiries, and I am told that the proportionate increase in connection with runabout vans is not, as you would expect, overwhelming. Nearly half are in relation to larger vans. Supposing that the proportion is less than half, supposing that it is only 200,000 or 150,000 of the heavier lorries, it remains a fact that these lorries have been bought by trailers who would net have bought lorries if they could have obtained

1123
satisfactory service from the road haulage organisation. Of course, they would not.
LORD OGMORE: Why not?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I will tell the noble Lord exactly why not. If I got good service from a road haulier I should not go to the expense nowadays of buying a lorry and employing a driver at heavy expense and doing one-way traffic—for I can carry the goods only to their destination; I cannot bring anything back. If the noble Lord thinks that anybody in his senses would do that kind of thing if he could get his goods properly carried, he underrates the commonsense of most people who are in business.
Then let me say one word about the levy. I was asked whether every lorry belonging to the railways was to be sold. As I understand it, the answer to that is, No; those lorries which are essential feeders of the railway services will be retained by the railways.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount says that the lorries which are essential feeders to the railways will be retained. Exactly what does that mean? I quite understand the position with regard to the parcel delivery vans, of which I believe the Railway Executive owns 39,000; but the Road Haulage Executive vehicles, I submit, are all going to be sold, and they are something more than the small delivery vans.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am informed that if they are ordinary common carriers, the idea is to sell them. But I understand that there are certain vehicles which are really part and parcel, so, to speak, of the railways. They are not just common road haulage vehicles, but they are much more purely ancillary vehicles bringing things to a railway centre. Let me leave it there. If there are such, then our idea is that the railways should retain them. If they partake of the nature of what I call general road haulage they will be sold in their appropriate unit.
Let me come to this question of the levy. It has been said that the levy is all wrong because it represents a subsidy to the railways. It is easy to play with words: I want to look at the reality of this. I do not mind whether, for the sake
1124
of argument, you call something the railways receive a subsidy or a receipt. It is, in fact, a receipt. So much is paid over. But to put this levy on road transport is no more giving a subsidy to the railways than if you give them traffic receipts—as you do at this moment. You give them traffic receipts, either by putting very high charges on traffics which cannot go in any other way—as, for instance, coal, iron ore and steel—or else by forcing traffic which would normally go by road on to the railways, by refusing lorries the right to run or carry it. In both these ways, which are being practised to-day, railways get receipts. The second way—forcing traffic on to the railways—works only partially, beause, as a matter of fact, what happens is that the trader buys a lorry and runs it under a "C" licence.
Both these measures—raising rates for heavy goods that cannot escape the railways, and the suppression of competition by the road, and diversion of traffic to the railways—are just as much contributions or subsidies to the railways as this levy. But they are much worse, because they are concealed subsidies and they are bad in form. And, as I say, both are being practised at the present time. In the first place, they are bad for all industry because the high rates on heavy basic traffic follow right through and increase the cost of all industry and manufactures. Secondly, they are bad for industry because they prevent it from getting the right kind of road haulage, in that they deny industry the quick, varied and economical service which it needs. We approach the problem by giving industry the service that it needs, but at the same time saying "Let the road make a contribution (it is a very small one) in respect of the traffic transferred," which is a much sounder and more economical method of proceeding than the one to which I have referred. It is not a "feather bed" or a levy bed—or whatever it has been called—on which the railways can lie, because it is intended to operate, and will operate, only when they have practised every possible economy and every possible efficiency in management.
I was asked another thing about sales and on that I have to say this. Very likely a reserve may be put on. I do not think that anyone who has ever done business with my noble friend Lord

1125
Leathers would deny this. I have met a good many people in my life who have bought something from Lord Leathers in the course of their business careers, but I have never yet come across anyone who said that he had got it unduly cheaply. I think that if anyone can be trusted to see that a business deal goes through in a business-like way, and can be trusted to get full value in a fair and business-like deal, it is my noble friend. I would add this: discretion is certainly needed. I have not had as much experience as my noble friend of selling things, but I have done a bit of salesmanship in my time, and whether I was buying or selling, I certainly should be extremely sorry to say in advance how I was going to do it. Sometimes it is wise to put on a reserve and sometimes it is not. As one noble Lord has, I believe, suggested, one has to be sure that the potential purchasers are not only good for the cash, but are also good for running the business which is going to be sold to them. It is certainly the intention to make sure of those factors, and I think it can be carried out.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I take it that the reply to the insistent question we have asked—are these things going to be sold with or without reserve?—is that the noble Viscount does not know?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should prefer that the answer was recorded in the language which I have used. In some cases, no doubt the goods will be sold with a reserve if it is thought that better business will be done with a reserve. But we certainly should not tie ourselves to selling with a reserve. No one but a fool would give any other answer—I do not add "or a nationalised industry."
Now let me say a word or two about the 25-mile limit. I promised two noble Lords to do so. We were told that we were breaking our pledge.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said that. He went to some length to explain why a promise made by his Party could not be carried out. Let us have the fact acknowledged that it was a pledge.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord is very fond of making other people's speeches as well as his own. Perhaps he will be good enough to let me
1126
make my own speech. We propose to act in accordance both with our Election pledges and with sound practice. Those two things often coincide. As far back as 1950 we said in our Election Manifesto:
"The limitation of distance on private road hauliers will be progressively eliminated."
During the last Election this was confirmed, both in our Manifesto and in a statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, about the 25-mile limit in which he said:
"In the transitional period of turning road transport back to private enterprise, it may be necessary to act in stages."
That is exactly what we are doing. The noble Lord is doing his best to make trouble, but he is not likely to succeed in making trouble between the road hauliers and us. They know that we are not breaking pledges; they know that this is sound business. Any short haulier will be entitled to bid for one of the Government units when they are on offer, and so come into the long-haulage business at the start. Of course, when the sales have been largely completed, then the 25-mile limit will be taken off all hauliers in respect of vehicles which they own at the present time.
The noble Lord will not like this quite so much but there is this other point. Road hauliers in the past have rightly complained—for they have had great cause for complaint—of the way in which their permits have been issued. These permits to exceed the 25-mile limit which have been given them in the past have, been granted by the Transport Commission or the Transport Executive, who are their competitors and only too keen to have them off the road if possible. We have always said that it is wrong that a man should be a judge in his own cause, and so this arrangement is going to be changed. In the future, these permits will be granted by an independent authority.
Let me add one word about the licensing of road haulage. I was asked whether we want to go back to complete chaos. Certainly not. A licensing system will be necessary in the, national interest, but the basis on which licences will be granted will be quite different. In the past, licensing authorities had to consider the interests of railways as railways, as

1127
well as the interests of traders, and it was the common practice of the Transport Commission to oppose all applications as a matter of course, both to protect themselves as railways and to protect their own vehicles. The Transport Commission could put any lorry they liked on the road without reference to the licensing authority. We always thought that was a most extraordinary position. That was both unjust and unsound. In future it is our intention that the trader, who is the best judge, shall be entitled to send his goods by road or rail, whichever can give him the most convenient service. This is not only in the trader's interest, but in the national interest as well.
But we cannot have an unlimited number of lorries on the road. It would not be in the national interest that the remunerative traffic should be overmanned and the less remunerative undermanned, though in the days of private enterprise I never heard of a case where a trader could not get his load carried by some road haulier. I believe this argument which was raised is entirely theoretical and under the old system never arose in practice. The test which the licensing authority will apply will be: are further lorries required to meet the reasonable demands of traffic offering? So long as the Transport Commission own lorries, they will be subject to the jurisdiction of the licensing authority.
My noble friend Lord Runciman raised the question of coastal shipping. I think that was dealt with by the Secretary of State in his opening speech. I do not think there is much competition between coastwise shipping and road haulage. I am told that 80 per cent. of the traffic which the noble Viscount's clients carry is coal, and so far as there is competition I should say it was largely between coastwise shipping and railways and not with lorries. I do not want to see all competition eliminated, and I should be surprised if the noble Viscount, as a good free trader, does.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: I do not want to see competition eliminated any more than the noble Viscount does, and I thought I said so.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure the noble Viscount did, and therefore we are all at one. There is no intention to abolish the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee which at present exists. I believe that there are things called conferences which sometimes meet and sometimes make arrangements, and I hope the happy co-operation and competitive spirit which exists between these branches will continue.
Several noble Lords have referred to the importance of giving greater latitude to the railways in their charges. I am sure that is right. I am much more interested in latitude being given to the railways to enable them to put their charges down rather than put their charges up. I am sure there is a great deal they can do if they are given the chance. As I remember it they were hedged round by a frightful frieze, a zariba, of restrictions. If you could collect the traffic which would be good business for you as a railway company, you could not take that traffic at a rate which it would pay you to offer and which would be agreeable to the man for whom you proposed to carry it unless you offered the same rate to everybody from John o'Groats to Land's End. I remember all the meticulous regulations about undue preference and special rates and all the rest of it, and I think they still apply to-day. You have to go to the Transport Commission to justify the rate, taking with you counsel and all our witnesses—that costs something—and everybody who thinks he may conceivably be interested, every type of trader, every trade association, chamber of commerce—the whole lot of them—can come and oppose. You may get through in the end, but it is more probable that the railway company will not do it, because it would not be worthwhile to go through all that rigmarole and expense to quote a special rate. But if they could quote a rate and then go to the tribunal afterwards to justify it, in nine cases out of ten a special rate which would be both good for the trader and good business for the railway company would go through as a matter of course. It would only mean marking "2 and 1" on some counsel's brief, because nobody would oppose and nobody would have to be heard.
We have been told that we do not know our business, that we have no

1129
policy and have not thought out the details. It is exactly because they have this kind of practical knowledge that Ministers like my noble friend, with all his knowledge, can supply practical solutions to these questions. We have had the threat repeated to-day that any reforms which are made will be disowned if opportunity is offered.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to ask the noble Viscount who made that statement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It was made by Mr. Morrison and repeated to-day by some noble Lord. Certainly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I have his name? The noble Viscount has had to be corrected by two or three noble Lords for gross exaggerations and distortions of what they were saying. He has been corrected by noble Lords of his own Party. The noble Viscount said that this threat has been repeated to-day. I want to know by whom. If he wants to be a fair controversialist, let him at least be accurate.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not require any lessons from the noble Lord in controversy or fairness. I stand on such reputation on these matters as I may enjoy in this House. I do not think I have said anything unfair. I am pretty certain that he will be able to find tomorrow in the text of the speeches a virtual refutation of that. I ask the noble Lord this, and this is neither unfair nor improperly controversial: does the noble Lord accept, or does he not accept and stand by Mr. Morrison's statement?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount will read in Hansard tomorrow exactly what I said.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that really shows the type and temper of that intervention. Those who presumably are the overlords in his Party in another place have made this assertion and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will come to heel. The Party opposite will not find it easy; nor, if these reforms succeed, as I believe they will, will they find it popular. I am not unduly disturbed by these threats; I do not think I have ever been. They are the staple diet with which we are regaled now at every Sitting. They
1130
are characteristic of the irresponsible attitude of the Opposition. When they were a Government, they brought this country to the brink of disaster. As an Opposition, they seek to obstruct every measure necessary to our recovery and to our salvation. We shall be in no way deterred from doing our duty, and when the time comes—and it will be quite a long way off—we shall be quite content to be judged by results.
8.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when I made my opening speech in this debate I said that I did not intend to divide your Lordships' House, and, of course, I do not. Could I have the attention of the Secretary of State for one moment, because I am going to address a few words to him? I do not intend to divide the House. That leaves little for me to say, and I shall detain your Lordships for only a moment or two. I am sorry that the Secretary of State could not give me or the House a number of answers that I required to questions. I quite understand why. He had to prepare a very important statement before I spoke. I have only one remark to make on that: I think that those who prepared that statement for him rather anticipated what I would say and it is rather unfortunate that they should put words in my mouth that I did not say. However, I make no complaint about that. I am afraid I am very dissatisfied with the noble Lord's statement, but that does not count for very much. I fear the country will be still more dissatisfied, because the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said that his object was to clear up, not only in the minds of many noble Lords but also in the minds of the Press and the public of this country, a number of misconceptions. Believe me, the noble Lord did not do that. We understood correctly what he said, and there was not one word which the noble Lord uttered which really altered anything that has been said by any of the responsible Press of this country, or by any responsible informed opinion.
There is another matter that slightly disappointed me. I think I can, with propriety, disclose that in the spirit of friendship which I think the noble Lord and I enjoy we had one or two conversations before this debate. I told him, quite frankly, that I did not intend to

1131
divide the House, because I thought that some of the arguments which I should put up to him were sound and deserved the respectful consideration of the Government. I hoped that he would find it possible in his speech to say that they would consider them, but he did not do so. I believe that there are a great many arguments that require the careful attention of the noble Lord. I put to your Lordships in my opening speech what I frankly thought was in the minds of the British people. I do not depart from that in one instance.
As regard the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I am glad that he made the speech that he did, because the longer he went on the more I was convinced that I was right; and the longer he went on the more I became certain that the country will think that I was right. The noble Viscount has just made the same speech that I listened to in 1947; he made the same speech that I listened to on the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. The noble Viscount did not really answer the burden of our case—but then he seldom does. There is only one thing that I want to say about the noble Viscount's speech. I was rather amused at his justification for the levy, or his attempt to explain that the levy is not a subsidy to the railways—I thought that was rather good. He will never convince me or the public, because it is common sense. It does not matter whether the money is found via the Treasury, from the pockets of the taxpayer, or via some accounting method in the Ministry of Transport from the pockets of the consumer, there is no difference whatever—it is a subsidy pure and simple. Whatever the levy imposed on the road transport of this country, it will come ultimately out of the pockets of the consumer, through increased charges on the goods bought.
1132
That is all I have to say. I hope that perhaps we may, between now and the time when the Bill is introduced, resume the discussions which have been so beneficial to me, and which I hope have not been unhelpful to the noble Lord. With that, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
PRISON BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
COSTS IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROCHDALE CANAL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.