Sitting of 21 December 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For South Norfolk, in the room of Peter Arthur David Baker, Esquire, M.C., expelled this House.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Hostel, Hawarden (Closure)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Labour if he will reconsider the decision to close the hostel at Hawarden, as it is in an area in which private lodgings are particularly scarce.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): No, Sir. I recognise with regret, that there will be some disturbance caused to workers and to employers, but a number of the employers concerned are making special efforts to find lodgings for their workers affected by the closure and the local officers of my Department are doing all they can to help. It is our experience that by such means more lodgings are usually found when a hostel is closed than could be foreseen.
    Mrs. White: If this effort to find lodgings fails, will not the Minister keep this decision open for a little while? Is he not aware that a large number of foreign workers—Poles and Italians—are concerned, that a great many women in this area go out to work, and that it will be a serious matter to find accommodation for about 120 workers, most of whom are foreign?
    Mr. Watkinson: I understand the difficulties, but our difficulty is that these hostels are losing an average of £1 per
    2568
    week per member of the hostel, and that is a very large sum of money. We can only consider deferring this decision if some firm offer is made by the local authority or by a group of businessmen which may lead to negotiations enabling us to dispose of them in that way.
    Mr. Robens: It may well be the case that £1 per head per week is lost on these hostels, but does the Minister not recognise the value of the productivity of the workers concerned, and that, if hostels are not provided, these workers may be lost to the area?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a proper point, but the difficulty is that this is to some extent subsidising firms which have workers in these hostels. I hope that the firms themselves may make some offer to take over the hostels, and if they do we will do all that we can to assist them.

    Miners, Rugeley (Rents)
    Mr. Snowasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a trade dispute threatens between miners and their employers in the Rugeley, Staffordshire, area; and what action he intends to take.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am not aware of a trade dispute affecting miners in the Rugeley area. It may be that the hon. Member has in mind a matter affecting that area to which reference has been made in the local Press. This matter is one for the National Coal Board, and I understand that the hon. Member has recently written to the National Coal Board about it.
    Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while there are severe and, some may think, undue restrictions about Questions regarding the activities of nationalised industries, it is always the responsibility of Members of Parliament to try to forestall trouble? Secondly, would he take into account the opinion of people concerned locally that there is a dispute about the housing association rentals which are subject to agreement between the local authorities, and that this is causing dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Watkinson: That may be, but unless a dispute is brought officially to the notice of my Ministry I cannot officially take any direct interest in it.

    Advisory Committee on Industrial Health
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the Advisory Committee on Industrial Health will have all the powers and resources necessary to enable it to carry out an effective survey, so as to make clear the main deficiencies of the existing health provisions in industry.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Committee will be an advisory body. The scheme for the development of industrial health services, including any necessary surveys, will be carried out through Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate, which possesses wide powers under the Factories Acts.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister satisfied that they have power to inspect all the conditions in some of the small factories where it is known that there is the most need of that at the present time?
    Mr. Watkinson: The powers are very wide. They include,
    "at all reasonable times, by night and day, right of entry into, inspection and examination of a factory and every part thereof. …"
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the definition does not include a wide range of industrial processes outside the Factories Acts?
    Mr. Watkinson: The Committee which we have set up is dealing with premises covered by the Factories Acts.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Labour if he has now completed his discussions with interested bodies regarding the composition of the Advisory Committee on Industrial Health; and whether he has now agreed to the inclusion of persons with experience of local government work in this field.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. Further requests for membership of the Committee have been received, and the whole subject is still under consideration.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will not the Minister now decide to give some place on this Committee to public health authorities, in view of the heavy responsibilities that they already bear? Is it not quite fantastic to set up a Committee to advise the Minister without including any representatives of this very important section?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that local authorities, while very important in this field, have only a limited responsibility in the field of industrial health. But that does not prejudge the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend, which has yet to be taken.

    Leyton
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed men, women, youths and girls in the borough of Leyton for the first six months of 1954 and for 1953; the average period of their unemployment; and how many in those periods were over 60 years of age.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will send the available information to the hon. Member.

    Domestic Service (Foreign Workers)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour approximately how many girls and women of foreign nationality are now employed in domestic service in this country; the average annual number of changes of employer; and to what extent over-long hours of work and underpayment exists among this class of employee.
    Mr. Watkinson: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Sorensen: But the Minister will agree that this information is necessary? Could not something be done to acquire it for the benefit of social workers and others interested, in view of the fact that one knows that some girls are working very long hours?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid that it is quite impossible to get accurate information of this kind, because it covers all types of domestic servants, including those employed in hospitals and other institutions.
    Mr. Robens: Would it not be appropriate if these girls joined their respective trade unions and allowed the unions to deal with the question of working hours?
    Mr. Watkinson: I should think that that would be a very satisfactory solution.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend find that the girls coming into this country for domestic service are keeping

    2571
    to the conditions on which they are allowed entry permits?
    Mr. Watkinson: On the whole; but in the case of a girl who does not keep to the conditions of entry, consideration is immediately given to withdrawing the permit.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is an invitation extended to these girls to join a trade union, and is information given with respect to the trade union which they should join?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is not a matter for the Ministry of Labour.

    Colonial Immigrants
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has of the number of colonial men and women who have come to this country during the past two years who have been settled in regular employment; how many are now unemployed; and the average period elapsing before new colonial registrants secure employment.
    Mr. Watkinson: The figures desired by the hon. Member are not immediately available, but I am making inquiries to see how far an estimate can be made.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has not the Minister provided this information to the inter-Departmental inquiry which is supposed to be investigating the problems arising from this immigration? Can the Minister state what part his Ministry is taking in these discussions, and what the result is likely to be?
    Mr. Watkinson: As I explained to the House last week, so far we have not kept these figures, because we do not make any differentiation on the basis of the colour of the people who are dealt with at employment exchanges. We are looking at the system to see if there is some way of making a record of this without putting up a colour bar.

  COST OF LIVING
  Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour by how many points the cost-of-living index has been increased through the rise, since 1951, in the retail price of popular brands of tea, from 3s. 2d. to 7s. 6d. per lb.
  Mr. Watkinson: While I do not in any way accept the prices of popular brands
  2572
  of tea quoted by the hon. Member, such increases as have taken place between October, 1951, and November, 1954, have raised the all-items index by just over one point.
  Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that tea now costs 4d. a cup, which is 1s. a pint, and will he ease his own problems by urging his colleague to remove the tax on beer, so that at least one comforting beverage will be available to people at prices which they can afford?
  Mr. Watkinson: I think that is a Question which had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour the causes of the rise of 5 per cent. in the Retail Food Price Index from October, 1953, to October, 1954.
  Mr. Watkinson: The increase of 5 per cent. in the Retail Food Price Index between October, 1953, and October, 1954, was due mainly to increases in the prices of meat, tea, tomatoes, butter, fish and cocoa. There were slight increases in the prices of certain other foods. The effect of these increases was partly offset by price reductions on a few other commodities.
  Mr. Jeger: We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his Department are no more than recording angels of the price index, but can he give the House any indication when he intends to plot the graph downwards instead of upwards?
  Mr. Watkinson: I think that the answer is one which should give both sides of this Question. In the same period that the price index of food went up 5 per cent. the wages index for men went up by approximately the same amount.
  Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister tell us why, at a time when farmers are getting less for their produce, the housewife is paying more for it?
  Mr. Watkinson: Because some things go up in price and others go down, and some are imported and some are grown at home.

  SCOTLAND

    Exports (Encouragement)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the exports of Scottish industry.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): In matters of special interest to Scottish exports I keep in close touch with the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for the encouragement of the exports of the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a United Kingdom mission to Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Sudan, will shortly leave—at the expense of the taxpayer—to promote and develop industry in those countries and to obtain orders for British exports, but that Scottish industry is not represented on that 11-man delegation? Is not that quite wrong, having regard to the fact that Scottish industries play an important part in developing these countries with capital goods such as steamships, locomotives and engineering products of all kinds?
    Mr. Stuart: The trades, on a United Kingdom basis, may make recommendations as to the representatives they wish to send. As the President of the Board of Trade said, on 16th December, it would not be practicable to organise trade missions on a geographical as well as a trade basis, without making them unwieldy.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland is particularly concerned with heavy industries, and can he assure the House that he is consulted before these trade missions are finally decided upon?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the trades concerned are consulted, and I am certainly most anxious to see that Scotland is always adequately represented.

    Local Medical Committees
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible, under his regulations, for setting up the local medical committees; and their purpose in the administration of the general medical service.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Local medical committees are formed by the medical profession themselves, and are accorded statutory recognition by the Secretary of State. They appoint medical members to the executive council; they must be consulted by the council on certain specified
    2574
    matters, and are normally consulted on other matters, affecting the general medical services; and they have a number of specific functions under the Regulations, including particularly the investigation of excessive prescribing.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State has intimated his responsibility for these local medical committees, may I ask if he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction at the manner in which many of them are carrying out the functions assigned to them, and that they are tending by their attitude to limit the right of a doctor to give the type of treatment which he considers necessary for a patient? In view of the assumption of this kind of judicial attitude, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a doctor ought to be represented when he appears before one of these committees?
    Mr. Stuart: I should like to examine the point which the hon. Member has raised, as we do not, of course, wish any dictatorial attitude to be adopted by these committees. I thought that they were working quite well, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the interviews to which a doctor was called started by the chairman informing the doctor that he need not worry because on that occasion he would not be fined? Is that a proper attitude to take at an interview of that nature?
    Mr. Stuart: I was not aware of that, but if the hon. Member will give me details, I will gladly look into it.

    Roads (Transfer of Powers)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the power to vary the rate of grants to roads of different classes and to give grants to roads which are not now eligible in Scotland is being included among the powers to be transferred to him from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.
    Mr. J. Stuart: It is proposed that all the powers of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in relation to the maintenance and improvement of Scottish roads should be transferred.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not that mean that the Secretary of State will have the power to vary the rate of grant? Will he have the power to deal with the very serious problems of unclassified roads in the Highland area?
    Mr. Stuart: So far as unclassified roads are concerned, I shall have the power to do whatever I am permitted to do. [Laughter.] I said that all the functions of my right hon. Friend will be transferred. But as to the rates of grant, I cannot say that I can vary the 75 per cent. on Class I roads or the 60 per cent. on Class II roads unless these rates are varied throughout the country.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will do all that he is permitted to do, but who grants him permission?
    Mr. Stuart: When the powers are transferred from the Minister of Transport to me I shall take them over.
    Mr. Callaghan: On the question of reclassification, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot vary the rate of grant, but will the transfer of powers enable him to reclassify roads as Class I, II, or III roads, respectively?
    Mr. Stuart: In so far as powers exist whereby roads are periodically altered and moved up to Class I, for example, those powers will continue under me.

    Agricultural Drainage (Consultations)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce legislation to deal with the recurring problem of flooding in many areas in Scotland.
    Mr. Malcolm Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to enable the Government to undertake greater responsibility for action in cases of flooding in rural areas.
    Mr. J. Stuart: As the hon. Members are aware, discussions on the agricultural drainage problem have taken place with the interested organisations, but I regret that so far it has not been possible to devise an acceptable solution.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been receiving that
    2576
    answer ever since I entered the House in 1950? Is he also aware that this problem of flooding applies to more than purely agricultural areas, and that homes are being flooded in Scotland each time we have severe rain? If he cannot introduce legislation, can he not deal with special cases on their merits, to avoid extreme hardship taking place each winter in Scotland, with nothing being done about it?
    Mr. Stuart: I shall be very glad to help in cases of extreme hardship. I believe that local authorities already do this. As I said in my answer, I regret that a solution has not been reached which would enable me to introduce legislation. I am sorry that the reply which the hon. Member has received has always been to that effect, but that does not mean that it is an inaccurate reply.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question has caused real disquiet? Would he consider making a statement at some time, indicating where the difficulties of reaching agreement lie, so that we can argue the whole question out and try to contribute to a general solution of this matter?
    Mr. Stuart: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    Winter Fodder
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to avoid a steep rise in the cost of winter feed, in view of the flooding, resulting in the loss of crops.
    Mr. J. Stuart: There are local shortages of hay which have resulted in higher prices, but this is unavoidable, and has happened before. Despite the bad harvest, however, the quantity of winter fodder on farms seems likely to be generally adequate, although the quality will often be low.
    Mr. Manuel: Is not the Secretary of State convinced, on the information that he has, that some controls are necessary to avoid a steep rise in the cost of winter feed? Is he aware that many tenant farmers are already having to get rid of store cattle because of their inability to feed them over the winter? Will he again examine this matter with a view to making certain that this difficulty, which

    2577
    has not been budgeted for by the farmers, will be covered? There has been a great loss of crops in certain areas in Scotland.
    Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member may recollect that the Minister of Agriculture made a statement on 16th December, in which he said that the Government had decided that where the failure to harvest the grain is not due to bad husbandry or negligence by the grower, the acreage claimed by the grower but not harvested as grain will be eligible for deficiency payment. This will be of material help in the problem.

    Thoracic Operations (Waiting Time)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the greatest time that a patient has had to wait in Lanarkshire for a major thoracic operation; and how many have had to wait this period.
    Mr. J. Stuart: No tuberculous patient has been on the present waiting list for more than six months, except one whose operation was postponed at her own request and who has now been waiting eight months. Five patients have been waiting six months, three of whom have had their operations postponed on medical grounds.
    Miss Herbison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that six months is a very long time for any patient to wait—especially one suffering from tuberculosis, which has very depressive effects? To wait such a long time for an operation is very bad. What steps does he or his Department propose to take to cut down this waiting time?
    Mr. Stuart: The waiting list in the region has been reduced from 404 in May, 1954, to 172, which shows that steps have been taken. In Lanarkshire arrangements are being made to transfer a number of patients from Hairmyres to a ward in Wester Moffat Hospital, Airdrie, which is at present being redecorated.

    Housing (Certificates of Disrepair)
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require local authorities to make quarterly
    2578
    returns showing the number of applications for certificates of disrepair under the Housing Acts; the number granted and the number refused; and the number of applications received from landlords for the revocation of such certificates, the number granted and the number refused.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I propose to ask local authorities in due course for a return.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer will give great satisfaction to those of us who are greatly concerned at the large number of certificates of disrepair being issued by local authorities on quite trivial grounds?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Stuart: My hon. Friend asked me if I was aware that my answer would give satisfaction, and I am very glad to hear that it will.

    Forth Road Bridge
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement concerning recent representations made to him about a Forth road bridge.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board communicated to me an offer by certain financial interests to advance a loan for the construction of the bridge, provided that the principal and interest were guaranteed by the Government. After consulting my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, I replied that, for reasons which have been explained in this House, it had not been the practice of successive Governments to borrow for new road construction.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that that reply will occasion no surprise? Can he indicate whether the prospects for the Forth road bridge have brightened since the announcement that he is to take over responsibility for roads and bridges in Scotland? Further, can he indicate whether there is any significance in the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), is now sitting with the Parliamentary Private Secretary on the bench behind?
    Mr. Stuart: I can add nothing at this moment to what has already been said.

    Health Centre, Glenrothes
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on the prospects of a new health centre in Glenrothes, Fife.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have come, with regret, to the conclusion that funds cannot be allocated for a health centre at Glenrothes from the resources available for the National Health Service. I am arranging to discuss with the development corporation and the county council alternative methods of providing the accommodation required for health services in the new town.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that this decision will cause profound disappointment in the developing mining areas in the east of Fife, and that it seems to be another Government blow at the whole idea of developing mining communities? How does he expect miners and their wives and families to come in from the west, when there are no education facilities, no industries, and now no health centre?
    Mr. Stuart: I hope very much that it will be possible for the county council and the development corporation to work out satisfactory plans, which will, of course, rank for grant in the normal way.

    Departmental Vehicles (Edinburgh-Dundee Route)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what route vehicles of his Department are instructed to follow on journeys between Edinburgh and Dundee.
    Mr. J. Stuart: There are no standing orders laid down about the route to be followed on such journeys.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, a week ago today, the Minister of State made an official journey from Edinburgh to Dundee, that this journey was by way of the Kincardine road bridge, that it took four hours, and that he kept the people of Dundee waiting, and, very sensibly, returned thereafter by train? Does this not prove a lack of faith by the Scottish Office itself in the Forth ferry services, the complete inadequacy of the Kincardine road bridge as a means of communication between Edinburgh and
    2580
    the north-east, and the urgent need for road bridges over the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth?
    Mr. Stuart: I am sure that my noble Friend would wish me to express his deep apologies to those people whom he kept waiting in Dundee. My information is that he got held up in Glenfarg owing to ice conditions, and that it was not due to the Kincardine bridge. I would only add that I make this journey myself sometimes, and I make up my mind according to the season and the crowds. It is a matter of chacun à son goût.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Promotion Schemes
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the anxieties of parents and the strain on children imposed by the promotion examination from primary to secondary schools; and if he will consult the local education authorities with a view to providing an alternative to this test.
    Mr. J. Stuart: There is no evidence of serious or widespread anxiety or strain. The aim of promotion schemes is to find the right type of course for each pupil, and the decision on this is based not only on the results of the tests applied but also on other factors, such as an estimate by the primary school teacher of the pupil's capacity. Promotion schemes are kept under review by the authorities and the Department, and the authorities regard the present arrangements as generally satisfactory.
    Mr. Hannan: The Question asked if the right hon. Gentleman would consult local authorities. Is he correctly informed upon this matter; and, further, is he aware that the fact that children are being segregated at this early age is creating great concern? Does not he agree that it is a bad thing, socially and educationally, to segregate these children at such an early age and put them into different schools?
    Mr. Stuart: I am not a confirmed believer in the principle that everybody must pass examinations. I do not think that it is necessary. I was never particularly successful myself. I think that many perfectly good people come through without coming top in examinations. I shall

    2581
    certainly bear in mind what the hon. Members says. We are, of course, in close consultation with the authorities.

    Comprehensive Schools
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the local education authorities with a view to adopting the comprehensive school as the basis of secondary education in Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. I prefer to continue to leave it to each education authority to decide what type of secondary education is best suited to the particular circumstances and needs of its area.
    Mr. Hannan: We are aware that local authorities have this power, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the comprehensive school system would eliminate the risk which now obtains of children being allocated to the wrong type of school at the present early age?
    Mr. Stuart: I think that the local education authorities are the best people to decide how this comprehensive school question should be handled in their respective areas. They do differ. Glasgow, for example, takes an entirely opposite view from Fife. Due regard must be had to the particular problems of each locality.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Secretary of State agree that experience of this policy in Scotland would suggest that the comprehensive school system is the right one to adopt in the future?
    Mr. Stuart: I think that the right course is to allow the local people, who best know their needs, to have some say in the matter.

    Technical Education (Expenditure)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount per head of population spent on technical education in each Scottish education authority area.
    Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply consists largely of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the urgency of persuading many local authorities to increase facilities in this very important aspect of education, particularly in the field of pre-apprenticeship and day-release training?
    Mr. Stuart: I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
    Following is the reply:
    On the basis of the estimated populations of the areas concerned in mid-1953 and their unaudited returns for 1953–54, their expenditure per head on further education (excluding capital expenditure and contributions to other authorities in respect of students being educated in their areas) is given in the table below. Precise figures for expenditure on technical education are not available, but it is estimated that in 1953–54 it amounted to about £1.16 million, or 62 per cent. of the total expenditure incurred by education authorities on further education. The figures in the table do not include the provision for advanced technical education made in central institutions, the total expenditure on which for 1952–53 (the latest year available) was about 1.3 million, excluding capital expenditure.

    Education authority

    Expre. per head of Population

    Aberdeen (Cnty.)

    …

    ·24

    Angus

    …

    ·13

    Argyle

    …

    ·09

    Ayr

    …

    ·31

    Banff

    …

    ·13

    Berwick

    …

    ·20

    Bute

    …

    ·09

    Caithness

    …

    ·12

    Clackmannan

    …

    ·37

    Dumfries

    …

    ·14

    Dunbarton

    …

    ·22

    East Lothian

    …

    ·15

    Fife

    …

    ·39

    Inverness

    …

    ·13

    Kincardine

    …

    ·09

    Kirkcudbright

    …

    ·21

    Lanark

    …

    ·53

    Midlothian

    …

    ·20

    Moray and Nairn

    …

    ·17

    Orkney

    …

    ·36

    Peebles

    …

    ·15

    Perth and Kinross

    …

    ·21

    Renfrew

    …

    ·18

    Ross and Cromarty

    …

    ·12

    Roxburgh

    …

    ·25

    Selkirk

    …

    ·25

    Stirling

    …

    ·34

    Sutherland

    …

    ·49

    West Lothian

    …

    ·11

    Wigtown

    …

    ·20

    Zetland

    …

    ·23

    Burghs

    Aberdeen

    …

    ·59

    Dundee

    …

    ·61

    Edinburgh

    …

    ·41

    Glasgow

    …

    ·54

    School Building (Expenditure)
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum he estimates will be spent on school building in Scotland during 1955.
    Mr. J. Stuart: On the information available I estimate that the value of school building work which will be carried out by education authorities in 1955 will be of the order of £9 million.
    Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the percentage representing new school building as against the minor work of expanding old schools?
    Mr. Stuart: I can tell the hon. Member that the total value of work likely to be done will be of the order of £10 million, of which over £9 million will be spent upon schools.

    Dental Students
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the intake of students into Dundee Dental College.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The shortage of dental students is general throughout the country, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health announced on 6th December, we are setting up an Inter-Departmental Committee to inquire into the reasons and suggest directions in which remedies might be sought.
    Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State consider some sort of planning, in consultation with the Scottish universities and local authorities, with regard to the dispersal of students between the various educational facilities?
    Mr. Stuart: I will certainly remember what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will ask the Committee to take it into account.

    Shorthand and Typewriting Training (Personal Case)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a grant to ensure that the girl who passed first in her class at Dornoch Academy, details of whose case are in his possession, shall be able to obtain training in shorthand and typewriting at Inverness, as such training is not available to her in Sutherland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have no power to make such a grant. I understand, however, that Sutherland education authority informed the parent that it was prepared to consider an application for a bursary to enable the girl to attend evening classes in shorthand and typewriting during the current session, which are available in its own area as well as Inverness.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this girl cannot afford to stay in the Highland village of Embo out of work, which would be her lot if she was dependent on evening classes? Is he also aware that my Question was directed to asking my right hon. Friend to give her a bursary for full-time training in Inverness on terms equal to that offered her to the value of over £100 for training in domestic service at Bridge of Allan?
    Mr. Stuart: I think the best thing that my hon. Friend could do, if he would not mind my offering the suggestion, would be to have a friendly talk with the Sutherland Education Committee to see if a grant can be budgeted for.
    Mr. Ede: Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman himself to have a talk with the Sutherland Education Committee, its friendliness depending on its responsiveness to his approach?
    Mr. Stuart: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that my intervention would be of any help, and if my hon. Friend has no objection. I will do my best.
    Sir D. Robertson: While I always value the advice of my right hon. Friend, is it not a fact that about five-sixths of what is spent in paying for education in Sutherland is the taxpayers' money, and is it not his responsibility to a much greater extent than that of the Education Committee?
    Mr. Stuart: I think that although central funds do contribute very largely, this is a matter for the local education authority.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Offices, Glasgow (Contract Terms)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Works the accepted tender price for the new offices at Maryhill Road, Glasgow; and whether the contract was fixed under a time and penalty clause.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): It would be contrary to normal practice to disclose the amount of accepted tenders for Government contracts, but I can say that the contract contains the usual penalty clause for delay.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the Minister give any indication of when this building is likely to be completed?
    Mr. Birch: I understand that it is due to be completed by 31st March, 1955.

    Government Offices and Staff, West End
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Works the total number of Government offices; the estimated total number of civil servants employed therein; and the estimated rents paid by the Exchequer in the London district bounded by Park Lane, Oxford Street, Regent Street, and Piccadilly.
    Mr. Birch: There are 18 offices in the charge of my Department in the area, housing about 6,700 staff. The estimated total rents, including an allowance for Crown freeholds, are about £440,000 per annum.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In view of the urgent need to economise as much as possible in the spending of the taxpayers' money, would it not be a good thing to let these bureaucrats work on less expensive sites? Could they not work equally well south of the river, say, near the Elephant and Castle? Could they not be more appropriately housed, say, near the gasometer at the Oval? Why must they work in the most expensive parts of Mayfair?
    Mr. Birch: My hon. and gallant Friend is fertile in making useful suggestions, but he will have worked out already that the rent is about £66 per head, and for all headquarters offices in the London area the average is £63 per head, so that I do not think it is very much too high.
    Mr. Isaacs: Is there not a risk that, if these civil servants were to work around the Elephant and Castle, they might go into the Elephant and Castle and get "elephant's trunk"?
    Sir W. Darling: If my right hon. Friend increases the number of civil servants, will it not reduce the figure from £63 per head?

    Royal Sailors' Home and Club, Portsmouth
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Works (1) what consultations he had with the Admiralty before granting an allocation of steel for the building of the Royal Sailors' Home and Club;
    (2) why steel was allotted out of Admiralty allocations for the building of the Royal Sailors' Home and Club, Portsmouth, when there was insufficient money available to complete the club.
    Mr. Birch: In 1949, 75 tons of steel per quarter were granted out of the steel allocation for civil building, after consultation with the Admiralty.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these two Questions were originally put down to the Admiralty, whose responsibility, in my opinion, they are; and, further, that this steel was allocated out of an Admiralty allocation for other purposes during six years of Socialism?

    Stonehenge (Recommendations)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works what plans for raising some of the fallen stones at Stonehenge have been authorised by his Department.
    Mr. Birch: I have received recommendations from the Ancient Monuments Board for England. These are being examined.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister publish the results of what decisions he reaches?
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir.

    Royal Parks (Car Parking)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works what protests he has received against the use of the Royal Parks as car parks.
    Mr. Birch: I have received one letter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the use of the Royal Parks for this purpose shows that the Government's policy for dealing with traffic in the West End has completely broken

    2587
    down? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the chaos will be even greater unless he widens or by-passes the gateways to the Royal Parks, where there is already considerable congestion, before these car parks are established?
    Mr. Birch: The question of the gateways is a different one.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that motorists, of which I am one, are quite rapacious in their demands and will take every inch of open space that they can get? Will he, therefore, resist any further encroachment on these beautiful parks, and assure the House that these arrangements are entirely temporary?
    Mr. Birch: I will certainly do so.

    Building Industry (Restrictive Practices)
    Mr. Turnerasked the Minister of Works whether he will now make a statement about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of buildings in the Greater London area.
    Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 19th October last, the London Builders' Conference has abandoned the practices criticised by the Commission. I welcome and accept its assurances. Similar practices have been followed to some extent outside London and the Government take the view that these also should be given up.
    In future firms will not be included on any list of approved Government contractors for new buildings if in tendering for such work they follow the practices criticised by the Commission. The firms already on the lists are being asked to confirm that they wish to remain there and accept this condition. This will make it unnecessary to continue the use of the form of declaration which was directed against these practices.
    The attention of the associations of local authorities is being drawn to the Report and to the action taken.
    Mr. Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the outcome of this matter, which he has just announced, will give very general satisfaction?
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say whether the ban on firms being allowed
    2588
    to contract if they do not comply with these conditions will apply to contracts for local authorities?
    Mr. Birch: No, Sir. What I said applied to the Government list of tenderers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities follow different practices, and it will be up to them to decide what to do, but I am drawing their attention to what we are doing.
    Mr. Gibson: Can the Minister say whether the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission to the effect that there should be a conference between the London Builders' Conference, the R.I.B.A., and other building interests, has yet been carried out, and, if so, what the result was?
    Mr. Birch: There has been no general conference of the parties concerned. I have seen them individually.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he will be able to check whether, in fact, these practices are continued or not?
    Mr. Birch: I think that our ability to check whether they are being followed or not will remain as good or as bad as it is now. I think that we should be able to detect any flagrant abuse.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (COAL FIRES)
  Sir J. Lucasasked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, since the abolition of coal fires in the Palace of Westminster, there is now no reasonable way for an hon. Member arriving from the country in a chilled condition to thaw out; and if he will arrange that there should be at least one such fire available.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The condition to which the hon. and gallant Member refers can be remedied without a coal fire. The Members' Writing Room off the Lower Waiting Hall is kept at a temperature of 69 degrees Fahrenheit by central heating, and if hon. Members want more heat there is also an electric fire there.
  Sir J. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that the electric fires have no heat whatever, that they have not got a heater, and

  2589
  that the only way in which a Member can get warm in a hurry is either to sit on a radiator or have a hot bath? Could he not have a small electric heater put in the Members' Cloakroom, to be switched on if required?
  Mr. Bevins: No, Sir; I am afraid that my hon. Friend is misinformed. If the electric fire is switched on, the temperature can be raised to 75 degrees Fahrenheit very quickly, which I should have thought was good enough to thaw out anyone.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Could not the hon. Gentleman solve the problem if he took a run round the Terrace or in New Palace Yard until he got warm?

  RESEARCH (LUNG CANCER)
  Brigadier Medlicottasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is taking place into the possible effect of petrol fumes as a cause of cancer of the lung.
  Mr. Bevins: The Medical Research Council are undertaking an extensive programme of work on the effects of atmospheric pollution on health. Research on the possibility of engine exhaust fumes being a factor in causing lung cancer forms part of this programme.
  Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that the incidence of this form of cancer coincides at least as much with the increased use of petrol as with the increased use of tobacco, and that this might be a helpful line of inquiry to be followed in relation to this baffling and terrible disease?
  Mr. Bevins: That may be so, but the fact remains that so far there is no established connection between the two.
  Dr. Stross: Has the Minister noticed that in his Report for 1953, recently published, the Chief Medical Officer speaks of the march of this disease as being inexorable and mysterious, and points out that last year 1,000 more people died from cancer of the lung as compared with 1952? Can the Minister explain to us why the word "mysterious" is still used when his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in February was quite explicit
  2590
  that there was an obvious association between excessive cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung?
  Mr. Bevins: Yes, the Report has been brought to the attention of my noble Friend. I think that that particular expression may have been rather unfortunate.

  JUNIOR MINISTERS (SALARIES)
  Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister if he can yet state what decision has been reached in the consideration given to increasing the salaries of junior Ministers.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.
  Mr. Dodds: Does the Prime Minister recollect the unanimity of the House regarding the necessity for an increase—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.
  Mr. Dodds: —of course, with the exception of the hon. Member on my right—and will he not endeavour to get a decision at the earliest possible moment, or can he say when he is likely to say Yes or No?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary shall discuss this matter with the Lord Privy Seal and look into it from every aspect, and the Lord Privy Seal hopes to bring the matter up when we meet again after Christmas.

  ROYAL NAVY (FIRST LORD'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 14th December made on an official occasion concerning the future of aircraft carriers and of the Royal Navy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in any recent speech has said anything that could not have

  2591
  been readily inferred from the restatement of naval policy made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the debate on the Gracious Speech.
  Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Prime Minister aware that in this speech the First Lord of the Admiralty severely rebuked Lord Montgomery for saying that we should not build any more aircraft carriers because they were obsolete; and that he also rebuked him for saying that the rôle of the Navy would be much reduced in the future? What we would like to know is who is right, the Field Marshal or the First Lord?
  The Prime Minister: I think that before the House takes a final decision on that matter, hon. Members would do well to enlighten themselves by the debates that will take place after Christmas on the Service Estimates.

  U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (UNITED KINGDOM BASES)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether the agreement he reached with the United States Government on 9th January, 1952, on the use of air bases in the United Kingdom by United States military aircraft in an emergency is still in force.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This arrangement, as the hon. Lady will perhaps recall, was made originally by the late Government in the summer of 1948.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week-end the N.A.T.O. Council confirmed the fact that its military plans are based on the assumption that atomic weapons will be used automatically in the next war; which means, therefore, that when war is declared it will inevitably become an atomic war on a full scale, involving also the use of the United States Strategic Air Force in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and in view of this fact, and the change in the situation—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Speaker: This does not really expedite business.
  Mrs. Castle: —which it involves since this agreement in 1948, can the right hon.
  2592
  Gentleman tell the House what plans have been made or are being made for consultative machinery to be set up between the N.A.T.O. Powers concerned in order to get full political control over the use of atomic weapons?
  The Prime Minister: I believe that I could contribute to the knowledge of the House on the matter, but not within the scope of a supplementary answer.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of a statement in the "Manchester Guardian" today that this country could be wiped out in the first 30 hours of a possible next war? Does he not think, in those circumstances, that we have entered into agreements which are making this country not more secure but less secure? In the interests of the great majority of the people of this country, is it not time that these agreements were revised?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must not suppose that these matters are not always under grave re-examination and thought. I think they are the principal matter in the minds of the responsible people—I may say on both sides of the House. Anyone can see what the situation is. It is not easy to see how it can be remedied or removed.
  Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. The Prime Minister said that Question time is not the appropriate time for eliciting what is decided by the N.A.T.O. Council. What opportunity will this House have of knowing what has been decided in these important discussions?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

  COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE (INVITATIONS)
  Mr. Dugdaleasked the Prime Minister how far consideration as to the personal qualities of Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries, other than Dominions, influences the decision as to whether or not they should be invited to Commonwealth Conferences.
  The Prime Minister: As I informed the right hon. Member on 14th December, there are long-established reasons for the invitation to the Prime Minister

  2593
  of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to join the Prime Ministers' meeting in January.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister not aware that he also informed me that the personal qualities and position of Sir Godfrey Huggins had to be considered? Does that mean that his personal qualities and position have to be considered, while the personal qualities and position of other Prime Ministers have not to be considered? Does it mean that, for some reason or other, Sir Godfrey Huggins is in a special position which is not accorded to the Prime Ministers of Malta, the Gold Coast, and Nigeria, and that they have not special consideration?
  The Prime Minister: The fact that Sir Godfrey Huggins has been here so many times running, and is now at the head of an even larger State, constitutes an additional reason, but it is not on that that I base the claim that he should come. The claim is based on rightful representation.
  Mr. Dugdale: Surely the Prime Minister would agree that even he has not a prescriptive right to remain Prime Minister always, however great his personal qualities.
  The Prime Minister: I have never made such a claim.

  AIRCRAFT (DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister the system of co-ordination between the Ministry of Supply, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty for the obtaining of aircraft.
  The Prime Minister: When the Socialist Government came into power in 1945, they abolished the Ministry of Aircraft Production and transferred its functions to the Ministry of Supply. We have not altered this arrangement. The Ministry of Supply therefore performs a common service for the Admiralty and the Air Ministry in the development and procurement of aircraft. Co-operation between the three Departments is intimate and continuous. As the system is rather lengthy to describe in detail, I will circulate a note in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is not possible to argue these technical
  2594
  matters at Question Time. A suitable Parliamentary occasion arises on the Estimates which will be discussed after the Christmas Recess.
  Mr. Wyatt: As there has now been revealed an appalling delay in deliveries of aircraft for the Royal Air Force and for the Navy, not only of fighters but of bombers, is it not time for a thorough overhaul of the system of procurement? Is it not one of the great difficulties that nobody seems to have the power to make the decision when to stop alterations and modification to aircraft and to start actually building and putting aircraft into production? Could not the Prime Minister do something about it urgently, instead of referring back to 1945, which is nine years ago?
  The Prime Minister: These matters are all being most earnestly considered and examined. There is great and increased complexity of aircraft, and extraordinary rapidity of development, one generation of aircraft succeeding another so rapidly that the life of an aircraft in the process of construction undoubtedly far exceeds the life of an individual Minister of Supply. It may be twice and it may be thrice as long, with all the preparations and so forth. This has all to be considered. It certainly raises in my mind the broad general question of whether a special Ministry should not be recreated to deal with the prolonged process of production. Happily, I believe, the delays that have taken place through accidents, through too few prototypes and through unfortunate and tragic events here and there, will not work out to our disadvantage. They may be settled, and result in a satisfactory flow before the period of comparative safety in which we are living has elapsed.
  Mr. Callaghan: Whether they work out to our disadvantage or not, they will certainly have resulted in a considerable loss of public money. Could the Prime Minister consider whether the Estimates will be the best opportunity of examining a subject of this complexity? Will he take note of the fact that it is our considered view here that there is need for a committee of inquiry into the state of the aircraft industry, both civil and military, to see whether the public is getting value for its money?
  The Prime Minister: If it is a question of getting value for money and of estimates and so on, I should have thought that when the Estimates are considered will be an admirable time for Members to make their remarks on this subject.
  Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Prime Minister realise that this subject is far too complex, technical, and detailed, to be dealt with by exchanges across the Floor of the House? Would he seriously consider the possibility of setting up some sort of committee for investigating the matter and probing it with the thoroughness it needs?
  The Prime Minister: I am rather shy of putting my faith on any matter of great intricacy in "some sort of committee."
  Following is the Note:
  An operational requirement is drawn up by the Service concerned in consultation with the Ministry of Supply. Steps are taken to prevent unnecessary overlapping between Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm requirements. After detailed examination and acceptance of the requirement by the Ministry of Supply, a contract is placed for the design and development of the aircraft required. It is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to carry through flight and other tests until he considers that the aircraft meets the specification.
  Throughout this process the Ministry of Supply is in close touch with the progress being made. When the aircraft manufacturer considers that the aircraft meets the specification, further tests are carried out by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment of the Ministry of Supply. Arrangements have recently been made for flight tests to be made by this Establishment's pilots in advance of the formal acceptance trials. In the light of the Establishment's report and in agreement with the Service Department, a release is given by the Ministry of Supply. Throughout, the Service Department is kept informed and takes steps to inform itself of developments.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Web Equipment Cleaner
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War if the new type of cleaner for green and buff web equipment has yet been brought into general use in place of blanco.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): The new type of cleaner will be on sale by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in this country by the end of this month, and overseas, it is hoped, in March or April next year.
    Mr. Dodds: Now that this revolutionary change has taken place, could it not be marked with some sort of ceremonial, in view of its importance?
    Mr. Maclean: That would be most suitable. Having used the old cleaner and used the new one, I should be the first to welcome it. If the hon. Member has any suggestion perhaps he will let me know of it.

    Home Guard
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now arrange to disband the Home Guard, in view of the fact that he has already issued instructions for Home Guard training to be reduced to a minimum, and in view of the continued failure to obtain the required number of recruits.
    Mr. F. Maclean: No, Sir. The War Office has issued no such instructions, and the strength of the Home Guard continues to increase.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Minister aware that Major Moore, commanding A Company, 12th Essex Battalion Home Guard, gave as his explicit reason for resigning the fact that he had received instructions from the War Office that training had to be curtailed to the minimum? Is he also aware that the few people who have volunteered for the Home Guard are very dissatisfied about the lack of attention given by the War Office?
    Mr. Maclean: As regards the specific case to which the hon. Member has referred, he must surely realise that the training periods of units are curtailed or increased in individual cases. Because one officer is dissatisfied does not prove there is anything the matter with the Home Guard as a whole. Indeed, the figures show very much the opposite.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES)
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on the Government's intentions with regard to the Parliamentary Constituencies Orders?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir.
Since I replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question yesterday, the Court of Appeal has ordered the discharge of the injunction granted by Mr. Justice Roxburgh on the question of the Boundary Commission's Report. The court held that there was no ground for saying that there was any departure by the Commission from the rules it had to observe. For the reasons given in court by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that the matter was not justiciable, and in this they hope they carry with them the House as a whole, as these are grave matters involving its rights.
The Government are, however, anxious not to inconvenience hon. Members by asking them to continue to sit this week in order to complete the discussion of the remaining Orders. We propose, therefore, to put them down during the week in which the House resumes after the forthcoming Recess. In the meanwhile, the Orders already approved in draft by both Houses will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval.
Mr. Attlee: While I am glad that it is not intended to try to rush through these Orders before the Christmas Recess, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, as a holiday task, he would read the Report of the debates which have taken place, because the House is very much under the impression that it has been a waste of time to discuss these Orders? Although very cogent reasons were put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House on some of these proposals, no adequate replies were given by the Ministers, who seemed to depend all the time on saying, "This has been decided by the Commission." It is quite clear from the reports of the case in the courts that the view taken there was that a considerable flexibility was allowed to the
2598
Commission. If that is so, should not there be some flexibility on the part of the Government? Could not this matter be looked at again?
We have the impression that the replies of Ministers have been directed not to the arguments but simply to stating, "This has been decided by the Commission. We are accepting the Commission and we will not accept any arguments whatever." That has been said particularly in the Manchester case, to cite only one. There was a general opinion by Members of all parties in this matter, yet no notice whatever was taken of it by the Government. Further, on the legal points, the replies of the Attorney-General which were given in court might very well have been given in this House. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in those circumstances, it might not be well to hold back the submission of these Orders until he has had an opportunity of applying his mind to the issues raised and the arguments that have been put forward.
The Prime Minister: I will certainly read the reports in HANSARD at the request of the Leader of the Opposition. But I will not myself attempt to answer the detailed part of his question, because my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the House will deal with that.
Mr. Elliot Mr. Elliot rose—
Mr. Crookshank Mr. Crookshank rose—
Mr. Speaker: There is a contest of priorities here. I will call the Leader of the House first, as he is answering a question.
Mr. Crookshank: I was only going to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is really impossible to re-debate matters which the House has already settled, and that when he animadverts on my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General it may be that he himself was not in the House at the time. Indeed, everybody could not be here all the time, throughout the whole of Thursday night. Some hon. Members were not here any of the time. My right hon. and learned Friend did not say, in general, anything on these matters in the court which had not been said by him here.
Mr. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the utmost satisfaction will be felt in Scotland about the Orders which were submitted and received the general

2599
approval of this House, and that, therefore, no time should be wasted but they should be put into effect forthwith?
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If the correct view is that which has been held by the Court of Appeal—although it is not necessarily final in the Court of Appeal; I understand that there are other cases pending and that matters may be taken further—and assuming that these matters are not justiciable, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is, therefore, all the more important that the House of Commons should deal with this matter judicially, as we pressed on Wednesday when we debated the Orders? Would he not agree that the proper course would be not to submit to Her Majesty in Council the Orders that have already been through the House, but to take no further steps until all the English Orders have been considered by the House? I am confining myself to the English Orders; I am saying nothing about Scotland or Wales, because only the English Orders are involved. Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering this matter, in view of all its very grave constitutional implications, before proceeding further with these Orders?
Mr. Crookshank: First of all, I understand that there are no cases pending. Those of which notice has been given have been dismissed by consent. That disposes of that point. As for the Orders which have now been approved by both Houses, there can be no other action than to submit them to Her Majesty.
Mr. Bing: Will the Leader of the House answer this point? Suppose that the House were to come to the conclusion that one of the Orders which it was debating was unsatisfactory, how could any changes possibly be made if the Royal Assent had already been given to Orders which would prejudice those changes? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is possible to debate some of the Orders if the other Orders upon which they depend are not alterable?
Mr. Crookshank: All I can say in reply to that is that the House has already decided a great number of these matters. As a result, if one takes into account the Orders already approved
2600
and adds the number of constituencies which are not affected by the Boundary Commission's Report, about five-sixths of the country has already been disposed of.
Sir P. Spens: Is there any authority or precedent whatsoever whereby, when any Order or Bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, any Government has any right to refrain from presenting it for Royal Assent?
Mr. Crookshank: I can only say that I have no knowledge of any such precedent.
Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said in his first statement that the questions which had been raised in this matter were not justiciable, and I have no doubt that he meant that that was the view of the House, but will he bear in mind that the Court of Appeal's judgment conceded no such thing? The Court of Appeal's judgment proceeded on an examination of the merits and the injunction was set aside on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence that anybody's rights had, in fact, been illegally infringed. The court made it perfectly clear, did it not, that if it had thought that there had been such an infringement, it would have regarded it as within its power to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, it was stated that the courts had already claimed such a right.
What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: if I am right so far—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, you are not."]—and I say "if"—then we have here the seeds of a most undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts. In those circumstances, does he not think it desirable, as with some force on some grounds these objections have been taken, that the Boundary Commission might now be authorised to take back its Report and reconsider it in the light of the objections which have been made?
Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member has not had time to study what was said in detail in the Court of Appeal; and, if so, I cannot blame him. I have had the opportunity to do so and also had advice on this matter. I certainly would not express any opinion on it, but the Attorney-General will perhaps be very happy to put the documents in the Library, or somewhere else where they

2601
can be made available to hon. and right hon. Members, showing exactly what occurred in the Court of Appeal.
I think the hon. Member also misheard—possibly it was my fault—or misunderstood what I said. It was not that Parliament necessarily thought this was not justiciable. In my statement I expressed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and the hope that we carried the House with us, because these are grave matters. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), called attention to them yesterday.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether there has been a Cabinet decision that under no circumstances should changes be allowed in these Orders? If there has, it is not much good the House debating them.
Mr. Crookshank: It is not much good an ex-Prime Minister asking what Cabinet decisions were.
Mr. Doughty: If it has now been decided that these Orders are made in conformity with the Rules under the 1949 Act passed by the late Government, is it not very undesirable that any political party should seek to disturb the findings of an impartial body, namely, the Boundary Commission?
Mr. Paget: Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that the constitutional issue which has arisen here can be left standing where it is? As I understand it, the proposition amounts to this: that the courts claim—and it has not been decided one way or the other whether this is a valid claim—that they have a right to deny to a Minister of the Crown access to the Crown. That seems to me to be an entirely novel claim by the courts and one of enormous constitutional importance, because under it anybody can hold up most important matters in this way until this question is decided. Either by legislation or by some other means, ought not something to be done to clear up this very grave situation?
Mr. Crookshank: Not for the first time, the hon. and learned Member has put his finger on the point at issue. This is why, both yesterday and today, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I purposely used the word "grave." We are not prepared to go further today.
Mr. Bevan: It appears perfectly clear that the courts could not interfere with the access of a Minister to the Crown after the House of Commons had approved the draft Orders. That position does not apply, however, to the draft Orders which have not yet been discussed by the House, and apparently the courts would be free to grant injunctions against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Denial of access to the Crown for the Minister does not arise until the House has, first of all, carried the draft Orders.
Is it not a most serious matter that the Government have behaved, are behaving, and apparently propose to behave as though Parliament has passed its constitution into the hands of the Commission? This is a most grave matter. It was never the intention of the Statute at all. It was always held that the House of Commons should consider each of these draft Orders on its merits. Now, however, when we come to consider the draft Orders after Christmas, obviously, if the same arguments are to be used against the validation of some of them as have already been rejected in respect of others, it becomes an automatic process to present them to the House of Commons; in which case what the Government have done is to put the constitution of the House virtually outside the powers of the Houses of Parliament. That is what has happened in practice.
In my respectful submission, if, every time an argument is put forward, the only answer is a three-line Whip and the Minister saying that the Commission's finding must be carried out, what we have in effect, and in practice, whatever the theory of it may be, is a procedure of driving through the House of Commons the reconstitution of the constituencies by party majority.
Mr. Callaghan: Are we not to have a reply from the Lord Privy Seal? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's evasiveness in answer to my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister mean that when we resume the discussion of these Orders we shall have the farce of another three-line Whip and an obedient majority?
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Member asks me to reply to his right hon. Friend. I did not rise to reply immediately, because I was not quite sure what the question was. It seems to me that the

2603
right hon. Gentleman was expressing his opinion on the general action which has been taken.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the same electoral register to apply in respect of the Orders which have already been passed as in respect of those which it is expected that we shall pass when we meet again? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in this connection, that some London Orders have been passed and some have not?
Mr. Crookshank: The answer to that is, "Yes, Sir."
Mr. H. Nicholls: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said:
"… the Government seem to have been extraordinarily ill-advised by their Law Officers"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2451.]
Since the right hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, in his observations today, continued his attack on individual Members of the Government, and since those words came not only from the Leader of the Opposition but from a barrister, in view of the Court of Appeal's decision ought not the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them?
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can carry this matter further at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 25TH JANUARY—Second Readings:
Army Bill.
Air Force Bill.
Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Bill.
Second Reading: Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages: New Towns Bill, if there is time.
2604
WEDNESDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Outstanding draft Parliamentary Constituencies Orders.
THURSDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Second Reading: Crofters (Scotland) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs (Cmd. 9212).
FRIDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Private Members' Motions.
During the week we hope that there will be an opportunity to consider the Motions to set up the Estimates Committee, and the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure.
Mr. Bevan: Would it not be undesirable for the Government to commit themselves too definitely to the Second Reading of the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, because they might not have got the Orders relating to constituencies by then?
Mr. Crookshank: If the right hon. Member does not want us to be committed he is quite entitled to his own opinion.
Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: In view of the fact that the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs has to be taken on the Thursday, and involves a large number of important questions relating to Scotland, would my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule that day?
Mr. Foot: Referring to the draft Orders under the Boundary Commission's proposals, since there is now almost a month available, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements with the Home Secretary for a public inquiry to be held in the case of those constituencies which have been refused a public inquiry, especially as, in the debate on Orders passed on Thursday last, the Home Secretary told us that he could not go into the details of particular cases? Parliament is the only court of appeal on these constituency boundary cases and when we come to the trial the judge says that he is not able to go into details. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out the same procedure, when we meet after the Recess, as was carried out by the Home Secretary when we were discussing the other Orders on Thursday?
Mr. Crookshank: The question of an inquiry, I understand, is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Commissioners.
Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Lord Privy Seal have another look at the Scottish business for the Thursday? The Crofters (Scotland) Bill is a Bill we have not yet seen and is based on a Report by a very important independent Commission. Our first opportunity to discuss that Report will be after we have discussed the Bill. It is surely absurd that the House should be asked to deal with these two very important matters in one day's Sitting. Could we not have a day for each?
Mr. Crookshank: I think: we had better leave things as they are at present. The Bill will be available this afternoon and the hon. Member will realise that there was a Report on this subject.
Mr. Ross: Surely the Lord Privy Seal should realise that on Thursdays we are occasionally kept a little later from starting the announced business? Today, for example, we have already lost 25 minutes. This sort of thing means that a matter which is vital to the whole life of the Highlands will have to be dealt with in about three hours. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the people of Inverness—today of all days—that three hours is all he can spare for discussion of this most important matter?
Mr. Crookshank: I have had the privilege and pleasure of seeing the Crofters (Scotland) Bill already, and the hon. Member has not. When he sees it I hope he will be satisfied with it. It certainly is not my fault if we do not get on to business until a late hour on Thursdays. What I have to say is very brief; it is nearly always other hon. Members who take up the time.
Mr. Mulley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing more time for discussion of the remaining draft Parliamentary Constituencies Orders? Does he realise that in the case of Sheffield, which is the last English Order, we have been refused a public inquiry and that we hope we shall be able to ventilate our grievances at a more convenient time than the middle of the night?

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (AGREEMENT)
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.
My right hon. Friend is laying before the House today as a White Paper the text of an Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community, which was signed this morning 'between Her Majesty's Government on the one hand and the Governments of the States members of the Community and the High Authority of the Community on the other.
This Agreement establishes a Standing Council of Association composed of four representatives of the United Kingdom Government of whom at least one will, whenever possible, be a member of the Government, and four representatives of the High Authority of whom at least three will, whenever possible, be members of the High Authority. In view of the powers and responsibilities which have been conferred by law upon the National Coal Board and the Iron and Steel Board, the representatives of the United Kingdom Government on the Council of Association will include one member of each of these Boards.
The function of the Council of Association will be to provide means for continuous consultation in regard to matters of mutual interest relating to coal and steel. It will also provide for appropriate consultation, in regard to the coordination of action, to deal with these matters consistent with the international obligations of the parties concerned.
The Council of Association will also examine restrictions and other factors affecting normal trade in coal and steel between the two areas, with a view to making such proposals for their reduction or elimination as may be agreed for the mutual benefit of the United Kingdom and the Community.
The Agreement also provides for special meetings in which the United Kingdom Government will meet with the Council of Ministers of the Community. The High Authority will participate in these meetings.

2607
Due regard will be paid to the interests of consumers as well as of producers of coal and steel, to the interest of third countries and to the special relationship between the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth. The Agreement will remain in force for the duration of the Treaty setting up the Community.
I trust that this new arrangement will help to promote a growing association between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community which will contribute to our common prosperity as well as to the unity of Europe.
Mr. Robens: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being on less explosive ground with this statement than with the one on Formosa in another country. As he knows, we on this side of the House are not in favour of a supranational authority, but are very much in favour of close discussions with the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in the inclusion of a member of the Coal Board and of the Iron and Steel Board, trade union interests in both these industries will be taken closely into consultation?
As we have not yet had a copy of the White Paper and not had the time to study the question, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House whether we might have a short debate, when we come back after the Recess, not only on this matter, but perhaps, also, on the whole question of the Council of Europe?
Mr. Nutting: On the last question, I will consult my right hon. Friend as the right hon. Member suggests. The Agreement will be subject to ratification in the course of normal constitutional procedure. As to the trade unions, the answer is "Yes." They will be consulted throughout in the future, as they have been in the past, in the drawing up of this Treaty.
Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are delighted with
2608
this Agreement in view of the fact that it should help not merely to promote stable conditions in the industries but also to assist in the maintenance of employment should those industries run into difficulties? Is he aware that some of us also hope that the Community will get on with the job of integrating the industries on the Continent for which, primarily, it was set up?
Mr. J. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think he is making the maximum contribution to encouraging the unity of Europe by requiring the setting up of additional machinery and additional meetings to suit the specially privileged position of this country? Would it not be better, and a greater encouragement to Europe, if we were to accept full membership along with the other countries?
Mr. Nutting: I think the hon. Member holds a minority view on that question. I consider that this will be a signal contribution to the unity of Europe.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May we take it that as a result of this Agreement the coal and steel industries of this country are not now stopped from taking decisions as to production and other matters which formerly they were free to take?
Mr. Nutting: No, Sir, I think that when my noble Friend reads the Agreement any fears he has on that question will be set at rest.
Mr. Wade: In view of the reference which the Minister has made to the interests of consumers, can he say whether one of the four persons appointed by the United Kingdom Government will be a representative of the consumers?
Mr. Nutting: I cannot say that for certain. As I said in my statement, one will, whenever possible, be a member of the Government, and two on the Council of Association will be representatives of the two Boards concerned. Who the fourth will be has not yet been decided.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. George Wigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short personal statement.
On Thursday, 9th December, the Prime Minister, when replying to a question, referred to me as an "Army schoolmaster." I wish, therefore, with your permission, to state that I joined the Regular Army as a private soldier and from the time of my enlistment until my discharge to pension as a non-commissioned officer I served in such capacities and at such stations as I was ordered to do by my superior officers.
At the outbreak of war, I volunteered to rejoin the Army and during my service I held a number of staff appointments, but at no time during my service, either commissioned or in the ranks, did hold the appointment of Army schoolmaster, although, Mr. Speaker, I should have done so with pride had I possessed the necessary qualifications.
The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I certainly express my regret that I was misinformed upon the subject of the hon. Member being an Army schoolmaster, and this has been made all the more necessary by a letter which I have received from the President of the Ex-Army Schoolmasters' Association. I was very perturbed when I read—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I thought that it had been repeatedly ruled that a personal statement was not debatable in any way.
Mr. Speaker: A personal statement is never debatable. If another hon. Member of this House is involved in the personal statement made by the Member, he is generally allowed to give his own view of the matter and to say whether he accepts it or not.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I always understood, Sir, that if a right hon. or hon. Member wished to withdraw, he should withdraw simply and without reading the views on the matter of the President of the Ex-Army Schoolmasters' Association or anyone else.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Is it not a well-established custom of this House that there is one rule for the Prime Minister and another rule for the rest of the House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member really should not make such a suggestion. I understood the Prime Minister to say that he expressed his regret to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and was going to elaborate it with a statement, which, I thought, would probably be of interest and amusement to the House. If objection is taken to that, I must so rule.
The Prime Minister: I have expressed regret that I was misinformed on the subject. I was going to express regret in another direction from which I have also been reproached, but as it will be more for the convenience of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I will make it public in another way.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: A personal statement is not debatable; we cannot go on with this.
Miss Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did state that if the House wished to hear the Prime Minister it would be interesting to the House. Am I not entitled to say that I should like to hear the Prime Minister?
Mr. Wigg: May I make it quite clear, Sir, that I much prefer the Prime Minister's insults to his apologies, because I know that the insults are sincere.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow this to go on.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House Tomorrow until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Five o'clock adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]
Mr. Ede: This is an unusual Motion to appear on the Order Paper. Does the Leader of the House think that he cannot get a sufficient number of Ministers here to keep the House, if necessary, tomorrow?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I do not see what this has to do with the number of Ministers present. The point of this Motion is that if, by any chance, the Measure which is being dealt with in the House in another place tomorrow had not been completed at the time of the rising of the House, and the Royal Commission, therefore, was not ready while the House was sitting up to five o'clock, this Motion would allow an extension in order to get the Royal Assent. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is very unusual, I would point out that I am actually following the precedent of 1947.
Mr. Ede: I do not dispute that at all. But the position is not quite what the right hon. Gentleman says, because if at any time during the day attention is drawn to the fact that 40 Members are not present, Mr. Speaker cannot take notice of that, whether he leaves the Chair and returns when the Commission are ready in another place, or whether he remains in the Chair, knowing that a quorum is not present. There is nothing in this Motion to guide us.
Mr. Crookshank: I think we can leave that difficulty, should it arise, to be dealt with by Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the Motion is to safeguard the Royal Commission.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can assist the House in this matter. If there were no quorum, I should suspend the House until I was told that there was a quorum; and the arrival of Black Rod, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, makes the House.
Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th January.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to oppose this Motion, and I do so because I think that the House of Commons is not justified at present in prolonging its Christmas holidays until 25th January. There is such important business that needs to be transacted that the House should come back at least a fortnight sooner and get to work earlier on the Government's legislative programme which is so much behind time.
I suggest that, in view of the grave international situation, in which grave matters affecting the ratification of certain treaties may precipitate difficult problems in international affairs, and so that the House shall keep a check and maintain vigilance upon the Government's policy, the whole of the foreign situation justifies our returning a fortnight earlier so that we can keep a vigilant eye on what Her Majesty's Government are doing.
There are other matters in the foreign field. There is, for example, the question of Cyprus. In view of the state of affairs in Cyprus and in view of the Government's attitude, I believe that this House is justified in coming back a fortnight earlier. I see no reason whatever why the House of Commons should have an extended month's holiday at Christmas when most of Her Majesty's subjects have only a fortnight.
Mr. Alfred Robens: Only two days.
Mr. Hughes: I am putting it on the generous side. My constituents will be perfectly justified in asking me on 3rd or 4th January, "What are M.P.s doing to justify their existence? Are they justified in having this extended holiday at the present time, with pay and expenses?"
Mr. Robens: Without expenses.
Mr. Hughes: There are other matters that this House should have under consideration. For example, the whole question of Civil Defence is hanging fire. We were told at Question time this afternoon by the Prime Minister of grave

2613
perils that threaten this country in the event of an atom war. Without going into the merits of that, I believe that when this country is told that it can be annihilated in 30 hours, the Government should at least produce their programme and policy for the civil defence of the people.
The question of Formosa has not been cleared up. We would be far better employed a fortnight earlier in January in discussing these matters and giving guidance to the Government on the whole question of foreign affairs in the interest of the people of this country.
I ask for the co-operation of the Leader of the House in this matter, because I wish to be helpful to him. After Questions on Thursdays, the Leader of the House is always being asked by hon. Members on both sides when he can find time to dispose of this or that Motion. Questions affecting Scotland alone justify Scottish Members demanding that this House should come back on 14th January.
I have looked very carefully at the questions on business that were before the House for the month of December, and I find that on 2nd December my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who speaks for Scotland from the Front Bench on this side of the House, raised questions on the Balfour Commission and the Sorn Report, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) raised a question on the problems of education in Scotland. In Scotland, even with the New Year celebrations, all the holidays should be over by 14th January, and our place is in this House.
Mr. William Ross: Provided, of course, that we get our holiday on the 25th.
Mr. Hughes: I understand that my hon. Friend means 25th January and not 25th December. It is not only Members on this side of the House who are pressing the Government to give more time to various matters.
Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member has apparently misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He was referring, I think, not to Christmas Day but to Burns' night.
Hon. Members: That is what he said.
Mr. Hughes: Only an Irishman could have misunderstood that.
What I submit to the Leader of the House is that the requests from hon. Members behind him, who are loyal supporters of the Government, for more time to discuss business affecting them are worthy of his consideration. Take, for example, the question asked on 2nd December by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). The hon. Member is not a humble back-bencher; he is chairman of an influential committee called the 1922 Committee. If the Leader of the House does not listen to me, surely he will give a respectful ear to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. If not, his occupation of his position will be rather precarious.
On 2nd December, the hon. Member for Hertford rose during the discussion following the announcement of the business for the following week, to ask for a debate on the exchange equalisation grants
"if not before Christmas, then at any rate soon after our resumption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 318.]
Although the hon. Member for Hertford is not in his place, I suggest that between 14th and 25th January the Leader of the House could solve his problem by giving a day to the discussion of the question which was raised by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee.
On the same day—2nd December—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the question of capital punishment. The Leader of the House has carefully and deliberately side-tracked this issue week after week for the last 12 months. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to come back a fortnight earlier, he would find an opportunity for the House to debate the findings of the Royal Commission—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Which he has promised today.
Mr. Hughes: —which he has promised today; it would accelerate business. There are other reports of committees and commissions that are waiting in the queue, and we are perfectly justified, after a fortnight's or three weeks' relaxation, to come back in order to give the Government time and to help the Leader of the House in solving his difficulty.

2615
On 9th December we had a question from the Government benches by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who asked the Leader of the House:
"Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the report of an important committee, presided over by Sir Hugh Beaver, on the subject of atmospheric pollution, or smog? Can he provide early facilities for a debate on this subject?"
Although the hon. Member for Kidderminster is not here at the moment, we are justified in bringing his grievance to the Floor of the House.
Sir Thomas Moore: Is the hon. Member not aware that that matter is now the subject of a Private Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?
Mr. Hughes: I am always pleased to have assistance which is given to me by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). But, if that is the case, our earlier return would provide another fortnight of Parliamentary time so that plenty of facilities could be given for debating the Bill; there would be Fridays, and that would help the Leader of the House too. But the Leader of the House said in reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster:
"I am afraid not … The Committee's recommendations are being considered, and he"—
that was a reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—
"will make a statement in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1120–1.]
Why not devote a few days, if necessary, to the question of atmospheric pollution? The Leader of the House has been pressed by London Members that this is an urgent matter.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hughes: There would be no better time to discuss the whole question of atmospheric pollution in London than the second and third weeks in January.
Then, on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) called attention to the fact that
"… approximately 150 hon. Members of the House have signed a very strong Motion against …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1987.]
2616
the inadequacy of the National Assistance scales. That raises the question of the Report of the Phillips Committee, which vitally affects the future of the Welfare State. It vitally affects the plight of the old-age pensioners and the injured and incapacitated workmen. The Government ought not to disregard the Phillips Committee's Report. We should have an opportunity of considering it.
I suggest that I have made out what the lawyers call a prima facie case why the House should not go on a sit-down strike when so many urgent matters are demanding its consideration.
Sir T. Moore: Why adjourn at all?
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has made out not merely a prima facie case but, in my view, an overwhelming and shattering case against the Motion, but I should like to bring to the notice of the Leader of the House yet more reasons why it is ill advisable for the House to adjourn for this lengthy period. I do so because he failed to do justice to a question that was put to him a little while ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).
The Leader of the House will be aware, in connection with the proposed redrawing of constituency boundaries as suggested by the Boundary Commission, that certain seats in London have been altered. The Orders effecting the changes will, presumably, be placed before Her Majesty in Council tomorrow or in the very near future. That will provide an insufficiently short time, goodness knows, for the constituencies concerned to get out the appropriate registers for the London County Council elections which take place on 31st March, but I would draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that only some of the Orders concerning London have been approved by the House and that there is one further Order which will have to be discussed by the House when it resumes.
The position boils down to this, that the London County Council elections will, so far as a certain number of constituencies in London are concerned, be fought on the amended register which there is time to bring into effect on 28th February next, but with regard to London seats in respect of which the draft Orders

2617
have not yet been approved by the House it will be quite impossible—for the Borough of Woolwich, for example, whose fate has not yet been decided—to make the necessary arrangements in between the time when the House, resumes and the time when the February register has to be compiled. I would, therefore, urge the Leader of the House to give some consideration to the disorganisation which will ensue as a result of having some of the London Orders disposed of before the House rises for the Christmas Recess and having the balance still requiring attention when we resume.
The position will be made very difficult if the Leader of the House does not give us this assurance, that so far at least as the London County Council elections are concerned, either they will be fought on the basis that prevailed before the boundary changes were proposed, or at least that the complex situation will not be allowed in which the election has to be fought in one part of London on one basis and in another part of London on an entirely different basis. I would ask the Leader of the House to give some thought to the difficulties that will be created for those who are responsible for the conduct of the London County Council elections on 31st March next.
There is one other reason I should like to adduce in favour of the resumption of the Sittings of the House earlier than Tuesday, 25th January. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that I have for some time been trying to elicit from the Government what they are really trying to do about the tenants who are my constituents and who have the dubious distinction of occupying property formerly owned by Brady, known as Arthur Bertram Waters. The position there is that, in accordance with a decision of the Court of Appeal last June, it was held that the properties of those Irish companies were now forfeit to the Crown. The Attorney-General has announced that stops are being taken to test the validity of this judgment at the earliest possible moment. That means when the legal term resumes, which will be on 11th January. That will be a fortnight before the date on which the House resumes.
This situation may, therefore, arise. As a result of the complicated legal manoeuvres on which the Attorney-General is engaged, it may be that the
2618
commencement of the legal term about a fortnight before the House resumes will have brought about a situation in which those properties which at present belong to the Crown will be handed over to Arthur Bertram Waters, the slum racketeer. That is a situation on which I should like to comment at the time when it takes place, if it does take place, rather than be kept waiting until 25th January. It is very necessary in the interests of my constituents who have been very badly treated by this slum landlord and who look like being equally badly treated if the Attorney-General gets his way that I should have the opportunity of drawing attention to the difficulties that have arisen on 11th January and not 25th January.
For these reasons, I support the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and I do hope that the Leader of the House, before we wish him "Merry Christmas," will take heed of what has been said and do something towards removing the doubts and fears that prevail on this side of the House.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has made a very strong case indeed. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked about the business of the House for the week when we resume, the Leader of the House, almost with contempt of Scottish Members, stated that on the Thursday two Scottish matters of great moment to the people of Scotland would be dealt with in a very little time. Very little time will be allocated for the Crofters (Scotland) Bill.
The Leader of the House suggested that, because we had had the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Crofting Conditions, we should not find much in the Bill to complain about. I understand that the Bill will be available in the Vote Office about now. What the Leader of the House forgets, surely, is that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry contains a Minority Report. Possibly he assumes that we should pay no attention to that Minority Report, but I can assure him that many Scottish Members will certainly deal with the points raised in it. He proposes that we shall have from half-past three until seven o'clock for the discussion on Second Reading of the

2619
Crofters (Scotland) Bill. We do not think that that is time enough.
The Bill will bring wide and sweeping changes to the crofter counties. Whether the Leader of the House recognises it or not, it is being regarded by Scottish Members on both sides of the House as the last chance that any Government will have to cope with recurring Highland problems, and it is believed that if the Government fail to take the chance they will not be able to stop land nationalisation in the Highlands. Surely that is of great importance and the Leader of the House ought not to dismiss the subject by allowing a matter of three hours debate, thinking that we can say all that we want to say in that time.
I tried to get into the debate after the Leader of the House had communicated the week's business, but I was not successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. Therefore, I take this opportunity to show that, because we are to return after approximately one month, there will be great pressure on the transaction of Scottish business in shorter time than otherwise would have been the case. I do not agree that the Recess is a complete month's holiday. We all have a great deal to do in our constituencies but we have to put first things first, and my constituents intended when they sent me here that Scottish business should be treated and given time in the House on an equal footing with English legislation.
I do not like to raise the nationalist issue, and I do not do so, but unless the Leader of the House and the Front Bench opposite treat us a little better when Scottish business is being transacted, they will certainly create a situation in Scotland which they are not envisaging at the moment. After 7 o'clock on the Thursday of the week in which we resume, we are to deal with the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs until 10 o'clock. Many sweeping changes are suggested in the Report. We are to have the Secretary of State for Scotland in charge of certain functions in connection with roads and transport which were formerly carried out by the Minister of Transport.
The Leader of the House was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) if he would extend the hour and give more time
2620
for the discussion of this most comprehensive Report. He dismissed the question with no consideration whatsoever. He gave no satisfaction to his hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If the right hon. Gentleman did so, I am willing to sit down and allow him to tell the House that the Rule will be suspended and that we shall be able to debate Scottish affairs for perhaps two hours longer on that night. I can assure him that we shall utilise the time very fully if we have that opportunity.
If we are to be put into this position in which we are having Scottish business crammed into odd corners to suit the Leader of the House and the Front Bench opposite, we shall need to seize every opportunity of raising the matter, as we are doing on this occasion. I appeal to the Leader of the House most sincerely to give some consideration to this question. Would he not at least agree that on the Thursday we should give a further hour or so to discussing the Report of the Royal Commission? If the right hon. Gentleman is going to be quite adamant and not give an inch at all, I am afraid that we shall have to continue, in whatever fashion we can, to take what action we can to bring to the notice of our constituents in Scotland how Scottish affairs have been dealt with in the House.
Mr. Michael Foot: I rise to oppose the views which have been put by my hon. Friends, and I wish to explain to them why I do so. It is certainly embarrassing to me to find myself in partial agreement with the Government. I hasten to say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that it is not because I disagree with him on any of the issues which he hoped to see raised if the House were called together earlier. He mentioned capital punishment, he referred to Formosa, he referred to the international situation and to many other topics; and indeed on all of them I am in full agreement with him. It may be that I should be in full agreement with him even on the issue of education in Scotland if I knew anything about it.
The reason why I disagree with him about the earlier recall of Parliament is that my hon. Friend does not seem to understand or appreciate from what has happened in the last few days that it does not matter a fig whether or not the House

2621
of Commons debates a subject, because the Government have made it clear that they pay no attention to what the House of Commons says. We had a perfectly clear illustration of that in connection with the Boundary Commission's Report. We had reasons given at Question time today which make me fear a repetition of the same thing if we meet earlier in January.
We had a statement at Question time that the Attorney-General had dealt in the House of Commons with the issues which were raised in the court. If the Attorney-General had come to the debate on the Boundary Commission's Report with a fully prepared speech and had stated the case for the Government's acceptance of the Commission's recommendations, that tribute to the Attorney-General would have been perfectly justified, but the House knows that he did nothing of the kind. He made no effort at all to give the views of the Law Officer of the Crown as to whether the Boundary Commission had carried out its functions or not.
All he did was to come in at the fag end of the debate, after we had had a winding up speech for the Government from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The fact that the Government put up that right hon. Gentleman to deal with this issue was a pretty good way of showing the Government's contempt of the House of Commons. After all, if one is to insult the House of Commons one might as well choose a Stuart to do it. That was how the Government dealt with the debate. The fact is that the Government did not choose to discuss the issue at all and enable the Attorney-General to present his views.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Has the hon. Gentleman finished?
Mr. Foot: No, Sir.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might be allowed to say something. We might get back to the Question before the House.
Mr. Foot: I am sorry if you feel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am not addressing myself to the Question. I was arguing that it does not really matter whether the House of Commons meets on 25th January or 25th February or 25th March
2622
or 25th December, 1955 or 1956, if we are to be treated as we have been treated in the past two or three days. If we are to judge the Government's conduct when we meet again by the way in which they have behaved in the last few days, as I should have thought we would be perfectly entitled to do, I would have thought that it was quite useless to ask that the House should meet earlier and that it would be better to propose that we should close up the House of Commons and forget about it.
If anybody thinks that that is an exaggeration, I would quote the answer which was given to me in debate by the Home Secretary, in reply to a question which I put to him. I asked whether he would explain why, in the case of the constituency with which I am associated, he had not taken another and much simpler course to deal with the problem. This was his reply:
"I am not in a position to tell the hon. Member for Devonport what he asks. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not possible for me to know all the details of all these cases. I am simply saying that the Commission"—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already asked the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House. What he is saying has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, which is when we should return after the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Foot: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would allow me to complete the quotation from the Home Secretary's speech I think it would help. I am in the middle of one of his sentences and I should not like to cut the hon. and gallant Gentleman off in the middle of a sentence. If I quote the remainder of the sentence I am sure you will appreciate the relevance of my argument, because this is what the Home Secretary said:
"I am simply saying that the Commission, in its judgment, followed out the instructions given to it, by the Rule and in accordance with the Statute, and I do not see how the House can do otherwise than support it."
In other words, the Home Secretary said that it was not necessary for the House of Commons to pass judgment. He remarked:
"I do not see how the House can do otherwise than support it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2055.]
"It" refers to the Boundary Commission.

2623
It is now proposed that we should meet on 26th January to continue this farce—to continue proceedings under which the Home Secretary will get up and make exactly the same reply to every hon. Member as that which I have quoted. Thus, as far as I can see, it is quite useless to suggest coming back on 15th January—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: But, if we came back on the 14th or 15th January, the Home Secretary would have an opportunity for apologising and amplifying the statement in a way which would satisfy my hon. Friend.
Mr. Foot: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not aware of how this business is done. It has been fixed up by the Boundary Commission, the Conservative Central Office and the Cabinet. These are the three bodies which rule this country, and I would have seen some sense in a proposal by my hon. Friend for an earlier meeting of the Conservative Central Office to see whether it is not possible to effect a change in any of the Orders which we shall discuss on 26th January; or, more seriously, if my hon. Friend suggested that the Boundary Commission should reconsider this matter during the month's Adjournment—it is perfectly possible for them to do so; indeed, it might be advisable even to propose a Motion suggesting we meet five days later if the Commission does not feel it can go to work immediately after Christmas—to see if something can be done to satisfy the sense of grievance and outrage which prevails in so many parts of this country, as is shown by the representations which have been made to this House during the past few weeks.
The Boundary Commission could at any rate hold the public inquiries so that the House of Commons could have an opportunity, when we meet again, to judge these things after local spokesmen in all the different areas have had a chance of putting their viewpoint.
Mr. Victor Yates: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we on this side of the House should abdicate our responsibilities because the Government have chosen a dictatorial policy?
Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that any of my hon. Friends should abdicate
2624
his responsibilities, but what I think we should do is illustrate to the House and to the country exactly what is happening in this case. I hope my hon. Friend will be with me when we have the all-night Sessions on our return to discuss these Orders, and I hope that every one of them will be fought because that is the only way in which we can show to the country that in dealing with the recommendations of this Boundary Commission, we are debating a matter which, after all, lies at the basis of our democratic and representative system.
It is only by debating the matter in full and by illustrating the fact that the House of Commons has been denied its rights by the Government that we shall show to the country how grievously this Government have departed from the traditions of this Parliament, and how sorely they have failed to listen to the complaints of tens of thousands of citizens from every part of the land, who think they have been robbed of their rights and Parliament of its privileges by the behaviour of this tyrannical Government.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) began by expressing his regret that on this question he should find himself at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). May I begin by expressing my own regret that I should differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, a thing which has not happened now for a number of years.
I always try, I suppose with indifferent success, to be a good House of Commons man, and in that endeavour I always, when I support opposition of this kind, do it with regret. I do it with regret now. I think the public is very easily misled in matters of this kind. They are apt, on the one hand, to under-estimate the amount of real hard work that Members of Parliament do in the time that the House is in Session. On the other hand, they are apt to regard it, as my hon. Friend so rightly said, in the light that when the House decides to go off for a month Members of Parliament all go to the South of France and sport themselves there in the interval. Of course, they do nothing of the kind. Such vacations as the House permits are very well earned and most of them are very well spent by the majority of the Members.

2625
The other reason why I always support opposition of this kind with regret is that such opposition mostly comes from the Opposition side of the House. That side of the House is ex hypothesi in a minority. Therefore, the Opposition is bound to be unsuccessful, if not futile. So one attracts to oneself a reputation for hard work and virtue on the cheap, knowing that one's endeavours are likely to be defeated anyhow when the time comes.
When all possible account has been taken of all these considerations, I still think the House would be very ill advised on this occasion to adjourn for so long. While I appreciate to the full the exquisite ironies of my hon. Friend's argument, I know he did not mean a word of it, and he would be the last Member of this House to allow a dictatorial or tyrannical Government to get away with it by dismissing the House of Commons precisely as though the Cabinet consisted entirely of Members of the Stuart family.
One has only to look at the business announced by the Leader of the House for the first week after we come back to realise how wrong it is to wait so long. May I at the beginning refer to a matter which he mentioned. The House is at the moment for the first time in all the years that I have been a Member without a Select Committee on Estimates. To some extent that is my fault. I object to it being appointed for reasons which are widely understood in the House and for reasons which, I venture to think, are to some slight extent shared also by both sides.
That, however, is not a situation which can go on for ever. This House could not do its work without a Select Committee on Estimates. The primary function of the House of Commons, the function which makes it the sovereign assembly of this country, is its control over finance. It exercises control over finance in the first place through the Select Committee on Estimates. Therefore, it is intolerable that the House of Commons should go on for long without a Select Committee on Estimates, no matter of what Members it is constituted.
What did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say? I think I am quoting him correctly, if not verbatim—"I hope we will find time to deal with that question, and with another similar question about a Joint Select Committee
2626
of both Houses, during this first week." I wonder when? Hon. and right hon. Members will remember his recital of the work to be done on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the first week in which we come back, 25th, 26th and 27th January.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to show sufficient consideration of the arguments that are being advanced by replying to them at all, I ask him in all seriousness on what did he base his hope that those matters could be dealt with in the first week, having regard to the fact that they are not exempted business, having regard to the other business which he proposes for those three days, and having regard to the undesirability of dealing with such a question in the middle of the night on some Motion to suspend the Rule for that purpose? It will be an intolerable position. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have any sound hope that the House will be able to deal with all this business during those first three days. But if he has any hope at all, I can tell him now that it is a forlorn one.
What else does the House propose to deal with that week? On 26th January it proposes to deal with the remaining Orders required to put into operation the Report of the Boundary Commission. I recognise to the full that it would be completely out of order to say a single word about the merits of that matter, and I do not propose to do so. I am not the representative of a constituency whose boundaries have been affected by the Report, and there are many right hon. and hon. Members of this Chamber better qualified than I am, when the proper time comes, to deal with the merits of that matter.
However, it is not out of order to point out that some of the undesirable features associated with dealing with the matter in the way which the right hon. Gentleman proposes arise out of the handicap of time. It is clear that if the Government want these Orders to go through and want the electoral registers to be prepared on the basis of these Orders in time for the local government elections, then they will have to get these Orders quickly if they are to get them at all.
Mr. Foot: As the Government know that the Orders will go through anyhow, why cannot they print the registers now?
Mr. Silverman: Because the merit of a rubber stamp is that until the rubber stamp is on the document is not valid.
Dr. H. Morgan: That is a poor answer.
Mr. Silverman: It is a sound answer. The argument of my hon. Friend is that the Government are treating the approval of the House of Commons merely as an automatic rubber stamp to the decisions of the Boundary Commission, and he asked, why not do without it? I say that the Government cannot do without it, even if it is a rubber stamp, because this is the only place where they can get their rubber stamp. I am pointing out that they have to deal with the matter in this way, with a three-line Whip, and to sit all through the night.
Although there is no merit in the argument, and although the argument ex hypothesi will not be allowed to affect the result, the Government have to deal with it in this way because of the time factor. The Government could give themselves much more latitude with regard to time, and therefore with regard to the mode of dealing with this matter, if they refrained from sending the House of Commons packing for five weeks at Christmas. Nobody else in the country gets so long. If we did not have all that time, no one would be better pleased. I am sure that the Government, in this situation, need quite a lot of time to look round, to try to find out before we come back where they are, because at the moment they do not seem to know.
Mr. William Keenan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What is to be the position regarding the important matter of the National Assistance Regulations? Will you allow the time for that debate to be extended beyond seven o'clock in order to enable those Members who still want to speak, and those who are responsible for conducting that business, to do so?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As far as I am concerned, seven o'clock conveys nothing to me. The National Assistance Regulations are exempted business and the House can discuss them until seven o'clock tomorrow morning if it so wishes.
Mr. Silverman: I can assure my hon. Friend that no one is more conscious
2628
than I am of a situation which develops frequently, where one important matter which has to be discussed gets in the way of another important matter and one can easily draw the line in the wrong place. However, this is not one of those occasions. The National Assistance Regulations are exempted from the Standing Order about the Sittings of the House, and if my hon. Friend wants to debate them all night and until noon tomorrow I shall be ready to sit up with him and debate them with him. There is absolutely nothing which my hon. Friend, or anybody else, wants to say about the National Assistance Regulations that is being in any way limited—
Mr. Keenan: It is for others that I am speaking.
Mr. Silverman: —by anything that we are doing now. If my hon. Friend were proposing to divide the House against the National Assistance Regulations, then it would be important to get on to them at an early hour before everybody goes home. If my hon. Friend assures me that his opposition to the National Assistance Regulations is as bitter as mine is, and that he proposes to express it not only in a speech but in the Division Lobby, then I will co-operate with him in getting on to that business as early as possible by bringing this other matter to an end. But if he does not propose to do that, if he only wants to make a speech—
Mr. Keenan: I have already made one.
Mr. Silverman: —if he wants merely to protect the rights of other hon. Members to make speeches, they have the next 48 hours in which they can do so, because there is nothing to stop them. Now I will return to the point I was making. I say seriously to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that it is clear now that there is to be no other tribunal which can decide whether the proposed Orders under the Report of the Boundary Commission are fair and equitable as between political groups within this House of Commons or not.
Mr. William Warbey: My hon. Friend ought not to pre-judge the possibility that there may still be some other matters in relation to the way in which the Boundary Commission has acted which have not yet been tested in

2629
the courts and that some parties may wish to challenge Orders which have not yet been brought before the House.
Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is right. I agree with him completely. I was basing my argument on the view which was expressed by the Leader of the House when he made his statement. In the Government's view—we have to base our arrangements on that view—this is the only place where those questions can be determined. If that is so, it becomes all the more important that the House should be seen by the public as a whole to be acting in a judicial spirit. The public will not think it is behaving judicially if 30 or 40 Orders are rushed through the House one after the other during a night sitting with the aid of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) recently called "a dictatorial three-line Whip."
Mr. Nigel Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the Division list to see that there was pairing last Thursday night. There was no three-line Whip at all.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman may be right about the pairing—I do not know—but is he really saying that no three-line Whip was in existence?
Mr. Fisher: It was not in operation.
Mr. Silverman: I did not ask whether it was in operation; I asked whether a three-line Whip existed. The Leader of the House will probably tell us whether there was one, and, what is much more important, whether there will be one when we come back. If the right hon. Gentleman said, "We are prepared to leave the matter to a free vote of the House when the matter next arises," a great deal of the opposition from this side of the House to the whole matter and a great deal of the opposition to the Motion now before the House would be removed. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to say now that it is not proposed to use any dictatorial methods of any kind, by means of a three-line, two-line or one-line or any other kind of Whip, but that he will leave it to each hon. Member to vote on each Order according to his own conscientious judgment after listening to the arguments—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the subject of the date upon which the House should return after the Recess.
Mr. Silverman: When I have finished my sentence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will see that that is not so. I was about to say that in those circumstances there would be no need to object to the House going away for so long. If the right hon. Gentleman will say now what I have suggested, he can have the Motion without opposition; but he will not say that because he is determined to get every scrap of party political advantage that he can out of the debate.
Mr. Charles Doughty: Surely the Boundary Commission is not a party political matter.
Mr. Silverman: It is if the Government try to force through an Order by means of a three-line Whip. By that very fact it becomes party policy. If not, what is the three-line Whip for?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope we can get back to the date of our return.
Mr. Silverman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was diverted by interruptions. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want it to be a shabby political manœuvre and wishes the House to exercise a judicial judgment, he should give us the assurance for which I have asked, and then he can have his Motion.
Mr. John Rankin: There are now three proposals about the return of the House. There is the proposal announced by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government that we should return on 25th January; there is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that we should return on 11th January; and there is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that at 5 p.m. tomorrow we shall have reached the point of no return.
I support very strongly indeed the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and I do so on one particular ground. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about the repeated shabby treatment of Scottish affairs in the House, and I support all that has been said by my hon. Friend the

2631
Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It is worth noting that the case put up by my hon. Friends has been so strong that it has completely silenced hon. Members opposite. There has not been one speech in support of the Government's proposal that we should not return until 25th January.
It is appalling that when the Government make a proposal not a single hon. Member on the other side of the House, although the Government are asking for more production from industrial workers, dares to support a proposal for more production in the House. Hon. Members opposite have been silent all the afternoon. I hope the Leader of the House will not follow that bad example, but will avail himself of the opportunity of saying a word in reply when this inter-party debate concludes.
I am asking that the House should return a fortnight earlier than the Government propose for a simple but very serious reason. No one on either side of the House will deny for a moment that the whole complex of international relationships has deteriorated immensely during the last week or so. Since this House agreed, despite the strong opposition on this side of the House, to sign the Paris Agreements there is no doubt that Russia has been talking in a firmer tone than ever before.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be quite true, but it does not come anywhere near the date we come back from our holidays.
Mr. Rankin: It might bring us back earlier and that is the reason I am suggesting we do so.
Because of this development, Russia is already talking about denouncing her pact with France. Already, she is beginning to hint that she might denounce the Anglo-Soviet Pact. Are we to be on holiday if a calamity of that nature occurs? In view of that deterioration, it is imperative that this House should as closely as possible keep in touch with what are undoubtedly potentially important developments in world affairs.
I want, in conclusion, to direct attention to a rather remarkable omission, and I hope that the Leader of the House—I am sorry to interrupt a conversation, but I am referring to the right hon. Gentle-
2632
man; if he is searching for advice from the Patronage Secretary, all very well—will have something to say about this problem. In my experience it is usual, when we go into Recess, for the Government to indicate that, if affairs demand it, the House will be recalled. Today, we have had no such assurance. In view of the situation that can quite easily develop before 25th January, if the Government cannot accept the proposal so powerfully advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire can they not assure us that, if affairs either at home or abroad demand it, the House will be recalled to meet the contingency or contingencies that may have arisen? That is the very least the Government can do and I hope that the Leader of the House will now give us, at least, the assurance for which I have asked.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to put a point of view not put in this short debate and I want to put it shortly. I submit that we have a duty not only to this House, but a duty to the country, also. We have a duty to our constituents and a duty to ourselves. That duty involves a considerable Recess. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put his case with that persuasiveness which is characteristic of him. But some points seemed to be inconsistent with what I thought was his knowledge of the duties of a Member of Parliament to his constituents and to the country. What he said did not demonstrate that close knowledge of his duties as a Member which he usually shows.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I may say that I live in my constituency and know it better than most people.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Far be it from me to in any way disparage the great services which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire indefatigably gives to his constituency and to this House. But the point that I am making is that the arguments which he has adduced in favour of the proposition that he put before us today were inconsistent—and inconsistent was the word I used—with those great services which he characteristically gives to this House and to his constituents.
He must know that Members of Parliament have a great deal to do outside this House, duties which they could not

2633
adequately perform if there were not gaps, and considerable gaps, in their attendances in this House. They have to make reports to their constituencies. They have to make contact with their constituents to undeceive them about the propaganda ladled out daily by Tory newspapers. They have to correct various other misrepresentations.
On the constructive side, they have to hold meetings with their constituents, with old-age pensioners, for instance, to explain some of the extraordinary speeches made on the other side of the House in yesterday's debate. They have to meet the women's sections, women who do such great and noble work in the constituencies. They have to meet leagues of youth and hold ward meetings. It is obvious that there is a great deal to be said on both sides about this proposition. In Aberdeen, we have a toast which runs like this:
"Happy to meet,
Sorry to part,
Happy to meet again."
That is the aphorism or toast which is applicable to the present situation. Having done our work here—I hope faithfully and well—we are happy to part to be happy, in turn, to meet our constituents and to give them the benefit of our reports of what we have done in the past weeks and to give us the refreshment and happiness of meeting them. Perhaps this Recess is more necessary than other recesses, because of the way in which the work of this House has degenerated during the past few weeks.
The last example was the Reports of the Boundaries Commissions. It is not relevant to discuss that now, but for the purposes of my argument it is relevant to point out that an all-night Sitting was inflicted on the House because business with regard to the Boundary Commission was so mismanaged. Mistakes were made, conflicts with the law courts were precipitated and, indeed, there was created a very undesirable constitutional position vis-à-vis the Crown.
From all this it would seem that the Recess is essential, unless we are to have somebody like a business manager and not a Leader of the House who perhaps is, or may perhaps be—I do not want to be offensive to him—like that character of whom Dryden said:
2634
"In the front rank of those did Zimri stand …
A man so various that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind's epitome:
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong,
Was everything by starts and nothing long;
But, in the course of one revolving moon,
Was chemist, fiddler, statesman, and buffoon."
That is not, of course, the kind of Leader of the House that we have or want. Our thoughts go back to another Leader of the House, the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not quite see how we can discuss Leaders of the House, past or present, on this Motion.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am discussing it, if I may say so with respect—I do not in any way want to infringe the rules of order—for the purpose of showing that the Recess may perhaps be necessary, because we have not got a Leader of the House like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), or like the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
My hon. Friends have adumbrated the many Scottish topics which would urge us to an earlier return. Only today there is an instance on the Order Paper with regard to the Army Bill, an essential matter which should have been dealt with before the Recess. It has not been dealt with and that fact is an argument strongly in favour of the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
On the Order Paper today there were two valuable and important suggestions about the Army Bill in its relation to Scotland, and I suggest that they are relevant to this debate. There were two Questions of mine which were not dealt with. One was:
"To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to alter the terms of the Army Act so as to ensure that a British soldier who is charged with a civil offence. …"
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that they are relevant. I do not see how they can be relevant to the question of the date when we should come back.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I was arguing that there is much to be said on both sides for the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that the Recess should not be so long. I was giving as an instance of

2635
that the fact that the Army Bill, which should have been dealt with before the Recess, has not been dealt with and, indeed, that valuable suggestions with regard to the relation of the Army Bill to Scottish subjects have not been dealt with.
Now that your have assumed the Chair, Mr. Speaker, may I put the point to you? If you rule that it is out of order I shall not pursue the matter. I was referring to two Questions on the topic of the Army Bill which were not reached today. I refer you to the Questions. One was:
"To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to alter the terms of the Army Act so as to ensure that a British soldier who is charged with a civil offence not specified in the Army Act while serving in Scotland …"
Mr. Speaker: That is quite out of order on this Motion.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. I will not say another word about it.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Would not the hon. and learned Member be entitled to argue that if we came back earlier the House could discuss the Army Bill earlier?
Mr. Speaker: That would be going into far too much detail.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I am not attempting to contest your Ruling in any way, Mr. Speaker, but the argument that I was venturing to submit was that the Army Bill is a Measure of fundamental importance. It was on the Order Paper to be dealt with before the Recess. Because of the unfortunate ineptitude and mismanagement with reference to the Boundary Commissions, it was not reached. It has to be postponed until after the Recess.
That would seem to me to be an argument in favour of the House not going into Recess for a very long period. Then the two amendments which I was suggesting, and mention of which you have ruled out of order for the moment, could be considered earlier. However, I now leave all these arguments.
I ask hon. Members to look at the question in perspective, to regard it in due proportion and to realise that a fortnight or three weeks at the outside would have been long enough for the Recess which we could use in meeting our constituents, in refreshing ourselves by our contacts with them in making our reports to them
2636
and doing our duty to them, to the country and to the House. In my submission, there is much to be said for the proposition of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I hope that we can now bring the discussion to a close. It is slightly ironical that one of the reasons adduced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was that if we had a shorter Recess we should have more time to discuss the National Assistance Regulations. That is exactly what we might have been doing.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did not say that. I said the Phillips Report.
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman said that as well. He says so many things that he forgets what he does say, but I take note of his remarks when they suit my argument. He said that, and we could have been doing it for 1½ hours, but we have been deprived of that time.
This sort of debate is very apt to occur and it always arises from the Opposition side, and sometimes apparently, as today, from the "opposition" to the Opposition. Two hon. Members who spoke, had they received the Whip of their party, would no doubt have been aware that this was an agreed arrangement, that we should rise this year for the same time as we do every year at this period.
Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that we have been deprived of time, thereby implying that the time taken by this short debate has taken away from the time available for our discussion of the National Assistance Regulations. I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is not this exempted business? Cannot we go on ad lib and ad nauseam?
Mr. Speaker: The Regulations are exempted business, but I hope that the House will not go on ad nauseam.
Mr. Crookshank: I was not necessarily dealing with the question of the global time, but with the time which hon. Members generally think is most valuable, in the early part of the day when more attention can be given to what they have said, both inside and outside the House. There is much truth in the old adage that
"absence makes the heart grow fonder."
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Of what?
Mr. Crookshank: I can only hope that after the personal remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to make about me I shall feel, in a month's time, a little fonder of him than I feel now.
Mr. Hector Hughes Mr. Hector Hughes rose —
Mr. Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman made offensive remarks. I do not want any more of them. One does not have to be rude and personally insulting.
The speeches made outlined a whole series of topics on which the House could engage itself. Of course it could. We could all think of topics not only for every day of the year but for a year twice as long, if one could imagine such a thing.
One must maintain a sense of proportion. The Christmas Recess has, for years, been for about 32 or 33 days. It varies according to the actual incidence of Christmas Day itself. We are taking exactly the same time this year as in any other year. I was asked why nothing had been said about recalling the House. It really is not necessary every time to state the obvious. There is now a Standing Order of the House, No. 112, which would be put into effect should the necessity arise. I hope that that satisfies hon. Gentlemen.
It only remains for me to say that I hope that we can get on to our next business and, as I may not have another opportunity, to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th January.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, so that endorsement of order cheques and similar instruments received for collection by the banker, of whom the payee is a customer, shall be unnecessary.
I apologise for detaining the House for another 10 minutes before getting on to the main business, but I did not know that it would be two hours after the usual time that such a Motion is taken.
This short Bill would, I think, be acceptable to the House both from its simplicity and from the economy which it would effect in business, commerce, accountancy and in the professions; in fact, in almost every sphere of commercial, administrative and private monetary activity. It would provide that a cheque collected by a bank for its customer would be deemed to be endorsed in blank by that customer if and when it is specially crossed by the bank, and, furthermore, that such a cheque when honoured would be prima facie evidence of the receipt of the money by the payee.
I claim no originality whatever for the ideas on which this Bill is based. They have been discussed for many years in banking, trading and professional circles. In particular, the ideas are associated with the name of Mr. G. O. Papworth, who happens to be a constituent of mine and who, from great knowledge of banking administration, so successfully advanced this proposition about four years ago that the Committee of London Clearing Bankers appointed a subcommittee to report on the subject. That report has not been published, but it is no secret that it was very thorough and very much in detail, and unanimously recommended legislation on the lines which I have indicated for this Bill.
The Bill would occupy only about a dozen lines of print and would be in the form of an addendum to Section 77 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Hon. and right hon. Members who are lucky enough to receive a cheque made payable to themselves or order, know that before they can put it into their bank

2639
they have to turn the cheque over and write their name on the back of it. The real purpose of writing one s name on the back of a cheque is to negotiate it to a third person, but, in fact, only 3 per cent, of all the order cheques issued are ever negotiated to a third person. The other 97 per cent. are paid straight into the bank account of the payee. The writing of one's name on the back of such a cheque is merely done to provide a safeguard to the bank under certain circumstances.
I am sure that hon. Members would not begrudge the time spent in endorsing the few cheques which they are individually lucky enough to receive if that endorsement gives their banks a legal safeguard. But that 97 per cent. of all the cheques which I have mentioned which require that endorsement amount to no fewer than 600 million cheques a year. Those hon. Members associated with business concerns will know the time taken in endorsing cheques and the consequent expenditure of salaries and wages on that unproductive work. Reliable calculations reveal that in commerce and business about 2½ million man-hours are spent in this unproductive work and about £1 million a year at least are spent in wages.
The endorsements on those 600 million cheques require examination by two banks, the collecting bank and the paying bank, and thus there are about 1,100 million to 1,200 million examinations of endorsements each year. In time, represented by money, that costs the banks about £500,000 a year. Then there is the further trouble and expense of the two million cheques which are dishonoured each year because of something being wrong with the endorsements. Quite obviously, if we can abolish the requirement for endorsement where that requirement is not really necessary, and yet retain it for its true and useful purpose of negotiating a cheque, there would be a very real saving of expense both to commerce and to the banks and, not least, to Government Departments; for this business of endorsement costs the General Post Office £19,000 a year.
Fortunately, the abolition of that requirement can be done in a very simple manner by saying that something else which is always done to a cheque shall be deemed to be that endorsement. That
2640
"something else" is the special crossing of a cheque by the collecting bank to itself. When I say "special crossing," there is nothing special about it in the sense of its being abnormal. Hon. Members will know if they have ever looked at the paid cheques coming back from their banks that there is a rubber stamping on the face of the cheque with the name of the bank between the two "crossing" lines. That is the special crossing of the cheque by the collecting bank.
This Bill would provide that that special crossing could be deemed to be an endorsement of the bank's customer who pays in the cheque. In addition to the saving in time and expense, there would be the added advantage that the cheque would not be a bearer cheque from the time it leaves the office desk to the time it reaches the bank's counter, as it is at present and is liable to mis-appropriation.
I would not take up the time of the House without first having obtained the considered views of responsible bodies on this subject, such as associations of traders and of manufacturers; societies representing solicitors, accountants, secretaries and other professions, and the banks and bank staffs and many others. I am grateful to those responsible bodies for the very careful study which they have given to this subject. I will not weary the House by quoting the results, but I ask the House to take it from me that they were overwhelmingly in favour of these proposals.
Perhaps more important were the constructive proposals which emerged from the discussions I have had with those responsible bodies and which improved upon the proposals I originally framed. I feel confident that, with the permission of the House, I can present a Bill embodying an accumulation of knowledge and practical experience gathered in this way.
Some misgivings have, of course, been expressed. In particular, it has been asked what effect these proposals would have on the practice, now popular, of the printed receipts on the backs of cheques. The Bill would not prevent the continued use of such receipts if persons desired that, and desired to make the necessary arrangements with their banks for that type of receipt which requires to be signed "in full and final discharge of

2641
such-and-such an account." But so far as the simple receipt is concerned, I trust that the House will approve the inclusion in the Bill of a provision that a cheque so specially crossed, deemed to be endorsed as I have described, would be sufficient evidence of receipt of the money by the payee named on the cheque and that any further receipt would be superfluous.
Many other—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time."]—there is one minute more—problems have been raised and studied and solved in these discussions. We cannot afford to employ people on this non-productive work of signing the backs of 600 million cheques a year, and we cannot afford, in modern commerce, to waste the time of our people in this fantastic and farcical fetish of endorsement.
Mr. Norman Smith: I hope that the House will not give the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) leave to introduce a Bill of this kind. In 10 minutes he could not expect to make a complete case, but to be able to do so in favour of a Measure representing so drastic a departure from accepted practice he ought to be able to prove that there would be some saving of labour to banks and other institutions concerned if the necessity for the endorsement of cheques were done away with. I submit that it is no use putting forward astronomical figures about the number of hours spent by bank clerks in examining endorsements I assert that any bank clerk worth his salt has only to glance at my signature in order to do his job.
Cheques are much the most important part of our currency. It would not be a proper thing for the House to give leave for the introduction of a Private Member's Bill which would have the effect of increasing the possibility of fraud in the handling of currency transactions. If a Bill of this nature has to be brought in, it should be the responsibility of the Treasury to do that. I deeply regret that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here—and for another reason. The hon. Member referred to endorsements and receipts on the backs of cheques. If he is right in what he said about such receipts causing trouble, one effect of his Bill would be to deprive the Revenue of some of the money which it now gets
2642
from the stamps which have to be put on the backs of cheques when they are receipted.
On the hon. Member's own submission, the only beneficiaries of a Bill such as this would be the banks and other commercial houses. But most of us are interested in banks as consumers and users. It is the custom of banks—irrationally, and quite without justification, in my opinion—to charge their customers for keeping their accounts. Is it proposed that the banks shall diminish the services which they give in return for the charges they make? I do not pay bank charges. I made so much fuss that my bank no longer charges me, but most people accept the charges uncomplainingly. The hon. Member now proposes that the services rendered by the banks shall be abated to this extent, and that to save supposedly redundant and unnecessary labour there should be an abatement of the element of security.
Mr. Page: The hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting me. I did not suggest in any way that there would be an abatement of security. I believe that the Bill would provide greater security.
Mr. Smith: I submit that there would be an abatement of security.
This country has always been ahead of the rest of the world in the use of cheques. In percentage of population, more Englishmen habitually use cheques to pay their bills and carry through their transactions than people in any other country. We have become accustomed to the idea. The use of cheques should be extended widely among the wage-earning section of the population. I can see a great advantage in that. It would be to the great convenience of the Government and of everybody in the years that lie ahead. I hope that the hon. Member will be refused permission to bring in this Measure, which will not help ordinary bank customers in any way and which, if it helps the banks, will do so at the expense of security.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Page, Mr. Holt, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Stevens, Sir W. Wakefield and Mr. G. Wilson.

BILL OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882 (AMENDMENT)
Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, so that endorsement of order cheques and similar instruments received for collection by the banker, of whom the payee is a customer, shall be unnecessary, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th February and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20th December],
  That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
  Question again proposed.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not apologise for bringing the attention of the House back to the consideration of the position of a very large number of people who have no banking accounts and are not concerned with signatures on the backs of cheques, but who are much more concerned where the next meal is to come from. Even at this late hour it is right that we should continue to debate these National Assistance Regulations, because I can think of no more urgent matter for debate—not after but before the Recess.
  We had a good debate yesterday, during which the speeches of my hon. Friends proved conclusively how miserable and inadequate are the proposals put forward by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Most hon. Members opposite skated round the subject of the inadequacy of the increases. What I thought remarkable was the fact that neither from any back bench Member opposite nor from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—in his extremely slight and perfunctory commendation of these scales—did we have an answer to the two main questions in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House. We want to know, first, why the increase is limited to 2s. 6d. and, secondly, why those people who, on everyone's admission, are the worst off will get the least help? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer those questions tonight.
  The Government have been trying to justify this very small increase in the National Assistance scales by referring to the Interim Index of Retail Prices. As far as I know, the only argument put forward by them is that the increase in Assistance scales equals the increase in the cost-of-living index. The best comment upon the Government's attitude to the problem of old-age pensioners was that made by one of our most notable

  2645
  cartoonists, Vicky, who portrayed the Minister of Food as a latterday Marie Antoinette, saying, of the old-age pensioners, "If they cannot afford bread, let them eat statistics." The one piece of humanity which we can attribute to the right hon. Gentleman is that the statistics which he serves up to the old-age pensioners are not served raw but are invariably cooked beforehand.
  If one looks at the figures contained in the Interim Index of Retail Prices, it must be conceded to the right hon. Gentleman—there is no doubt that he will be including it in his speech—that the Index has increased in total by 6·6 per cent. since April, 1952, when the last National Assistance Regulations were moved in the House, whereas, under these proposals, the scale for a single person is up by 6·8 per cent. and for a married couple by 7·1 per cent. I have no doubt that the Government will claim that the increase in these scales, expressed as a percentage, is slightly better than the increase shown in the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
  When I see some of the propaganda circulated by the Conservative Central Office in the constituencies, especially in those where there is a pending by-election, I am reminded of the truth of the ancient adage that "Figures cannot lie, but liars can figure." There is no part of the statistical picture where this is more true than this question of the cost of living and its relation to pensions, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is quite inappropriate to take the general cost-of-living index for measuring the cost of living of the old-age pensioners.
  Therefore, I hope that he will not use that argument tonight, but, if he does, I think he will be in some difficulty, because when last the House debated the National Assistance Regulations in April, 1952, we had a speech by the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance, who has recently been translated to the Foreign Office, a translation which has been widely welcomed, and not least by the old-age pensioners. The hon. Gentleman said it was quite inappropriate to use the cost-of-living index in relation to Assistance scales, and continued:
  2646
  "… I would remind the House that these scale rates are supplemented by a rent allowance, and, therefore, in dealing with the impact of the cost of living, it is not the all-item index that is relevant, but the specific indices for food, clothing, fuel and light and household goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1364.]
  I think it is right to ask what has been the percentage increase in the cost of living since the scales were last increased in April, 1952. If we take food items alone, we find that they increased by 11·2 per cent., which is considerably more than the percentage by which the right hon. Gentleman has increased the scales. If we take fuel and light, which occupy a very important part in the budget of any old-age pensioner, we find that they have increased by 8·4 per cent., which is again more than the increase in the scales. But, of course, even these are average figures, and I can only use Government statistics. I wish we had better statistics about the cost of living position of the old-age pensioners.
  If we take the figures from the Government's own published statistics, we find that bread and flour increased by 3·5 per cent. from April, 1952; meat, bacon, ham and fish, taken as a group, have increased by 11 per cent.; milk, cheese and eggs by 13 per cent.; butter, margarine and cooking fat by 34 per cent.; and tea and sugar by 48 per cent., since the last increases were made in these Assistance Board's scales. These are figures relating to last October, and take no account of the most recent increases which have been announced in the price of tea, which will put up that cost-of-living index figure by more than 50 per cent. Against that, we have these Assistance scales proposing an increase of 2s. 6d. for a single person.
  In the last day or two, I have been studying some of the actual cost-of-living budgets of old-age pensioners on Merseyside. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has really studied any of these budgets himself, but I know that many have been submitted to him. If he has studied them, it will be quite impossible for him to commend this miserable increase of 2s. 6d. One thing that came out of these budgets were the figures of the cost of the food bought by old-age pensioners in Liverpool. An average was taken of the food consumption of old-age pensioners, and these goods were priced in the local shops in Liverpool. They showed that food

  2647
  bought in 1952 for an expenditure of 14s. 4¾d. cost 15s. 8½d. in 1953 and 18s. 4d. in 1954—an increase of about 4s. for an average old-age pensioner in his food costs since 1952, when the right hon. Gentleman last increased these scales.
  The Interim Index of Retail Prices is quite irrelevant to our needs. We see that it allows for about 400 points for food out of a total of 928 points, whereas we know that most people on National Assistance spend far more than half their income on food and fuel. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, before the House can commend any further scales as adequate, it is about time that the Government did some research into the real living conditions of the old-age pensioners and produced for the benefit of the House a cost-of-living index based on the actual consumption of the old-age pensioners. If we had such an index, we should find that the cost of living has gone up a very great deal more than is suggested by these Regulations.
  The next question the House must ask is why it is that the scales proposed in these Regulations provide for a smaller increase than was given in the pensions increases which we debated a couple of weeks ago. In 1951, the same increases were given on Assistance as on pensions, and in 1952 the Government gave more on National Assistance scales than on basic pensions. Yet now, in 1954, when the need is greater, they give less on National Assistance.
  I know that the Government have tried to justify what they have done by producing figures showing that, as compared with 1946 or 1948, Assistance Board payments have increased more in percentage than have pensions, and that it is time to even them up. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is an utterly bogus argument. Surely, we all agreed last July, when we debated a Motion of censure relating to old-age pensioners, that there was considerable hardship in the country, especially though not entirely among the old-age pensioners, and, if we are all agreed that there was hardship, no one could deny that the greatest hardship was in the case of those people who were in receipt of National Assistance.
  2648
  Therefore, if we were all agreed in July that those on National Assistance were in the worst position and were suffering the gravest hardship, why, in heaven's name, has the right hon. Gentleman given them the smallest increase? That is the question to which we shall want an answer this evening, and I am surprised that that point was not dealt with in the very perfunctory introduction of these Regulations by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  We should like to know, roughly speaking, how many of all those on National Assistance will get only 2s. 6d. Some figures have already been given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and I want to know whether the Government accept these figures. Let us take the case of retirement pensioners, of whom there are about 1 million on National Assistance. About 800,000 of these will be only 2s. 6d. per week better off, about 130,000, it is estimated, will get between 2s. 6d. and 5s., and the remaining 70,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d. That means that the greater proportion will get only 2s. 6d.
  If we take the case of the widows, there are 95,000 drawing supplementation, and it is estimated that 81,000 will get 2s. 6d., that 8,000 will get between 2s. 6d. and 5s. and that 6,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d. Taking the recipients of sick benefit, there are 141,000 drawing supplementation, and about 123,000 will receive 2s. 6d., 10,000 will get from 2s. 6d. to 5s. and 8,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d. On top of these, there are about half a million others, non-contributory old-age pensioners and various other groups who were not in receipt of any other pensions or benefits, and most of these will gain only 2s. 6d.
  As we know, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) pointed out yesterday, those who have other sources of income than superannuation or who have private means will get the full 7s. 6d., whereas the 1 million people to whom I have referred as being in the worst position will get only 2s. 6d. Does the Minister deny this position? My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) yesterday quoted from an article in the

  2649
  "Economist" of 11th December, and this is what it said:
  "There is no doubt that almost all the cases of real hardship are to be found among these one and a half million people, and that it will be only very barely relieved."
  The article goes on to quote some complacent averages which were received with satisfaction, no doubt, by the Marie Antoinettes of the Ministry of Food and the Bourbons of the Treasury, and continues:
  "These averages undoubtedly and cruelly disguise some real cases of hardship; but, once again, it must be emphasised that it is precisely those cases of hardship that the new Pensions Bill will do least to relieve."
  The truth is that the Government are so dazzled by their own political propaganda that they are blinded to the extent to which poverty still exists in the country and to the fact that this poverty is still growing. I remember listening entranced a fortnight ago, during the economic debate, to the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He was giving us all the indices of economic expansion and was getting enthusiastic about the Stock Exchange boom through which we are going. A few days later, going to my constituency, I was appalled at the amount of real poverty shown, not only by old-age pensioners but by others.
  This poverty was shown by some of the people who had been waiting for years to move out to a new housing estate. Almost every one of the people who came to my "surgery" said, "We can't afford to live here. Can you get us transferred back to Liverpool?" The people in that very beautiful housing estate, because of poverty under this Government, wanted nothing better than to be transferred back to overcrowding or to the slums, where they could at least know where the next meal was coming from. That is the position the Government have entirely disguised and hidden from this House.
  It is very difficult to get authentic, official figures about the position. I should like to refer to some very valuable studies which have been recently made by a private social investigator, and published in a series of articles in the "New Statesman and Nation." They cover a very detailed survey of the poverty in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  2650
  St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). This survey showed that about one-tenth of the people are living in the poverty zone; that is, either on or just below the poverty line.
  The investigator took the Rowntree standards, with which we are familiar in the great sociological work of the late Seebohm Rowntree. Everyone will agree that those standards were very restricted and stringent. Certainly, no hon. Member would like to live for very long on those standards. The investigator took those standards, and made allowances for the increased cost of food since the Rowntree figures were calculated. He compared them with the National Assistance Board's rates in 1954. Those rates, before these Regulations were put forward, were 12s. below the Rowntree minimum standard, thus adjusted, for a man. They were 16s. below the Rowntree subsistence level for a man and his wife, 26s. below for a couple with one child, 30s. below for a couple with two children and 39s. for a couple with four children. These people are the new submerged tenth of the population that the Government have done so much to ignore.
  Perhaps the tragedy of these lives is that they go on to a very large extent in secrecy, in privacy, almost concealed behind lace curtains in back streets. Because we do not hear or read very much about them, the Minister is satisfied to give them only 2s. 6d. a week, and in some cases not that. I have been studying many individual budgets from Liverpool. I wish other hon. Members could see them, although I think all of us have been studying these budgets from our own constituencies. I was appalled to see the report published in a medical journal and written by two Liverpool doctors, saying—and this is very recent—that 39 cases had been admitted into hospital due to malnutrition, to illness due to lack of sufficient money and to similarity of diet. The doctors concluded that if less than 12s. 6d. per week was spent on food, malnutrition would result.
  That was last year. We know that the cost of living has gone up since last year, and we can certainly say that if less than 14s. a week is spent on food, malnutrition must be the consequence. I have looked at 34 budgets, and in 14 of them,

  2651
  less than 14s. was being allowed for food; 12 out of these cases were of married couples.
  We cannot begin to decide whether these Assistance scales are adequate without looking at one or two individual cases. Those I shall take are well-authenticated and have been published and open to challenge. They have never been challenged, so far as I know. Every hon. Member on this side of the House, and probably one or two Members on the Government side, can support these illustrations from their own constituencies. The four cases I shall take are all from the inquiry to which I have referred. The details of them were published earlier this year in the "New Statesman and Nation."
  The first case relates to a couple who live in a four-roomed house, old-age pensioners over 70. They have neither savings nor children on whom they can fall back for help. The man has been a miner. He told the investigator that he had been out of work for a total of seven years between the wars. That was a common experience in St. Helens. He pointed to the relatively new furniture in the parlour, and said, "I would not even have a decent home if I had not had a steady job during the war. I would be working yet, only my heart won't stand up to it." Their total income is £3 16s. 6d. a week. Their pension is £2 14s., and the National Assistance Board gives them an additional 22s. 6d.
  I have their budget, and I challenge any hon. Member to quarrel with any item in the budget as excessive or unnecessary. It shows rent, 12s. 6d.; coal and light, 7s. 6d.; insurance, Is. 6d.; newspapers, 1s. 3d.; sweets and tobacco for two people for a whole week, 3s. 6d.; clothing club, 5s.; other clothes, including shoe repairs, 2s. 6d.; household sundries, 6s. 3d; and football and cinema—I hope that no one will begrudge them this sum for visits to football or the cinema in the course of a week—3s.
  All this adds up to 43s. If there is anything excessive in that budget, perhaps hon. Gentlemen will tell us about it. This leaves them with 33s. 6d. a week for all food for two people, for any extras such as saving up for Christmas or for special outings, or buying anything for the house such as sheets, blankets and
  2652
  pots and pans, or whatever it may be. The investigator said that neither of them complained that they did not get enough to eat. The wife said, rather wistfully, "We don't need teaching how to manage." Her husband chimed in to say, "Once you've been on the dole, you're used to going without."
  The plain fact is that these two people were spending less on food than would buy them the minimum diet which Seebohm Rowntree estimated provided the British Medical Association level of adequate nutrition. They were spending less than the 17s. per head on food which the National Food Survey, in 1951, showed was the average of old-age pensioners; since when food prices have risen by one-third. That is one case.
  The second case is of a woman living alone. She is 76 and infirm and needs a home help for six hours a week to keep her house clean and to do her washing. Most of her shopping is done for her by neighbours. Her income is 50s. a week. Her only luxuries are sweets, for which she allows herself 2s. 6d. a week, and a wireless on which she is still paying instalments of 3s. a week. I do not think any hon. Member opposite will regard that as excessive spending. Even so, after paying for essentials, she has only about 18s. a week for her food and for any extras.
  Recently, this woman needed a new blanket. She could not afford it, and it had to be given to her by one of the voluntary organisations. She buys no butter or cooking fat, but gets a lump of suet from the butcher. For breakfast she has a cup of tea and stays in bed until mid-day. Her lunch most days is an orange, bread and jam and biscuits. She said to the journalist who wrote these articles, "If I'm rich, I have a fried egg and chips." A neighbour's boy usually fetches fish and chips for her tea. This costs her 5s. a week, and she gives the boy another 6d. About twice a month a friend comes on Sundays and cooks a small roast or a stew. "This old lady," said the journalist, "was proud. Her home was small and neat, but she was living in poverty." On those figures, does anyone suggest that there was wasteful expenditure or anything that could have been cut down?
  There was a third case, where the persons interviewed said, "If we eat as

  2653
  we should like, we can't make ends meet." Another said, "If it's a question of coal or food, in winter we pay for the coal." A third pointed to his patched suit and to the shoes he had rather clumsily repaired for himself. "Do the politicians who fix our pensions know how we live?" he asked. "Have they ever had to stop buying newspapers for a month to pay for soles for their boots?" One of them had an apt phrase. He said, "No, you can't say that we don't know where our next meal is coming from. Things aren't that bad. But sometimes we go without the next meal."
  The fourth case that I want to quote relates to a widow. We all know that the extent of hardship here is perhaps worse than in any other section of those who are on National Assistance. Here is a woman of 42. Since her husband died last year, she has been supporting herself and two children by part-time office cleaning for which she is paid £2 12s. 6d. a week. Her widowed mother's allowance, plus one family allowance and a payment of 2s. 6d. for the elder child, bring her a total income of 106s., which, the Minister would probably feel, is not too bad.
  She had worked out a rudimentary budget, and she said, "Unless I've got this to go by, I just can't make the money go round." She kept four pots in a cupboard into which she put her income at the week-end. This is how the pots were divided: House 42s.; of this 17s. goes on rent. 7s. on coal, 4s. electricity, 5s. hire purchase, 2s. 6d. insurance, and the rest on household sundries. For herself 10s. a week is allowed. Fares are 2s. 6d.; a packet of cigarettes a week, which is all she has, costs 2s. 7d.—not the most expensive brand—and one visit to the cinema costs 1s. 5d. She sets aside 4s. for incidentals, such as cups of tea at work, stockings and underclothes.
  The report says that she had spent nothing on dresses, coats or shoes since her husband died, and was unable to make any provision for them. She provided 12s. for her children. She paid 7s. 6d. of this into a clothing club, but she finds that this is insufficient to keep pace with wear and tear on the children's clothes, and we all know how hard this is. Shoe repairs were allocated another 1s. 6d., which I should have thought was inadequate, sweets 1s. 6d.,
  2654
  and she tried to put 2s. 6d. a week aside for day trips to the sea in summer and other amusements. The children got free meals and milk at school. A fourth pot was for food, and into this she put 42s. a week for herself and her two children.
  That is a picture of someone living in this modern Welfare State in a period of this Tory boom. There is a woman who is keeping herself and her two children with the most careful housekeeping on 42s. a week—14s. a week for each of them for food. So far she has done this because it is only a year since her husband died and she is still living on the household equipment of the past. The report states that with every month which passes she slides deeper into poverty. She still has a nice home, the children are kept neat and the family have enough to eat. She said, "If I thought the kiddies were going short, I'd give up my cigarettes and cinema. But that's all I have for myself these days." One fear dominates her mind: "What will happen if I become sick?"
  I do not apologise for having given those four examples. I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the Home could have given 400 more from their constituencies. Surely the Government will not deny that these are fully authenticated cases, representative of a considerable and significant section of our fellow human beings for whom we in this House have a responsibility. They are the conditions of life for hundreds of thousands in the year 1954 of the Christian era. These are the forgotten men and women of the Tory Stock Exchange boom.
  We recently debated fair shares in this House. Since the National Assistance Board scales were last debated, the national income of this country has gone up by £2,500 million or £3,000 million, and is increasing by about £1,000 million every year. We are gaining through the continual progress in national production. We are gaining £600 million a year through the favourable turn in the terms of trade, and with all this wealth, with about £2,500 million to £3,000 million more to dispose of as our social dividend, all the Minister can offer to the people who are in worse poverty is this miserable 2s. 6d. a week.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) gave the

  2655
  figures covering this year only, not the whole of the period since April, 1952, showing that profits have increased this year by 10 per cent., dividends by 20 per cent., capital values, tax-free, by 40 per cent.—and all this after the previous increases in 1953 and 1952. All the right hon. Gentleman can offer is 2s. 6d. a week to those who are in most need. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Government have decided, as a matter of policy, to discriminate against the recipients of National Assistance Board payments. They have had plenty of time to think about this. I know we have had this charade about waiting for the quinquennial review, the Phillips Committee Report and all the rest of it, but the Government have had plenty of time to consider the position of recipients of Assistance Board payments.
  I have a feeling that the Government and their supporters—this attitude seemed to creep into their speeches yesterday—consider that those who are on National Assistance are in some way less respectable than those who are getting their pensions, as they say, as of right. My hon. Friends and I fear that the Government are building up a position of less eligibility for those on Assistance, harking back to the social philosophy of the old ideas of parish relief, the old Poor Law and all the rest of it. There is just a slight suggestion—and I hope the Minister will go out of his way to remove this suspicion—that there is in the minds of hon. Members opposite this Victorian idea that those in the worst poverty are there by some cause of their own, through their own fecklessness and their own unwillingness to work.
  I appeal to the Government to think again. We ought to ask them to take these Regulations back tonight before it is too late, and not to put them through. After all, other things can wait until 25th January. Why cannot these wait, and why cannot the Government bring forward decent Regulations which at least match the increase in old-age and other pensions? Indeed, in my view, they ought to go considerably beyond. If they are not going to do that, at least let us have from them a clear statement of their policy about Assistance Board payments. Let them at least tell us
  2656
  tonight, if they admit that hardship exists, has existed all this year and has been worst among the recipients of Assistance Board payments, why, in these proposals, after all the trumpeting at West Derby and elsewhere, the least of all is done for those on National Assistance.
  We cannot vote against these Regulations. We cannot be in the position of denying even this measly increase to those who are on National Assistance. Obviously, we must vote for any increase, however small, but responsibility for plunging these people, as the months go by and the cost of living rises, further into poverty, lies with the Government.
  Earlier today the House showed a certain end-of-term hilarity, but there is no hilarity among those of us who have stayed to debate these Regulations. When the House adjourns tomorrow many of us will leave with very heavy hearts, regretting that we have not been able to do more for those who are in the greatest need. Thanks to the Government's in excusable callousness and political cynicism in postponing the pensions increases, hundreds of thousands of old-age pensioners and others are this year facing a very bleak Christmas, and thanks to these niggardly Assistance scales they will be facing an even bleaker New Year.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I intend to be brief. The House has already spent time in dealing with important matters which are to be discussed after the Recess, but this is one of the matters which should be dealt with before the Recess. We should try to make what will be for most of us a reasonably happy Recess a slightly happier Christmas for those affected by the Regulations.
  I am the president of a pensions association in my area, and I am thrown closely in touch with many pensioners. Some of them are much more fortunate than others. Some of them were able to "put by," as we say in Lancashire. Others were unable to do so. It is the generation which preserved our constitutional way of life that now suffers the worst. I refer to those men and women, mainly men, who came back from the 1914–18 war to find themselves unemployed or only partly employed and who could make no provision for their old age. When I hear Tories talking about the

  2657
  thriftless, the hopeless and the helpless, I know that there is an obvious retort.
  Even pensioners themselves, who are to get the 7s. 6d. increase, are gravely concerned about the plight of their less fortunate pensioner brothers and sisters. We are concerned about the question of this half-a-crown. I listened to the Minister after the television programme last Saturday night, and I have yet to hear a person who was as satisfied with what he was about to do as the Minister appeared to be during that broadcast. But he did not tell the whole story. He did not tell the country that the very worst hit were not to get even the half-a-crown.
  Last Saturday I was in my constituency, and in the course of my business I visited the home of an 80-year-old pensioner. She was attempting to whitewash the kitchen ceiling—at 80 years of age! She had a step ladder, a whitewash brush and some whitewash, trying to whitewash the ceiling. I asked why she was doing it and said, "You will kill yourself climbing about the place." She replied, "Well, Jack"—because they all call me "Jack" in my constituency—"I cannot afford to pay for it to be done. These days they ask as much as 3s. for a ceiling, and I cannot afford 3s."
  She had a lodger, another pensioner, a good fellow, 72 years of age—one who served his country and his generation well, both in industry and in the trade union movement. When I left she was expressing the hope that somebody would invite him out on Christmas Day, because she did not know how she could provide a meal for him. She herself had been fortunate; a rather distant relative had asked her out for the day.
  This Government are supposed to be ardent supporters of the trade union movement. They keep asking—and rightly so; I make no complaint about it—the great trade union movement to increase the national productivity, to increase the national wealth. I was talking the other day to another pensioner, an old bricklayer, and he said to me, "We are not getting a fair crack of the whip." I had already been to the National Assistance Board on Saturday morning, for I am in close contact with the Board. I am fortunate in that respect, for I know officials of the Board in my constituency and I am able to keep in close contact.
  2658
  In passing, I want to pay tribute to the marvellous work done by these people at the Assistance Board. I have heard complaints about different officers in different parts of the country, but my experience has been that they are most humane and helpful, and, with the exception of when dealing with the odd "smart Alec" who thinks he should get something for nothing, they are the most humane people I have ever met in the course of my political and trade union career.
  This trade unionist told me that he would he hard hit as a result of these Regulations, and I asked him to explain why. This was his reply. "When I was at work, I was an ardent supporter of my trade union and I paid my trade union contributions, so that when I ceased work I received a small amount of money from my trade union funds as superannuation." When he had exhausted his savings—he had not been able to save much—he went to the National Assistance Board. This is the strange position which arises—and it is perfectly true. This man has already been to the National Assistance Board to ask how he will stand under the new rates. The officials gave him the courteous attention which he has always received, and they told him that, as a result of the new Regulations, he would be 1s. a week better off. Because of the superannuation and because of a small pension from the firm, plus his ordinary National Insurance pension, he is near the limit, and when everything is taken into consideration, on the day appointed he will be 1s. better off than he was before.
  Consider the case of the non-trade unionist—a fellow who did not pay his contribution, the fellow who was a nuisance in the works and often caused trouble. He does not get the superannuation from the trade union fund and he can go to the National Assistance Board. Because he does not receive this superannuation, because he was not a trade unionist but opposed what the union sought to do, he will get the half-a-crown.
  It is a shocking state of affairs, but that is how it works out in practice. The fellow who did not pay his contributions to his trade union and who does not get superannuation is 1s. 6d. a week better off than the good fellow who helped to keep the wheels of industry turning and to keep strikes and other troubles away from industry. That is the sort of thing

  2659
  which the Minister forgot to tell the country in his broadcast. He would not know about it, but we are telling him now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, we cannot vote against these Regulations. But we can at least voice our protest.
  Nothing at all has been done about the disregards. There are plenty of people in the country today, even in my own comparatively well-paid industry, the steel industry, who can put nothing by. Consider the position of the bottom dog, the labourer with a reasonably large family, or the man who is trying to build a better home and to give his children a decent education, the man with commitments; if he falls sick, he has no reserve on which he can fall back. In a short time such people have to go to the National Assistance Board, and under the new Regulations the disregards are not being touched at all. Therefore, those who are hardest hit—not what I call the steady regular pensionable person, but those who are hit because of accident or illness—are given nothing at all extra in disregards. The Government have not done the slightest thing about them, and we want to know why.
  I promised to be brief. However these matters may appear on paper, or however they appeared to the Minister when he was speaking in his broadcast, in practice they will work out as I have told him. Let him go on the air again in 12 months time—with the one condition that one of us be allowed to follow him immediately—to state what the position is after these Regulations have been in operation.
  I tell the Minister and the Government that this is wicked discrimination against the very poorest of the poor, those who are not poor because of sloth, indifference, or drink. I have not the slightest time for those who try to get something to which they are not entitled. In my constituency we would help officials to prosecute that type of person. On this side of the House we have always been against the individual who wants to get something for nothing.
  Forgetting Christmas for a moment, we say in no uncertain terms that when this country is really prospering because of world forces and reduction in world prices, when profits have increased and the availability of wealth is at its highest
  2660
  possible point, at this moment of history the Minister seeks to give those who deserve the most the very least.
  6.31 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: We have reached a stage when we have some real assessment of the value of the contribution of the Government to relieve the needs of the poor. The pensionable section of the community have been dealt with and yesterday and today we are reviewing the draft Regulations affecting those who come within the scope of the needs determined by the National Assistance Board.
  What does all the effort of the Government amount to concerning those subject to the provisions for increased pensions and the Regulations we are now considering? Two Ministers come out of this exceedingly well from a strictly financial point of view; I refer to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By the speech he made in the West Derby by-election they were committed by the Minister of Defence in his statement to the voters, if plain English means anything, which gave the people in need, the old-aged pensioners, a very definite impression that something effective would be done for them.
  What is the result? The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has been able to introduce increased pensions and increased scales for National Assistance. As a result of the way in which he has done that the Chancellor, who proposed to make a contribution towards the increased pensions of £21 million, gets away with a net contribution, when the new pensions operate in April, of about £9 million. That, I am advised, will be the extent of the contribution of the Chancellor on behalf of the Government when the full effect of the pensions is felt in April next year.
  Yet the whole impression the Government have created is that they are responsible not merely for providing legislation and helping the National Assistance Board to increase its scales, but also for financing the increased expenditure on old-age pensions. Whereas the net cost to the Government is £9 million, the bulk of the old-age pensions will be defrayed by the insured workers to the extent of £50 million. The greater part will come from industry and that contribution is an

  2661
  on-cost on the joint efforts of those who work by hand or brain, or both. The Government get away with a mere expenditure of £9 million.
  That explains why the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance came to the Box last week with a jaunty and unusually arrogant air. I say "unusually" because, when he was in Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman earned the regard arid respect of hon. Members on this side of the House and his arrogant air last week was unnatural. He was able to satisfy his hon. Friends that with all the increases in pensions and National Assistance rates the flow of the national dividend would still put relatively more into the pockets of the rich than into the pockets of the poorest of the community. Notwithstanding this programme of social improvement, it was done in such a way that, under the present Government, the rich will become richer and the poor poorer than they were under the Labour Government.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out in his most effective and admirable speech, since 1952, according to the Government—for the purposes of making my point I accept it without the slightest qualification—the national income has gone up by £2,000 million, dividends have increased by 20 per cent. and profits by 10 per cent. Yet this is the meagre contribution which the Government are able to offer to the poorest section of the community.
  I have gone through a whole body of figures relating to National Assistance. So far as I can see, when the new pensions come into operation the bulk of the pensioners will get a net increase of about 2s. and 4s. a week. The temporary advantage which will come their way on 7th February will disappear and the net result will be that they will be in the same position in April as they are now. I imagine that with the continuing increase in rents there will be a complete cancellation of the slight improvement for those who come within the scope of the National Assistance Board.
  I want to say a word about what is known in the language of the National Assistance Board as disregards. The explanatory leaflet issued by the Board explains the disregards in connection with sick pay, workmen's compensation and superannuation, and deals with capital
  2662
  assets. I should have thought that the Minister could have whispered in the ear of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, "Let us have a tidy administration on this adjustment. We suggest increasing the National Assistance scales to come within the range of the increases for pensions, but not to put them on the same level. Make them slightly less, than the pensions level. We are not doing too badly—financially, we have come out of this very well; but to tidy up the administration, we ought to get an adjustment in terms of the purchasing power of these disregards according to their value in 1946. We ought, therefore, to maintain the 1946 value in the present adjustment." But nothing whatever is being done towards this end, and the disregards remain precisely the same.
  I should have thought that in the interests of tidy administration, and to give some sense of reality to his work in connection with the Assistance Board regulations, the Minister would advise adjusting the whole range of these payments, which affect the domestic economy of the people, and would, therefore, increase the value of those factors which are disregarded in the assessment of need by the National Assistance Board.
  A pensioner may, if he wishes, remain at work after the age of 65. For every 26 weeks' stamps that he gets on his insurance card, he eventually receives an additional deferred payment of 1s. 6d.; in other words, on retirement he receives his pension plus 1s. 6d. for each additional 26 weeks that he has worked beyond the pensionable age. Some people remain at work for four or five years.
  What astounded me was to find that while the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance encourages men and women to remain at work by giving them an accruing increment, determined by the number of years that they remain at work beyond pensionable age, he sends them to the National Assistance Board to consider whether they are deserving of assistance within the meaning of the Regulations. The poor pensioner finds that while he has been encouraged by the Minister to remain at work, he is depressed by the Chairman of the Assistance Board, for this increment, I am advised, is taken into account before a pensioner's need for National Assistance is determined. I ask the Minister to be good

  2663
  enough to whisper in the ear of the Chairman of the Board that that factor should be completely eliminated in deciding need for the pensioner who has sponsored his country's need by remaining at work.
  Those of us who engage in canvassing at election time cannot fail to be impressed by the tragedy of loneliness among aged people. A report which I have been reading reveals that the number of people living entirely on their own has increased by 100 per cent. in the last 20 years. It is estimated that practically a million men and women are living entirely alone.
  Their problem cannot be met merely by an increase in the scales, important though this might be. I ask the Minister, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Assistance Board, to see what can be done to empower all local authorities, without any distinction between county boroughs, urban district councils, borough councils or county authorities, to undertake work of a domiciliary nature, including the employment of health visitors, home nurses and the like, so that these people can be properly cared for and the problem of loneliness removed.
  In this way, we can help the people not only economically, but socially, so that they may feel that in the eventide of their lives they still remain an important section of the community and are not forgotten, even though they may be living alone and no longer contributing to the economy of the nation. This is a matter that requires the immediate attention of the Government and of the whole nation, for loneliness among the aged is a tragic problem and one that should be remedied without delay.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. J. E. S. Simon: It is pleasant to follow the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) because, however offensive are the things he finds it necessary to say in debate, the way he says them is invariably attractive and charming; and that we saw today. I did not propose to make a party political speech. On the other hand, I cannot forbear replying to two of the points the hon. Member made.
  The hon. Member dealt with the advances in the rates as if they were niggardly. I cannot refrain from point-
  2664
  ing out that people on National Assistance, just as those on National Insurance, will be far better off than ever before.
  Mr. William Warbey: What exactly does the hon. and learned Member mean by saying that those people will be far better off? Does he mean in monetary terms, or what?
  Mr. Simon: I should have thought it would be understood by any hon. Member that it means that a person's standard of living would be higher. Whatever scale we use as a measure, the people who will be drawing National Assistance and those who will be drawing National Insurance payments will find themselves, in terms of the goods that they can purchase, better off than before. Whatever scale or standard one selects, that will be so.
  The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen referred to the proposals costing a mere £9 million. I cannot speak as to the actual cost, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that in due course but however much the cost, we are, at any rate, entitled to say that we are effecting that advance and that it was not effected before.
  As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) pointed out, the country is at present enjoying great prosperity. That cannot be entirely divorced from the action of the Government, particularly the action which they found it incumbent upon them to take on assuming office—action which was resolute and necessarily unpopular. The Government faced the position courageously. We have seen the turn in the tide of our affairs, and it is owing to that increase in prosperity that we are now able, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in one of his striking phrases, to bring those in the rearguard up into the main body in our advance forward towards a greater prosperity for the country as a whole.
  The main question which arises, and which has been canvassed in the debate, is the relationship between the National Assistance payments and the National Insurance payments. Apart from any party point we may make on one side or the other, that is the crucial matter with which we have to grapple. It was

  2665
  referred to in striking terms, which threw great light on the subject, I thought, by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) yesterday.
  It is, of course, part of the problem of poverty. Poverty is relative. It is relative to the state which the community has reached at any particular time. It was not so very long ago in our history when the bulk of the community would have thought that the standard of living enjoyed by those among the poorest in our community, was a very high standard of living. It is not a matter only of mere subsistence, of the necessities of life. Not very long ago it was only kings, princes and nobles who could enjoy such amenities as music and drama, which are now—and we are very glad of this, and it is a matter on which we should reflect with pride when considering the state of our civilisation—open to those who are among the poorest in the land.
  Coming to our time, I remember my mother telling me that, when she started her work among the poor in Kilburn, she found that in the poorest homes there it was nothing unusual—indeed, it was common—to see that the only bed furniture was a crate with some rags thrown over it. I have myself been in many homes in my constituency where I know that life bears very hardly on the families. However, it is a very different picture from that.
  Equally we should remember that there are many communities in the world who are so near the starvation line that they are in constant danger of sinking below it. I have myself seen, admittedly during the war, in the streets of an Eastern city bodies of people who had died from starvation. So one must bear in mind that the problem is relative. But we have to see that the whole community advances, and that those who are the poorest in the community share in that advance; and we must also see that we do not limit our viewpoint entirely to our own country.
  So the first problem, of course, is the problem of raising the general production of the community. It is the problem of seeing that there are more goods, of giving incentives to those who in industry are going to produce the goods that the rich and the poor will consume, the rich and the poor not only of this country but abroad. That is the fund out of which all these contributions are to be
  2666
  drawn. Having done that, we then surely seek to assist those who are the most pressed by the hardships of life.
  I myself have seen in many cases in my own constituency a reluctance to go to the National Assistance Board. I know that that is a common experience, and I am sure that it will be agreed throughout the House that that reluctance arises from a misconception. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) say yesterday that she regarded payments from National Assistance is a right. I think that that is generally agreed throughout the House.
  I think it is fitting today, which is the 150th anniversary of Disraeli's birth, to call to mind that we in this party have a long tradition in the same viewpoint. I was looking only the other day at the first speech he made to the electors of Maidstone immediately before his election.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: What was his party then?
  Mr. Simon: He was in the Tory Party, standing as a Tory and elected as a Tory, and he said, referring to the Poor Law Act of 1838:
  "That Bill bears dreadful tidings for the poor."
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Whose Measure was it?
  Mr. Simon: It was a Whig measure, a measure of the Whig doctrinaires of the time, of the Radicals of the time, and it was defended time and again by the Radicals and the Left Wingers of the time, Disraeli said:
  "Its primary object is founded not only on a political blunder but on a moral error—it went by the principle that relief for the poor is charity. I maintain it is a right!"
  Those were almost the same words as were used yesterday by my hon. Friend, speaking in the same great tradition.
  So I think it cannot be too widely known, too widely understood, that recourse to National Assistance is as much a right on the part of those on whom misfortune has fallen as recourse to National Insurance payments. Nevertheless, there is a relationship to be drawn between the two. I think we are all agreed that indiscriminate help would defeat itself. That would mean wasting assets on those who do not need them

  2667
  instead of devoting them to those who really do need them. The way in which the great social security scheme was framed was that we envisaged that there were certain classes of the community inherently likely to suffer hardship. These classes were brought within the National Insurance Scheme, thus freeing them from the means test in affording them relief from their sufferings—such classes as the old people, the sick, the unemployed, and those with large families. The large families, of course, we help by the family allowances, the others come within the National Insurance Scheme. They are the classes so inherently likely to suffer hardship that we afford them relief without imposing a means test, partly, of course, for administrative convenience, partly because we want if possible to avoid the means test if we can do so, while at the same time not wasting our assets.
  Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Sowerby and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) pointed out yesterday, we cannot rely entirely on the National Insurance Scheme. There is then not sufficient flexibility. There may be sudden needs which require relief, and sudden needs over and above the best scales which could reasonably be given by the National Insurance Scheme, and it is for that reason that we still need a system of National Assistance.
  There is another reason, too, why I think National Assistance has a very valuable part to play in our social security system, and that is that it does afford a means of having a continual movement forward of the poorest in the community, in line with the general advancing prosperity of the rest of the community. We have all seen the difficulties of effecting such an advance under the National Insurance Scheme. There is a whole mass of machinery and administration which has necessarily to be gone through in order to effect such a change. The National Assistance Scheme is far more flexible in securing that gradual advance. We can see the way in which that has happened in the number of advances which have taken place during the last 10 years.
  Mr. George Lawson: Is not that an argument for having the National Assistance scales higher than the National Insurance scales?
  2668
  Mr. Simon: I was going to deal with that point and was about to say that it was an argument for precisely the opposite. As soon as one has a National Assistance scale which is higher than the National Insurance scale one has exactly the situation which we have experienced repeatedly during the last six years, namely more and more people being thrown on to National Assistance and subjected to a means test rather than having their hardship relieved by National Insurance without a means test. Therefore, I welcome the solution which my right hon. Friend has found, namely, to secure a great advance—for such we regard it—in the National Insurance scale, to bring those on National Assistance forward, but to have a slight margin between the two in order that the bulk of those needing help should be helped without a means test.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: I shall be brief, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) will forgive me if I do not follow the line which be took. I confess at the outset that I am congenitally incapable of facing the problems which we are discussing today in the quiet, pedestrian and philosophical manner of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nor shall I take up the time of the House in adding to the detailed analysis of the lives of the people whose misfortunes we are considering, the millions who are living in enforced poverty.
  Like many hon. Members, I live in my constituency and have done so for very many years. The House must forgive me if my own contemporaries in the South Wales coalfield, who are suffering from the consequences of the indifference of this Government, are brought to my mind when listening to the calm, quiet almost callous manner in which we approach the sufferings of these people. These are men whom I have known as first-class artists in the coal mines, men who have more than justified themselves in the iron and steel industry, men who have made the railways and tunnelled the mountains, and men who have spent most of their lives in the bowels of the earth. It is concerning these men and their wives and their mothers that we deliver speeches in the

  2669
  House on these niggardly, almost contemptuous additions to National Assistance which the Government are now placing before us.
  There must be a limit to our analysing. We are not dealing with guinea-pigs but with human beings. The House should consider whether this microscopic examination
  ad nauseam of the lives of these people is a nice, healthy thing, or whether it is bordering on something approaching political sadism. The analysis made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) today was a shocking revelation.
  I have also seen and questioned hundreds of people in their homes in my constituency, homes which I am proud to say have their doors always open to me. I have not done this deliberately, because I do not need much additional information upon the subject. The facts are obvious. I ask the Government to recognise that under their proposals thousands of people will not receive a farthing extra. Hundreds of thousands will receive only 2s. 6d.—a 2s. 6d. so fleeting and evanescent that by the time it is offered to them it will have been eaten up again by increases in the cost of living.
  The old-age pensioners, who run into millions, have the Government of the day in their hands. When I am invited to address meetings of old-age pensioners in my constituency or outside, I have never failed to appeal to them to organise on a political basis. I say to them, "You have been appealing for a square deal for many years now. You have not had it yet. It is time you made Governments or potential Governments come to you. It is for you to name your price to any political party which may form the Government."
  The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West referred to some of the progress which we have made. One example of progress is that most of these people can read. Very many of them like to read and, thank heaven, they are interested in the Government and in this House. We should not forget that. References have been made from the benches opposite to the care which we should exercise in the administration of National Assistance, and we have been told that we should not waste our substance. Those were surprising words to
  2670
  come from the other side of the House. We are already wasting our substance to the tune of several hundreds of millions of pounds. Old-age pensioners can see the futility of squandering £1,700 million a year on arms, most of which are obsolete and useless before they leave the conveyor belts of the factories.
  All these debates on pensions have only confirmed that the advice which I have given to old-age pensioners is the best. It is that they should add to their organisation and their political power, that they should realise that the Government of the day will have to depend upon their vote. There are millions of them, and the Government of the day will be largely a Government whose presence in this House will depend mainly upon the votes of the old-age pensioners. That is my advice. That is the only lesson which the Government are driving home to these people who are having such a frightfully miserable deal from them.
  7.10 p.m.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): We have had a longer debate than usual on the Question to approve the new draft Assistance Regulations. In my recollection of the four or five occasions since 1948 when similar Questions were before the House, the rule has been three-quarters of a day or something of that sort for the discussion. But I do not think the debate we have had has been in any sense a waste of time. It is the best debate upon this subject that I can recall, and yesterday, in particular, there were some admirably constructive speeches from both sides of the House. It was very pleasant to note that there was less feeling of bitterness than there was in the past on similar Questions.
  There has been very little criticism on this occasion of what I call the structure of National Assistance, that is to say, the relation between the various rates of benefit. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who is not now in his place, called attention yesterday to the fact that the rate for children had gone up somewhat less since 1946 than some of the other rates had. I think he overlooked the fact that the Labour Government in that year increased the children's rate, selecting that rate alone for an increase.

  2671
  Nor has there been any criticism of the differential rate for persons living in a household as compared with persons living alone. We have not had our attention called to the special scale for the blind and those suffering from tuberculosis, where, once again, we are increasing the differential in their favour. I think therefore, that what I call the structure of the scheme, which is, after all, very much the same structure as in 1948, has the general approval of Members in all quarters of the House.
  As we anticipated, the main criticism has been directed to the amount of the increase which these scales provide. I do not think I can do much better on that than to say that during the two and a half years since the increases were made in 1952 there have been very few Questions in this House and very few letters in my correspondence complaining of the amount of those scales. The Board, of course, has a high reputation. It very frequently uses its power to give discretionary additions, and that may be the reason why I get so few complaints about Assistance scales.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who opened the debate today, drew attention to some observations of mine during the Motion of censure debate on old-age pensions on 16th November. I think I might quote one or two sentences. I do not often quote my own speeches, but I think on this occasion it will save me a certain amount of time and trouble. I said then:
  "The Assistance scales are higher in purchasing power, and have been higher in purchasing power over the last two years, since the increases made in 1952. than at any previous time in the history of the Board. The scale has been 59s. for a married couple over the last 2¼ years, which compares with 40s. from 1948 to 1950 and with 43s. 6d, from 1950 to the autumn of 1951. Whatever index he may use, no one can show that the 59s. today is worth as little as the 40s. and the 43s. 6d. were in the three years to which I have referred."
  Then I mentioned the discretionary powers which the Board exercise so freely, and I went on—and this is perhaps also worth quoting—to say this:
  "The only valid ground on which an increase in the Assistance scales and the supplements to insurance by the Board could be claimed today would be that so much has national prosperity increased in the last three years that the poorest people, and particularly
  2672
  the aged poor, are entitled to a larger share of the nation's cake than the 1952 scales, the highest scales ever introduced, give them at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 237738.]
  That was not challenged at the time though most of the statements I made in the course of that debate were. Indeed, I believe it is unchallengeable, and if any hon. Member chooses to make up for himself an increase which excludes such items as rent, which does not come into the computation of the scales because it is paid for separately by the Board, tobacco, alcohol and any other items which a person on assistance might be assumed not to consume, it will be seen that, first of all, the 1948 standards, then set by the Labour Government, were a distinct advance on anything in the Assistance scheme before.
  The persons on assistance in July, 1948, got a definite increase in their standard of living. There is no doubt about that, and there is also no doubt that the 1952 scales represent a similar advance in the standard of living. Under these two increases taken together a single person got 11s. more than he had in the years 1948750. going up from 24s. to 35s., and a married couple got no less than 19s. more from 1952 onwards compared with what they received in the years 1948750.
  I would just mention one or two facts about the cost-of-living indices. Clearly, the official index is no guide to a person on assistance. All the same, it is just as well to note that the rates proposed in these Regulations are aping up 56¼ per cent. above the 1948 scales, which, in their turn, gave an increased standard to persons on assistance. The official index since 1948 has moved up by about 33 per cent. If we take the two items which have gone up, food and fuel, it will be found that since 1948 food only has gone up by a fraction over 60 per cent. and fuel and food by about 56 per cent. Of course, nobody spends his or her money entirely on food and fuel, and other items, such as clothing, which have moved up very much less, do come into any reasonable computation of what a person on assistance needs.
  I would say, therefore, that it can be established beyond doubt that the standards being provided by the proposals now before the House will put them considerably in advance of the position in

  2673
  which they were in 1948. So I think that some of the strictures of the right hon. Member for Huyton were a little exaggerated. Indeed, if they were true they would be a severe condemnation of the scales which were in force during the six years when he was a Member of the Government from 1945 to 1951.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, despite the great increase in national production and in the national income since 1948—and I gave a figure of £3,000 million over the last two or three years—we cannot afford a better standard of living for our people than we had in 1948?
  Mr. Peake: I agree that it would be wrong to regard subsistence as a static conception and I was saying that there had been an increase in our conception of subsistence in 1948 and another advance again in 1952. At that time, in recommending the scales, the Board said that it took account of future increases in price which it thought might occur. So, for the first time in 1952, the Board definitely fixed scales which went ahead of the 1948 conception. The increases of 1950 and 1951 merely restored the person on National Assistance to the position in which he had been in 1948, whereas, in 1952, the Board made it clear in its Explanatory Memorandum that its proposals were definitely aiming at a higher standard for persons on National Assistance.
  When I said in the debate on 16th November that, in my view, the only valid ground upon which the Board could put forward the scales now would be to give a higher conception to the idea of subsistence, I was giving—and I think the Board accepted it as such—a hint to the Board that the time had come for a further advance in the Assistance scales. People have asked me what index the Board consider. It looks at and considers many indices, but it has something much better nowadays by which it recommends new scales of National Assistance. The Board has the experience of its officers, who are in constant touch with persons on National Assistance and who have their own commonsense.
  The Board is an excellent body. Things have been said about its constitution. It is true that there has been a change of chairman. I think the Board has been
  2674
  exceptionally fortunate in its chairmen. The first chairman was known to some older hon. Members of this House, Lord Rushcliffe, a man of quite exceptional experience. He was followed by Lord Soulbury, who, in turn, was followed by Mr. George Buchanan, a man known and liked in this House. I am glad to say that Mr. Buchanan not only served his appointed period but, at our request, served for some months beyond his appointed period and still remains a valued member of the Board.
  The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) suggested that there has been some tightening up. I can assure him that the administration of the Board goes on exactly as before. Although we all know that when members of different political parties get round a table they can often agree very well among themselves, if anyone cared to examine the political predilections of the present Board, he would find that today it had a predominantly Left-wing majority.
  Mr. Tom Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he be good enough to answer my question?
  Mr. Peake: It is an important question and I will deal with it. Before I do so, may I say that while it is possible for hon. Members to say that this advance is inadequate, any suggestion that the Board and the Government ought to have gone further than this is a great tribute to the success of Tory Government in the last three years.
  Now I want to give a few figures dealing with finance, because the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a good bargain for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let us get the figures clearly on record. The total cost of all the operations will be £25 million a year in the first full year. Of that, £15 million is the cost of the war pension increases and the balance of £10 million in the first full year is the difference between the £23 million which the Exchequer has to pay by way of additional contributions into the Insurance Fund as its proportion of the quota, less an estimated amount of £13 million which the National Assistance Board is likely to save through paying smaller amounts of assistance to persons whose insurance benefits are increased under the insurance proposals.

  2675
  However, this is only an estimate for the first full year, and the reason it can only be an estimate is that nobody can tell with any precision what the future trend is likely to be of the number of persons seeking National Assistance. But, while the Exchequer gets off fairly cheaply in the first full year at £10 million, in five years' time, as a result of all these proposals, it will have to find an extra £50 million a year over and above what it would have had to find previously. I go further and point out to the House that the burden on the Exchequer towards National Insurance which is now £70 million will increase to £236 million a year in five years' time.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the point which the Minister is making that the cost to the Exchequer in the coming financial year for the whole of the operation is less than £10 million?
  Mr. Peake: No, I thought I made it clear that the whole of the operation was covered by my statement to the House on 1st December that it would cost the Exchequer £25 million in the first full year. Apparently it is considered a wicked thing for this Government, by increasing insurance benefits, to make some saving on the National Assistance side.
  But, after all, there is nothing novel or surprising about this since the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Huyton and for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) claim the credit for having increased the National Insurance pension from 10s. a week to 26s. a week in the year 1946 and, as a result of that operation, they not only cut down the grants of assistance of many people but deprived nearly one million people of National Assistance altogether, so the resulting financial saving on the assistance side to the Exchequer was on a colossal scale. Assuming that each of those persons was drawing, on an average, £60 or £70 a year in National Assistance at that time, taking one million persons off National Assistance must have saved the Exchequer £60 million or £70 million.
  I turn now to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). Apparently she is not in the Chamber.
  Miss Irene Ward: Yes, I am.
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Peake: I do not believe that I am allowed to "see" my hon. Friend in view of where she is sitting. Nevertheless, I will reply to the points which she made yesterday. My right hon. Friend made a very good speech. She usually attacks me and takes me on a trip to Margate, reminding me what happened at our conference there in 1953. But my hon. Friend never went to Margate at all. I missed her very much when I got there, because I had prepared a speech to deal with the motion which she had inspired, which was concerned with what she and I call, and understand to be, "the small income groups." I should have thought that she might have regarded what has been done for the five million old-age pensioners under my proposals as of considerable help to the small income groups.
  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend attacked me because there is no increase in the rate of non-contributory old-age pension. That pension is becoming an anomaly. It is neither an insurance pension nor truly a grant of assistance, but all the money for it comes from the Exchequer. It is subject to a means test, though not quite the same kind of means test as under National Assistance; it is a means test which is more generous where capital is concerned and rather less generous where income is concerned. However, no more of those pensions are to be granted after 1961.
  All the recipients of the pensions are in close touch with the National Assistance Board. Nearly half of them are actually drawing National Assistance in supplementation of their non-contributory old-age pensions. I am following the precedent set by the Socialist Government in 1951 and my own precedent in 1952 in leaving the non-contributory old-age pension where it is. My personal wish is that it had been allowed to lapse in 1948 when the great new scheme of insurance pensions was brought into operation.
  The hon. Member for Ince said something about a secret circular. He said:
  "Within the last 12 months there has been a tightening in the application of the Regulations. … Is it true that a private or confidential circular was sent out by the Assistance Board, or possibly by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, telling area officers and investigating officers what to do and how to do it?"

  2677
  He went on:
  "That is a very pointed question I am putting to the Minister. If that is not so, I shall be delighted. But if I am correct I think he ought to tell the truth to hon. Members and to the people who have to look after these cases. … if such a circular has been sent out, he bears the responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2515–6.]
  Mr. T. Brown: So the right hon. Gentleman does.
  Mr. Peake: That is a very old gambit. It has often been played before. I thought it had rather gone out of fashion.
  Surely everybody realises that government would be impossible if Ministers had to disclose all the advice and instructions issued by their Departments to their officers who are responsible for administration in the country. I do not know whether or not any circular has been issued. In any case, it is the responsibility of the National Assistance Board. One of the occasions upon which the gambit was played was during a debate on 9th December, 1943. when the right hon. Member for Caerphilly—
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Old battles.
  Mr. Peake: —asked the late Mr. Ernest Bevin:
  "Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point about making the instructions issued by the Assistance Board available in the Library?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1243.]
  The right hon. Gentleman got from the late Mr. Ernest Bevin—
  Mr. Ness Edwards: A raspberry.
  Mr. Peake: —a rather dusty answer which I will not now quote to the House.
  The right hon. Member for Caerphilly also asked me about our detailed timetable for introducing the short-term benefit increases. The main dates for National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Insurance are as follows. For retirement pensions and widows' benefits of all kinds the new rates will commence on the pay days in the week beginning 25th April. Hon. Members will know that there are different days of the week on which different classes of beneficiary go to the Post Office for their benefits. For the short-term benefits for injury, sickness and unemployment the increase will commence on 19th May. For the increased contributions it will be the week commencing 6th June.
  2678
  I should like, in conclusion, to say a word or two about the very interesting subjects which were raised in yesterday's debate about the relation between National Insurance and National Assistance. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gave us a very interesting contribution on the subject. He complained of the Conservative Party's "empirical approach" to this matter. Let us look at the history. In July, 1948, under the great new schemes, for a married couple the National Insurance benefit rate was 42s. and the National Assistance rate 40s.; the National Insurance benefit was 2s. ahead of the National Assistance cash scale. The rent, of course, was paid separately by the National Assistance Board. In June, 1950, two years later, while the National Insurance benefit for the married couple remained at 42s. the National Assistance scale for them went to 43s. 6d.; for the first time, the National Assistance scale exceeded in cash the amount of the National Insurance benefit.
  In September, 1951, after the increase given then to pensioners only—not to the sick or the unemployed, and by no means to all pensioners, because those attaining 65 after that date were omitted—parity was established between the two rates for the first time, 50s. being the National Insurance pension benefit rate and 50s. also the married couple's National Assistance rate.
  In June, 1952, under the proposals which I sponsored, once again the National Assistance scale outran the National Insurance benefit rate. The National Insurance benefit rate went to 54s. and the National Assistance scale to 59s. Under the proposals which I have now put before the House we are going back very much to the situation as it was in July, 1948. We are establishing a position where the National Insurance 'benefit rate will be 2s. a week higher than the National Assistance scales, the figures being 65s. on the National Insurance benefit side and 63s. on the National Assistance side.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby complained of what he called our empirical approach. Our approach is empirical and I will tell him why. It is better to have an empirical rather than a doctrinaire approach.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is better to have a humanitarian approach.
  Mr. Peake: I certainly claim that in both our proposals we are adopting the humanitarian approach. There has been a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House that we must try to restore the insurance system and the insurance principle to their proper place in our national affairs.
  Hon. Members have expressed a great deal of agreement with the speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the debate on the Motion of censure on 21st July. He said:
  "I have previously said that I wanted to raise the basic pension before raising the basic National Assistance scales."
  He went on:
  "It is not only the fact that the number of persons seeking assistance is increasing all the time which worries me, though if that goes on it will undermine the scheme and break it down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1476–7.]
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he was also worried by the number of people who, because of their pride and dignity, would not go to the National Assistance Board. He was very much in favour of doing something on the National Insurance benefit side before action was taken over the scales of National Assistance.
  In deciding our policy, therefore, and in deciding on a very much larger increase in the National Insurance benefits scale than in the National Assistance scale rates, I have been very largely guided by an empirical consideration, and that is the growth in the numbers receiving National Assistance. That is the yardstick by which our policy in this matter should very largely be guided. It has been very distressing to see year by year a growth in the numbers having to seek help from the National Assistance Board.
  They were steadily growing in the years following 1948. On my table in the Ministry I have a graph showing month by month and week by week the numbers receiving National Assistance and having different classes of National Insurance benefits supplemented. There has been a steady rise since 1948 to the end of 1952. In 1953, the graph was tending to flatten out and the increase in numbers was only about half what it had
  2680
  been over the average of the three or four preceding years.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: That is the increase.
  Mr. Peake: Yes. In 1954 for the first time the line has flattened out and we have achieved stability. We want to go further and aim at seeing the numbers receiving National Assistance tending to diminish by virtue of other provisions made for them.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Is that why the scale is being cut down?
  Mr. Peake: It is certainly not. There are four favourable tendencies today. One is the increase we are making in the National Insurance benefit rate; another is the very large proportion of people today who are earning increments to their pensions under National Insurance and are, therefore, retiring on rates of pension which take them outside the range of National Assistance. A third feature is that nearly 30 per cent. of all those going on to National Insurance pensions today have another pension from some other source which they have earned by virtue of their employment. A fourth factor acting favourably in this field is the great revival in personal thrift and personal savings which has taken place in the last 18 months or so.
  All these are hopeful signs in the objective which all Members on both sides wish to achieve, namely, an increasing reliance on insurance benefits earned by virtue of contributions rather than payments by way of gift or grant from the Assistance Board, subject to test of means. I believe that we all have very much the same object at heart. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the scales, which I hope the House will now approve, provide a better purchasing power than any scales which this House has ever before adopted.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Warbey: Yesterday the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), in a speech of unusual restraint for him, managed, towards the end of his remarks, to work in a little flourish of hyperbole. He said that these scales are the most generous we have yet had. If he had said that the monetary values of these scales are the highest we

  2681
  have yet had, he would have been correct and platitudinous. But what he presumably meant to say was that the Government were being more generous in the standard of living they were providing for the poorest sections of the community than any other Government of our time.
  We have just had from the right hon. Gentleman a somewhat more modest claim. It was that these scales preserve the standard of living for the poorest section of the community; that we have got hack to 1948.
  Mr. Peake Mr. Peake indicated dissent.
  Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but that is what I understood him to say.
  Moreover, that is borne out by the figures he gave, because he has admitted—and I was very glad to hear the admission from the Government Front Bench—that in the case of the poorest section of the community one cannot take the official cost-of-living index as a guide to the changes in their standard of living. It was an admission that one must recognise that their budgets substantially are made up of food, fuel and light and other items which, owing to the deliberate policy of the Tory Government, have risen far more in price than the other items in the budgets in the rest of the community.
  What were the figures which he gave us? He said that since 1948 the scales have risen by 56¼ per cent., but he told us that the cost of food had risen by no less than 60 per cent. In other words, in terms of food, which is the biggest single item and in fact the largest item in the budget of the poorest sections of the community, such people will be actually worse off than they were in 1948.
  It is true that fuel and light have gone up by only 50 per cent., slightly under the figure of the monetary increase in the scale. Nevertheless, on balance, all that the Minister can claim is that those drawing the full scales of National Assistance, those relying entirely upon National Assistance for their means, will have had compensation for the increase in their cost of living since 1948. That is the best that he can claim.
  But the Minister claims that only by disregarding a number of elements which affect many of the people—in fact, the majority of the people—who draw
  2682
  National Assistance. He can achieve that target of marking time with 1948 in this year of prosperity 1954 only by disregarding the disregards. I very carefully listened to the right hon. Gentleman and there were some questions from hon. Members on this side of the House which he did not answer. He made no reference at all to the question of the disregards in National Assistance. I suspect that he did not do that because, had he done so, that would completely have upset the figures which he gave.
  Mr. Peake: I am sorry that I forgot to deal with the question of disregards. I have often dealt with it at Question time and pointed out that most of the disregards have remained unaltered for many years by both Governments. The 20s. disregard goes back to 1944 and increasing disregards would not help the neediest people drawing National Assistance.
  Mr. Warbey: I am dealing with the very large class of persons who are not totally without resources other than National Assistance.
  The Minister might have the figures at his disposal. I have not, but in most cases which come to my attention in my constituency there are some means within the household. National Assistance is required as a supplement to those means. This is a very large class of persons who deserve some consideration from the Government, because they include people who have contributed by saving towards superannuation payments. We hear a lot from the Government about the virtues of thrift and about their wanting to encourage saving.
  As the Minister knows, one of the reasons why this element of disregard is included in the scheme is precisely to go on encouraging saving and not to discourage it. The minister said in his interjection that these disregarded elements have not been increased in amount. In other words, they have not been increased to correspond with the increases in the cost of living; the value of those disregards has fallen with every increase in the cost of living. What is the effect of that?
  Let us now adjust the figures for a person who is entitled to the maximum disregard for disablement pension, for superannuation pension, and so on—a

  2683
  maximum aggregated disregard of 20s. In 1948, when the scale began, such a person was able to draw 24s. in addition to the 20s. which were disregarded, making a total of 44s. Under the proposed new scales, next February he will be able to draw the new scale of 37s. 6d. plus a disregard which is still only 20s., a total of 57s. 6d. This is a typical example. The standard of living in monetary terms of such a person will have risen from 44s. to 57s. 6d. That is an increase of 32·6 per cent. That is the extent by which his total resources will have increased when the further increase of 2s. 6d. comes into effect.
  That increase is actually less than the increase in the cost-of-living index which, the right hon. Gentleman agreed, had risen by over 33 per cent. Therefore, people in such a position would be worse off if their typical budgets were those which were the average for the population as a whole. If we take into account the fact that their budgets mainly comprise food, fuel and light, they are a good deal worse off now, and they will still be a good deal worse off when the scales have gone up, compared with what they were in 1948.
  As a final illustration, I quote the case of an ex-miner from my constituency. He is 78 and he gave the best years of his life to some of the most important work which could be done—digging coal out of the ground. He has a retirement pension and a miner's pension to which he contributed himself, and he has been supplementing those sources of income from National Assistance. What was his position up to two months' ago? Until then he was drawing a retirement pension of 32s. 6d. and the miner's pension of 10s. and he was able to get total National Assistance payments, including rent allowance, of 12s. 6d., making a total of 55s.—the basic scale allowance being 35s. plus rent allowance of 10s., 45s. in all.
  In November, his miner's pension was increased by 5s., from 10s. to 15s., but under the disregard rule—which in the case of a single payment within the category of disregards is limited to 10s. 6d.—he could only get the benefit of 6d. out of that 5s. increase. When his miner's pension was raised last month by 5s., his National Assistance was docked by 4s. 6d.
  2684
  Therefore, his thrift and service to his union and to his country was recognised not to the extent of an increase of 5s. but by a net increase of 6d.
  What will be his position next February? When the scales go up he will get another 2s. 6d., so that he will have got by then a total increase of 3s. But then will come April, and his retirement pension will go up by 7s. 6d. His National Assistance will then go down again by the full amount of 7s. 6d. In April he will still be only 3s. better off than he was 18 months ago. What has he had? He has had an increase in retirement pension of 7s. 6d. and an increase in his miner's pension of 5s.—a total increase of 12s. 6d.
  He has been told that the Assistance scale is increased by 2s. 6d., and out of this, including two pensions towards which he himself has contributed, all he gets is an increase of 3s. Including rent allowance, his income, 18 months ago, was 55s. Next February, his total income will be 58s., a net increase of 3s. on 55s. That is an increase of 5½ per cent. in two years. He has to wait very nearly two years to get an increase in his cash income of 5½per cent., and in his real income an actual fall.
  That is the way the Tory Government treat the men in the mining and other industries who have given the best part of their lives to working for the country, and who have contributed towards its savings. They are to get an increase, of which the Government boast, in their retirement pension and an increase in their miner's pension, and yet, at the end of the whole process, they will be worse off than when they started.
  That situation results from the fact that the Minister is deliberately allowing the value of National Assistance to be whittled away by reducing the amount of the disregards as the cost of living rises. He is doing it deliberately. As he rightly said, we have asked Questions about it in the House. I put a Question on 1st November. I asked the Minister if he would bring the disregards up to the level they should reach in accordance with increases in the cost of living, which, in the case of retirement should be £1 6s. 8d., or probably 30s., and in the case of the 10s. pensioner 14s. or 15s.

  2685
  When I put that to the Minister, he answered:
  "No, Sir."
  This is the reason he gave:
  "I do not think we want to encourage more people to rely on Assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 15.]
  It was an extraordinary reason to give. Suppose one turned the negative form of that question the other way. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman said, "I think we want to discourage people from relying on assistance." Is that what he really means? Is that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? Is that what he is trying to do?
  The right hon. Gentleman said, earlier, that he was anxious to get the figures down of those who are drawing National Assistance. He was indignant when it was suggested on this side of the House that he was trying to get the figure down by reducing the scale in real value. It is now clear that by ignoring the disregards and doing nothing to increase their value he is in fact, discouraging people from drawing National Assistance. He is making the value of assistance less than it was before.
  This is the policy of the Government, in a year in which we are told that the country is prospering more than ever and in which the people are told that they can invest in success. I hope that the Minister will invest in a little of the milk of human kindness and will consider the case of those who are becoming again a submerged tenth. They have not very much to offer by way of votes to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but a good deal by way of thanks if they were generously treated.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Minister said that he was adopting an empirical approach to this question. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), he said that he would prefer an empirical approach to a doctrinaire approach. I interjected to ask why not a humanitarian approach. The Minister then proceeded to say how much concerned he was about a rising graph that was in his office of applicants for National Assistance. I look upon the matter from a different point of view, not as one of a complicated graph, or series of statistics, masses of figures or
  2686
  calculations, but as a problem of the human beings among whom I live.
  It is more than 30 years since I first became acquainted, as a member of a parish council in the little town in which I lived in Scotland, with the administrative problems of the poorest of the poor. I remember how we had to go to the parish council, which was then an elected body, and engage in all sorts of calculations and scales which were submitted to us by the Poor Law authority. I used to see people coming along to be cross-examined about their meagre incomes and distressing circumstances. I saw the down-and-out miner, who might have saved a little and whose income had to be taken into account. We face exactly the same problem today.
  Later on, the parish councils gave way to the public assistance committees of the county council, and they had the same calculations of income to make and the same attempt to square humanity with municipal taxation. All the time I remembered that these were the poorest of the poor, exactly the same kind of people who will be affected by these Regulations. This generation has seen lock-outs, strikes, poverty and the near-hunger that has come to the mining areas in recent years. It has seen two wars and the hardship and misery of life. It is now being divided into recipients of National Insurance benefits and those affected by these Regulations.
  I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who pointed out these facts and argued that people should be treated more generously because they had built up our national wealth. They have served this country in industry and are entitled to humanitarian treatment during their concluding years. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, who talked about a Socialist approach which, from my point of view, coincides with the humanitarian approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby asked that these scales should not only include rent, clothing and food, but the little amenities of life like the wireless licence and the possibility of looking at a television set.
  I go further. In my constituency many of the older generation are living in isolated villages perhaps 15 or 20 miles away from a town. Some of them may live 12 or 20 miles from the seaside. In

  2687
  their old age, in their twilight, they are entitled to go to the seaside, to the pictures and on the bus trips which are now the luxury of the mining folk. They see a new age, in which the wages in the mining areas stand at a level much beyond what in their own day they regarded as high. They now see the younger generation earning £12, £15 and even £20 a week, and yet they are compelled to live on a poor subsistence level with very little opportunity to enjoy the amenities of life. I fail to see how, under these miserable scales, it is possible for the veteran of the mining industry and his wife to lead anything like the life to which they are entitled, not as a charity from us but as mere justice.
  We have heard about the cost. We have heard of the sum of £9 million and other large sums which will have to be paid by the Exchequer in the years to come. The Minister is always reminding us that he has to keep an eye on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is interested, and that these millions have to be found out of national taxation, but I would point out what I have frequently stressed, that a nation which can find £1,500 million for the Services can afford to give a fraction of that sum to the people who have given their lives for this country.
  That is going to be the perpetual problem—how can we increase the standard of life of the worker and maintain the social services, how can we give decent pensions and do justice to the poorest of the poor, if at the same time we have to carry this huge burden on other parts of the Budget?
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the last Labour Government said during the weekend that there was too much emphasis on military expenditure, and I agree. We could find enough money to pay decent old-age pensions and get decent National Assistance scales if the emphasis were in the right place and if we had true priorities. When this nation is prepared to give a fraction of what it spends on the armed Services to the old-age pensioners, to those on National Assistance and to the injured workers, then it will be possible to solve the problem now confronting the nation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ENGLAND (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)
8.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulation 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
These Regulations have been made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury under powers granted in the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 and 1954. I admit at once that they are pretty complicated. Even by comparison with the parts of the latter Act which we have recently experienced, they are exceedingly difficult for the layman to comprehend.
The explanation is simple enough. It is because we are trying to apply the provisions of an already complex Act to the circumstances of an industry which already has complications and customs of its own. In those circumstances, I think I should try to give as full and lucid an account of these Regulations as I can, and I would like to apologise in advance for the time that this may take. If, after I have given the account, there are still questions in the minds of hon. Members, perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I may reply to them by the leave of the House, at the end of the debate.
So as to put matters in perspective, I should point out that not all these Regulations stem from the new Act. For the convenience of everybody concerned, we have tried to consolidate three sets of Regulations which have been in force for a varying number of years under the Act of 1947. These are the Minerals Regulations 1948, 1949 and 1953. Part II of the present Regulations—that is to say, Regulations 3 to 10—re-enact those of the existing Regulations which are still required. Part II might, therefore, be described as mainly consolidatory in character, but there are one or two new provisions in Part II to which I must refer in a moment.

2689
It is, I think, on Part III that the main interest of the House centred—that is to say, Regulations 11 to 24, which adapt the provisions of the 1954 Act to the mineral industry. Before I tackle either part in detail, I think that perhaps three general observations may assist the House to understand why the provisions of the Planning Acts need to be specially adapted in order to deal with minerals.
There are a number of features of mineral development which are not to be found in any other type of development. First of all, mining operations differ from other kinds of development, in that they add nothing to the value or the land. The value of the permission to work minerals lies solely in the right to take them away, and this removal frequently destroys what value there was in the land.
Secondly, the process of extraction and treatment of minerals usually requires the provision of expensive fixed plant and buildings near the area of working. That is because the minerals in their raw state are often too low in value to make them worth transporting any distance. There are such things as cement works, the plant of which is so expensive that it takes between 80 and 100 years to amortise its cost. In these circumstances, it will be seen that the value of the plant depends on the availability of suitable minerals, while the presence of plant enhances the value of the minerals which feed it. They are, one might say, interdependent.
The third general point which I should like to make is that the 1947 Act treated the winning and working of minerals as a continuous operation and not as a use of land. Therefore, planning permission is required as long as working continues. As a result of this—and the importance of this point will emerge when we consider Regulations in more detail—the working of minerals is not an existing use. Consequently, the buildings, plant and machinery used for the purpose have no real existing use value.
In the light of these remarks, let me pass in a little more detail to the provisions of Part II. I must make a passing reference to Regulation 2 in Part I, which sweeps away all the existing mineral Regulations made under the Act of 1947. Part II reinstates such of these Regulations as we still require, amended where necessary to take into account the effect
2690
of the Act of 1954. I have said that Part II is mainly re-enactment, but there are three points here upon which I should comment.
First, the House may wonder why certain Regulations, notably Regulations 8 and 9, still make reference to the calculation of claims on the £300 million and the determination of development charge. The point there is that some claims made by mineral undertakers have not yet been determined. The reason is that negotiations on some claims have been protracted. They are difficult and complicated, and some are still outstanding. That, in the main, explains why it is necessary to include in the Regulations those provisions which relate to claims on the Fund. Similarly, there are a number of development charges which are still not determined.
The second special reference which I should like to make in Part II relates to Regulation 10, and, again, possibly some words of preliminary explanation might be helpful. It will be understood that in the years immediately before the coming into force of the 1947 Act, planning control of the winning and working of minerals was very much less stringent. At the appointed day, 1st July, 1948, therefore, some transitional arrangements had to be made to enable operators who were already at work to go on extracting minerals without specific permission until their applications for specific permission could be determined. The General Development Order, 1948, required the operator to apply for specific planning permission within a given time but left him free in the meanwhile to go on working minerals in land adjoining his existing working.
Generally speaking, any compensation for refusal of permission to work minerals can be founded only on loss of development value in the minerals. Under the 1954 Act, the compensation will be based on the claim on the £300 million Fund and, in future, the unexpended balance. In the ordinary way, plainly, refusal cannot damage the value of buildings, plant and machinery, because they ought not to be erected until the necessary permission is forthcoming, but in the case of workings existing in 1948 something had to be devised to meet a situation in which buildings, plant and machinery existed and could be damaged

2691
by refusal to allow the continuance of working in land covered by the General Development Order.
Regulation 10 (1), which appeared in the 1948 and 1953 Regulations, was a means of providing for compensation for such damage. The main change which has now been made is by Regulation 10 (2), which is new. The applicant is enabled to claim compensation for loss through disturbance of his undertaking as though the permission under which he was working had been revoked or modified. It appeared to the Government, in the circumstances which I have just described, that the effect of a refusal of permission was very much the same as the effect of a revocation of permission, and that the compensation ought, therefore, to be on the same basis.
The third point which I want to mention before leaving Part II is the addition which has been made in Regulation 7, which corresponds to No. 5 in the 1948 Regulations. Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations provided, among other things, for the calculation of compensation where buildings, plant and machinery were compulsorily acquired. In those circumstances, regard was to be had to the existence of any specific planning permission to work minerals. Nothing was then said about the effect of a permission under the general Development Order, and the purpose of the second paragraph of Regulation 7 is to enable the value of a General Development Order permission to be taken into account.
That, for the moment, concludes points which I thought might interest hon. Members on Part II. I tan assure the House that it covers the points of substance created by our additions and our adaptations. I come now to Part III which, the House will learn with regret, contains the substance of these Regulations.
Here, I think it would be helpful if I first stated one general problem which has to be faced in applying the provisions of the 1954 Act to minerals. It stems from the rather unusual financial arrangements incorporated in leases of minerals. The most significant is the custom of reserving an annual rent under the lease which is payable by the lessee whether he works any minerals or not. As a
2692
corollary to this liability, the mineral lessee normally has the right to work, without any further payment, an appropriate tonnage of minerals at a subsequent time.
Although it will take a moment or two, I think it would be of benefit to the House—for this is a very complicated point—if I attempted to give a simple example of how this works out in practice. For instance, a lease of ironstone might include provision for the payment of an annual minimum rent, of, say, £200. This amount would represent a certain tonnage of minerals at the royalty paid under the lease. Let us say that in this case the royalty reserved in the lease is 6d. a ton. The rent of £200, as will be seen by simple arithmetical calculation, would represent 8,000 tons of minerals.
If, in any one year, the operator worked more than 8,000 tons, he would normally begin paying 6d. a ton over and above that figure, but if in any one year he failed to work 8,000 tons, he would be allowed to work the amount by which he had fallen short in the subsequent years free of royalty. That is the custom known as accumulating short working.
Supposing that in the first year the lessee works no minerals at all, in the second year he works 4,000 tons and in the third year he works 12,000 tons. The position is roughly as follows: in the first year he pays £200 minimum rent and no royalties, so that at the start of the second year he has accumulated short workings of £200. In the second year he pays £200 minimum rent and works 4,000 tons, representing £100 worth of royalties. At the beginning of the third year, therefore, he has accumulated short workings of £300—that is, £200 from the first year and £100 from the second year.
In the third year he pays £200 minimum rent and works 12,000 tons, representing £300 worth of royalties. At the beginning of the fourth year, therefore—and I hope I have been followed so far—he has accumulated short workings of £200—that is, the £300 with which he started the year less £100, being the excess of his workings over his minimum rent.
So much for short workings which, in the context of these Regulations, is primarily a matter of interest for the lessee. To complete the picture, I should

2693
explain one other feature of a normal mining lease. This is quite essential to a number of Regulations which fit in when one has completed the picture. This is known as a break clause which enables either party to break, or terminate, a lease at certain pre-arranged intervals, say ever five years. I will try to relate the two arrangements I have described to each other. When the lessee and the lessor made their claims on the £300 million, the lessee's claim would be based in the main on the value of the short workings he had accumulated at the appointed day. The amount of the lessor's claim would depend largely upon the value of his right to receive the minimum rate for the years up to the next operation of any break clause.
Now we come at last to the point of all this. If when a payment falls to be made under the Act the lessee has accumulated—as he might well have done—more short workings than he had at the appointed day while the number of years until the next break in the lease has increased, the share of development value held by each of the two parties is quite different from what it was on the appointed day. This fluctuation or movement in development value is often quite considerable and might take place in either direction, from the lessor to the lessee or the other way about, and there is nothing like this in any other field of development.
It would be inequitable if the respective claim holdings were not adjusted to take account of this movement of development value before a payment under Parts I or V of the Act were made. I mention those Parts particularly because, although in the Parts which deal with the future the same factors have to be taken into account, the provisions required for the purpose are much more straightforward because all claim holdings are amalgamated into the unexpended value. It will no longer be the case of dealing with two cakes and cutting off from one and adding to another but there will be only one cake to be divided.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I gather that in that case the same total amount is involved and all that the hon. Gentleman is concerned with is the division between the lessor and lessee?
Mr. Deedes: The hon. and learned Member is quite right—it is an important point—the lump remains exactly the same, but it is the apportionment between the lessor and lessee which is at stake and which concerns the Regulations.
I hope that explanation will enable hon. Members to see more clearly why certain of the more important Regulations are to be made. Their numbers are, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 24 (2). All these Regulations relate to the arrangements I have described. But for the fact that I should be taking up the time of the House, I should like to relate each of these Regulations to the exposition I have given, but I do not think that would be welcomed. The most helpful thing I can do is to mention Regulation 21 and to show how the factors I have been describing are brought into reckoning there.
Regulation 21 provides on a compulsory acquisition for the division between a lessor and lessee under a mining lease of the unexpended balance of established development value. The division is made on a principle already familiar to us from discussions on Part III of the 1954 Act, that is to say, in relation to the proportion of the development value in the land acquired already held by each of the parties to the lease. In calculating those proportions account has to be taken of three factors. I have dealt with two of them—the value of short workings accumulated by the lessee at the time of the acquisition and, secondly, the value of the lessor's right to receive a minimum rent up to the next operation of the break clause.
The third is the value of any profit royalty owned by the lessee. The lessee is said to own a profit royalty if the royalty reserved under the lease is less than the full market royalty. If he is lucky enough to own a profit royalty, he is plainly entitled on that account to be compensated in the event of compulsory acquisition.
The other main theme in Part III of the Regulations centres around a provision made for damage to the value of buildings, plant and machinery resulting from compulsory acquisition of other land held by the same operator. That provision will be found in paragraph (b) of Regulation 23. I have already said that the value of this kind of building is almost entirely related to the availability

2695
of minerals in the vicinity. The inclusion of such buildings and plant in the calculation of Part VI claims under the 1947 Act would have entailed considerable difficulties of valuation and by mutual agreement between the industry and the Central Land Board this value was excluded.
In consequence the unexpended balance attaching to land does not provide a sufficiently large source of compensation for affected minerals and buildings. It is only enough and is only proper to compensate for depreciation of the development value of the minerals themselves. It has therefore been necessary to provide for compensation for injurious affection to such buildings and plant over and above the unexpended value attaching to the injured land and the compensation is not to be drawn from the unexpended balance. The primary object, therefore, of Regulation 23 is to remedy an unforeseen result of the arrangements made under the earlier Regulations under the 1947 Act for the assessment of Part VI claims.
Having stated thus the two main themes underlying the provisions in Part III, perhaps I should end as briefly as possible with a round-up of less important matters contained in the remaining Regulations. Regulations 11 and 12—
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that part, I find a little difficulty in following him on this rather complicated point. If the injurious affection of these buildings was not included in the unexpended balance, I do not fallow what is the new consideration that now arises that persuades the Government to introduce it. I do not see the contrast or precisely why it has to be brought in at this stage. One would have thought prima facie that if it had not been brought in in the first place, there would be no justification for bringing it in at this stage.
Mr. Deedes: As the hon. and learned Member is aware, in town and country planning we learn from our progress as we go along. It was borne in upon the Government that there was inequity in the absence of compensation for the injurious affection to buildings, plant and machinery, for the reason that I outlined earlier in my speech. I pointed out then that we regard the value of buildings and plant, particularly the plant of mineral operators, as interdependent with that of
2696
the minerals; in other words, they are inseparable from the minerals; without the plant, the minerals cannot be worked. Therefore, they are one and the same thing. Consequently, it seemed that in equity the compensation for injurious affection should be added, but it cannot come out of the unexpended balance. If any subsequent questions arise, perhaps we can deal with them in a little more detail.
Regulations 11 and 12, which form the commencement of Part III, will be accepted, I think, as self-explanatory. Regulation 13 is necessary because minerals below the ground may have development value independent of that on the surface. For the purposes of the Regulations, the respective claim holdings and unexpended balances are kept separate, because in effect they relate to two quite separate parcels of land.
Regulation 14 provides for an appropriate deduction to be made from the claim holding before the making of a payment under Part I or Part V of the Act if the land which is the subject of the payment has been worked in whole or in part free of development charge. Regulation 19 achieves in the case of the unexpended balance what Regulation 14 achieves in the case of claim holdings.
Regulation 15 adapts in two relatively minor respects Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which provide for payments to claim holders where a development charge has been incurred by the holder or his predecessor in title. Regulation 20 can be conveniently linked with the first paragraph of Regulation 24. Their effect is simply to ensure that there shall be no duplication of compensation payable by virtue of Regulation 10 of these Regulations and compensation payable under Parts II and V of the 1954 Act.
Next, I come to Regulation 22. Under Section 33 of the Act, protection is given to a prospective purchaser of land. As it stands, this would not benefit the prospective lessee of a mineral lease. In effect, however, due to the payment of minimum rent, and so on, the mineral lessee purchases at least part of the minerals comprised in the lease, and his financial risk is correspondingly increased. All that Regulation 22 does is to extend the protection of Section 33 of the Act to a prospective mineral lessee.
I have already dealt with the other Regulations. I apologise for the time I

2697
have taken, but I think I have covered everything, and certainly the points of substance. I warned the House at the beginning that this was an abstruse subject and that it would take time to give a reasonable explanation. I only hope that those hon. Members who have endured the exposition now find the Regulations a little less abstruse.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: The House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the helpful manner in which he has moved the Motion. I take the view, subject to what is said later in the discussion upon the Regulations, that, broadly, they meet fairly well what one understands to be the requirements of the situation. I want to raise three matters upon the Regulations, and I shall be grateful for elucidation of them, They all relate to the points which the Parliamentary Secretary has particularly dealt with in his speech.
There is, first, the effect of Regulation 7 (2), which deals with the compensation to be paid where land is compulsorily acquired and there is attached to the land a planning permission to win and work minerals. As was pointed out, that permission may be given specifically by a local planning authority, or it may be given by the effect of the general development order. In the accompanying Memorandum, with which some of us have been equipped, and in which these Regulations are explained, it is suggested that, by Regulation 7, for the first time planning permission under the general development order is to be treated as a factor in the valuation. I want to raise the question whether that is so. I do not think it is a point of very great substance, but I hope that it may be thought a point of sufficient substance to be worth mentioning.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations provided that this element of value existing in a planning permission should be incorporated. He said that that Regulation in 1948 referred to a specific planning permission, and he drew attention, as it seemed to me, to a distinction there was between permission of that kind and permission under the general development order. I stand open to correction in regard to this, but I think it will be found that in Regulation 5 of
2698
the 1948 Regulations there is no reference to specific permission by a local planning authority or by anybody else.
What the 1948 Regulation provides is that this element of value will be taken into account when there is planning permission in force, and I should have thought that the result of that provision in the 1948 Regulation would have been, when the 1950 general development order came along, that that element would have been automatically taken into account. The moment the general development order took effect these provisions of the 1948 Regulation would have applied to it. I therefore suggest that this provision in Regulation 7 is probably, at best, declaratory. I shall be grateful if the matter receives consideration.
Another matter which arises, and which, I think, is of some importance, is under Regulation 10. Regulation 10 of these Regulations has the effect of bringing within the term "abortive expenditure" in Section 79 of the 1947 Act, depreciation of plant and buildings. Abortive expenditure, which has become something of a term of art in this field, has not hitherto been applied to comprise depreciation in this context, so far as I know, and I think that that needs examination, and I invite the House to consider what the consequences of that may be.
One takes the case where plant is installed with the purpose of winning minerals in two adjoining pieces of land and one where—this is a perfectly natural and possible case—permission to win the minerals in one of the two pieces of land has been revoked. The plant and the equipment of the buildings were designed to exploit two adjoining pieces of land and then permission to develop one of them is revoked or refused. As I understand it, in that event the owner of the interest will recover the amount of his expenditure upon the plant which can be attributed to the object of recovering minerals in the piece of land which he cannot now develop. That will be an actuarial calculation which will have to be made. That will be recovered by him as abortive expenditure, and it may well be thought very properly and fairly recovered by him as such.
But how, in that situation, is he entitled to anything more? Such depreciation of the plant in a case of that kind may have

2699
taken place as a result of remunerative employment of the plant on the piece of land to which permission still attaches. It is surely unthinkable that he should be entitled to any payment in respect of any depreciation of that kind. It would be quite wrong for the owner in such a case to be heard to say, "I was going to use the plant for the development of the adjoining land. Now I am not allowed to do so and I can get something back on depreciation." That would be quite wrong if, in fact, depreciation to his plant had been incurred as a consequence of remunerative employment of plant upon the land to which the permission continued to attach.
I should be very glad if the Government felt able to give an assurance that these Regulations do not have the effect of enabling depreciation to be recovered in cases where depreciation is the result of remunerative use of plant and is for all practical purposes not connected with any refusal or revocation of permission. It is true that these cases will go to the Lands Tribunal for determination, but the matter should be made clear in the Regulations.
There is only one other point which I wish to put before the House in connection with these Regulations. I would welcome elucidation of Regulation 15. It is the only point which I desire to raise on Part III of the Regulations. Regulation 15, and particularly Regulation 15 (2), requires further explanation than we have so far received, although it has been touched upon. The Regulation deals with Case A, the case where payment has been made to a claim holder who has paid a development charge or has incurred liability to development charge.
I quite concede that in these Cases A, mineral workings need special treatment and I entirely agree that regulations are necessary to give effect to such special treatment as they receive. I appreciate also that in many cases where the development charge is calculated as a lump sum it will have been calculated on a heavily deferred basis. The owner of an interest, quite fairly and rightly, pays less down in a lump sum than the total which he would have had to pay over a long period of years on a royalty basis.
The expression used in the Memorandum, which has been issued in con-
2700
nection with these Regulations, seems to suggest that the owner who has paid a development charge in a capital sum in the way to which I have referred may be entitled to receive a payment—greater than the amount of the payment he has made. I would be grateful to be told whether that is the intended effect of the Regulations and, if so, what is the explanation of it.
It may well be that I have misconstrued the matter, but the position seems to be open to doubt when we consider the passage in the Memorandum to which I particularly refer, namely, in page 4, where it is stated:
"A capital sum assessment would, therefore, fall short of the gross amount of a charge paid by way of royalty and it would be inequitable to limit the Case A payment in such circumstances to the capital sum prescribed."
I would be grateful if these matters could be dealt with. As I say, they are only raised in a context of general agreement with the purpose of the Regulations.
8.52 p.m.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I have not much to say in view of the observations which my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has made and the exposition which the Parliamentary Secretary has given. I just want to make one or two general observations. Obviously, these are complicated provisions, and it is extremely important that a memorandum should be available to explain their effect to those who have to work them. What would be particularly valuable would be the general opening exposition of the Parliamentary Secretary linked up with each of these specific Regulations, so that one could see how a particular Regulation fits into the general scheme.
A number of these Regulations, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, consolidate earlier regulations with amendments. It would be a great convenience to those who have to work the superseded regulations to be able to see at a glance the amendments that are made and their effect. So I would suggest that he should consider indicating the text which embodies the amendments together, of course, with something linking his explanation to that text.

2701
That sort of treatment would be useful in all the regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is an extremely complicated Measure, which is very difficult to follow and it is—I do not think I am putting it too high—quite impossible under the Act and the Regulations for the great mass not only of ordinary people., who are entitled to be able to understand the provisions of an Act of Parliament, but even for the experts to understand these provisions. We have reached a stage where compromise upon compromise, has been imposed to such an extent that the provisions are left in a state of utter confusion, and at some time some Government will have to deal drastically with the position.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill said, we are in agreement on the general scheme of these particular Regulations. We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. I could not pay him a more sincere compliment than to say that it was worthy of a lawyer. In the course of his observations the hon. Gentleman covered the main difficulties which have occurred to us.
The two points about which we are particularly troubled are the second two of those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill. As regards the one under Regulation 10, it is the use of the word "depreciation" there which troubles us. One has become accustomed, in connection with plant and machinery, to have that word used as signifying depreciation in value through use, whereas what is contemplated here, as I understand, is not that, but depreciation in value through refusal of permission to mine or work the minerals of an adjoining piece of land. That may be what has been causing us difficulty in dealing with the Regulation. I mention that by way of supplement to what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it?
I need not labour the second of these two points raised by my hon. Friend, but we should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would deal with those two points and also express his view on the point arising under Regulation 7. Subject to that, we shall not press any objection to these Regulations going through.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may attempt to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)? I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). He is quite right, these Regulations are extremely complicated and we are only too anxious to do anything we can to simplify them. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to mean the annotating of the Regulation by the corresponding Regulation?
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Yes.
Mr. Deedes: I will try to find out if that kind of thing is possible for the future. It appears on the last page of the Explanatory Memorandum, but it is difficult to find out which refers to what. The hon. Member for Edge Hill asked three questions. The first two related to Regulations 7 and 10, which embody somewhat the same principle, and the third related to Regulation 15. Sensing that there might be some special interest in Regulations 7 and 10, I made some inquiries as to the extent to which there may be cases affected by them. I am advised that there are very few. I do not want to give a figure, but these Regulations cover a minute field and are more precautionary than anything. However, this field is a complicated one and, as the cases are difficult, they have to be covered.
On Regulation 7, the General Development Order permission would not be brought into account unless it were so provided.
Regulation 5, 1948, refers to a planning permission to win and work minerals and is in force under the Act. We understand that these words would not cover a General Development Order permission. I do not overrate the significance of the Regulation. The hon. Gentleman may well be right in saying that it does not advance anything very new.
However, on the second point relating to Regulation 10, the entitlement to depreciation and how much compensation the operator would receive in respect of his plant, I am advised—I say that advisedly, because these are not matters on which one can answer off one's cuff—

2703
that abortive expenditure here includes depreciation in value from the refusal of specific planning permission which will often reduce the valuable life of the buildings, plant and so on; but it is almost impossible to attribute the loss to abortive expenditure and to relate it to a particular item of expense. If value is lost, the valuer will undoubtedly assess a net loss having regard to the other land with which the plant may be worked.
Mr. A. J. Irvine: Is the valuer required to have regard to that fact in any part of the Regulations?
Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman is asking me about a specific matter on which I shall probably be unable to put my finger. Regulation 10 is rather a long one to look through in a hurry to find the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
With regard to his final point, the second part of Regulation 15 enables the ceiling of the amount of a claim holding available for the case A payment to be raised. The amount of the case A payment is either the amount of development charge paid or the amount of the available claim holding, whichever is less.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman in an intervention raised a point on Regulation 23. It is necessary now to make sure that compensation can be paid, because there is no provision at all to compensate for such damage in the absence of something on the lines of Regulation 23. The value of buildings and so on was excluded by mutual agreement from the claims because of the complexities of the calculations involved. Section 119 (4) of the 1947 Act, which governed injurious affection in the past was repealed by the 1954 Act. In the case of surface injurious affection, compensation can, of course, properly be obtained from the unexpended balance.
I apologise again for this very complicated matter and hope that my explanation will satisfy the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was Laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SCOTLAND (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)
9.4 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
These Regulations are virtually identical with the English Regulations, which the House has just approved, except for minor modifications to comply with the law of Scotland. That being so, I hope the House will see its way to approve them. The local authority associations have been consulted about the Regulations and they have no objections to offer, and the Regulations have also been discussed with the principal trade associations concerned. Parts I and II are merely redrafting of previous Regulations that were in force and the only additions that arise—these were asked for during previous debates—are in Regulation 6 (2), where there is a small addition, and in Regulation 9 where an additional paragraph has been added.
These additions have been made to rectify things that were not considered to be right in the previous Regulations and which have been found out in the course of experience. Part III is an adaptation and modification of the Act of 1954.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: I will not ask the Joint Under-Secretary to give us the same full explanation as did my hon. Friends in the case of the English Regulations. I always feel very sorry for Ministers who have to explain Town and Country Planning Act Regulations and equally sorry for hon. Members who have to try to comprehend them, either before they are discussed, or in the course of their being discussed. However, I might be a little better informed after I have carefully read what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said about the English Regulations.
I am in a particular difficulty over the Scottish Regulations and I wonder

2705
whether the Under-Secretary can help us. He moved the Regulations made on 8th December and laid on the 9th December. We have not yet got the Scottish Regulations in printed form. I know that Regulations have been discussed by the House before now when they were not in printed form, but only in roneoed form.
Our difficulty is that this first copy of the Regulations in roneoed form, which I was able to procure from the Vote Office, contains several insertions, or corrections, in pen and ink. But they are corrections—be it noted—only to give the Scottish Regulations phraseology identical with that of the English Regulations—and this from a Government with Ministers who are always boasting about appointing additional Ministers to give Scotsmen more control over Scottish affairs.
Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will be aware that most of the insertions are in respect of Regulations that were made under previous Acts and are merely repetitions of the previous Regulations. They are not new.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, but my difficulty is that when I picked up this copy of the Regulations from the Vote Office I could see that they were signed on the back page by the Secretary of State on 8th December and consented to by two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury on 8th December. I discovered that at least five or six pen and ink alterations are made, but are not initialled. I do not know whether they were made before the Regulations were signed or after.
I go further. At a later date I was able to procure another copy of the (Scotland) Regulations, 1954, in which all these corrections have been made as they were roneoed, so they are not in pen and ink. These Regulations seem to be unaltered in certain respects. There is no date to show when the Regulations were made and no date to show when they are to come into operation.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: Have I got it clear—that what my hon. Friend is saying is that on the corrected copy there is no date?
Mr. Fraser: That is the point. I do not know whether or not this is a question for the Chair.
I do not complain that the Regulations are roneoed, but this is a serious matter. On the first copy we have several pen and ink alterations and we do not know whether they were made before or after the Secretary of State signed the Regulations. The other copy which has no alterations does not bear a date saying when the Regulations were made or when they are to come into operation. These matters call for explanation.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: My copy bears the date 8th January, which has been crossed out, and date 8th December inserted.
Mr. Fraser: The matter seems to be getting worse.
Another point is that it is normal, when the Government make regulations to have them printed and made available for sale through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It is normal for people who may be affected, including the owners of the mineral rights and leases and the local authorities, to be able to get a copy in order to study them and to make representations upon them. It is normal for hon. Members to be enabled to discuss them with persons outside the House who will be affected by the new law. As far as I know, that has not been possible on this occasion.
During the war, when regulations had to be made in a great hurry, because they were necessary for the effective carrying on of the life of the community, we could not possibly allow the normal time for hon. Members to consult authorities outside, but there cannot be all that hurry about these Regulations. I ask the House to say that this is a serious matter. We are asked to approve Regulations made on 8th December and laid on 9th December, yet if Members go to the Vote Office they can get two different roneoed copies which are not printed like the English Regulations.
Mr. John Rankin: Does my hon. Friend think that the Government are in two minds about this?
Mr. Fraser: I do not know what to think, except that Scotland and Scottish Members have been treated badly by Scottish Ministers.
Mr. Rankin: I have been saying that all along.
Mr. Fraser: And it has been right all the time.
This is a discourtesy to Scottish Members and to Scotland. It is unfair to Scottish Members that they should not be given the same facilities as English Members to understand and appreciate the position and to have discussions with persons outside.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government appreciated the complexity and importance of his Regulations. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has truthfully said that the two sets of Regulations are very nearly, but not exactly, identical. All the alterations in phraseology were called far to bring the original Regulations more closely into line with the English Regulations. I protest and ask the Joint Under-Secretary to offer some justification for the way in which the matter has been handled.
I made a good many notes on the Regulations about which I shall ask questions. I listened with great care to the discussion of the English Regulations and I shall not repeat anything that was then said or ask questions about any of the Regulations then discussed. I shall merely ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to justify one of the Regulations about which I have doubt on both sides, both English and Scottish. It is very short, but complicated in appearance, and is Regulation 21. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to explain it.
I protest at the shabby way in which Scotland has been treated by the Scottish Office in the presentation of these Regulations.
9.16 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and to express, perhaps in less sober and careful language, my own feelings about this matter.
Mr. Rankin: Less sober?
Mr. Ross: Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is a much more temperate sort of fellow. He is probably used to the responsibilities of office. I am not, and I am inclined to be much more outspoken.
2708
We went to the Vote Office to get the Regulations for England and Scotland. We found the English Regulations decently printed. Not only have they been thought out and gone over carefully, but they are dated. Eventually the English Regulations went through. They are marked:
"Printed and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1954."
True, the English did not get to the stage of indicating the price.
When we asked for the Scottish Regulations we were handed this strange roneoed document. There is no indication at all on it about coming from the Stationery Office. We are entitled to ask who did this work for the Stationery Office. We see strange marks and signatures but the rest of the thing is roneod. The signatures are in ink and we see
"James Stuart, St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, 1. 8th December, 1954."
Again signed in ink are
"Edward Heath, R. H. M. Thompson, Two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
I do not know whether they are supposed to be in Edinburgh at the same time. All these signatures in ink are in the same handwriting. If it was necessary not to make any differentiation, why did the Minister not roneo the actual names? It is a strange document altogether.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a copy of these Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to certain signatures on page 17. I have a page 17 in my copy whereas my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has a copy which is equally valid but has no page 17 and no signatures. How can we go ahead with the discussion of Regulations of this type?
Mr. T. Fraser: Further to that point of order. Before you returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and when I was speaking on these Regulations, I wondered seriously whether this was not a matter for the Chair. I did not press the Deputy-Speaker, because I did not know whether it was fair to do so. I would now ask your guidance. The Regulations we are discussing were made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is said, on 8th

2709
December, and they were available on the 9th.
I obtained a copy soon after the 9th in the Vote Office. They were Regulations, with the name of the Secretary of State added on page 17, but I found that the Regulations were roneoed and not printed as is normal and that several verbal alterations had been made in pen and ink. I do not know whether they were made before or after the Regulations were signed. There were alterations by the deletion of several words by pen and ink drawn through the words. Since then I have got a further copy of the Regulations which has no such alterations made in pen and ink. This, I believe, is the latest revision of the Regulations, but on the face of the Regulations this time there is no date for when the Regulations were made or for when they will come into operation. I am wondering whether it is competent for us to discuss these Regulations in the circumstances.
Commander Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that no date appeared as to when the Regulations were to come into operation. While there may have been an omission at the top of the page, Regulation 1 (1) states:
"These Regulations … shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1955."
The reason why these Regulations are laid in this form is quite simple. Hon. Members will remember that the Royal Assent to the Town and Country Planning Act was received on 25th November, and it was necessary that these Regulations should be laid at the earliest possible moment. There was no question of disrespect, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. The question was whether the Regulations would be printed in time so that they came into operation on 1st January, 1955.
It is quite true that in some of the earlier copies the date on which the Regulations were made has not been filled in, but the date 8th December, 1954, of course, appears with the signature of the Secretary of State, and the date of the coming into operation appears in Regulation 1 (1).
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: We are on a point of order. Commander Galbraith.
Commander Galbraith: The Regulation have to come into force on the same date as the Act, so that mineral operators could be treated on a similar basis to other developers and established claim holders. The Regulations, of course, have to be made as soon as possible in order to enable that to be done. Accordingly, they were signed and laid on 9th December in typescript. There would not have been time to wait for printed copies to be obtained. These are the reasons why the Regulations are laid in this form.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I went to the Vote Office, and the copy which I have finishes at page 16—there is no signature of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order. I attended the Vote Office today on two occasions and I received two distinctly different roneo-typed copies of the Regulations we are now supposedly discussing. On the last occasion that I attended the Vote Office, I was with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I can bear out what he said, that on the latest edition of the roneo-typed copy now available in the Vote Office, where the written corrections had been incorporated into the body of the document, there was no date stating when they would come into operation, nor any date when they were laid.
The point I want to put to you is this, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) mentioned it before you came into the Chair. We have dealt tonight with the English Town and Country Planning Regulations and they are in printed form; they have been available throughout England to the public, including those who will be affected by these Regulations. In other words, they have been on sale at Her Majesty's Stationery Office for people to buy and consult.
Hon. Members for English constituencies have been able to meet people in their constituencies who are affected by these Regulations. I claim that we ought to have had the same right in Scotland. I cannot believe that this document has been on sale. In fact, I am sure it has not. There is no indication on it to show where it has been printed. It appears wrong to me that we should proceed with these Regulations while there has been

2711
no opportunity, such as that given, in England, for those affected to purchase copies of the document from the Stationery Office—a document of what is to become the law—and to take matters up with their Members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: It seems regrettable that these Regulations were not printed in the proper form. There may be a good reason for that, but I do not know. If they are available in roneoed form and in a correct form, as apparently they are, I do not see that that would prevent the House from proceeding with the matter. I do not know what is the interpretation of "printing." After all, this is a form of printing. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has given an explanation of how the shortage of time arose. It is, however, entirely a question for the House to decide whether it will pass these Regulations or not.
Mr. T. Fraser: In defence of the fact that these Regulations have been roneoed, the Joint Under-Secretary mentioned the date of the Royal Assent to the Act. I think I am right in stating that the Royal Assent to the English Act was given on the same day. In any case, we discussed the Lords Amendments to both Bills in the House on the same day. I do not think the right, hon. and gallant Gentleman has offered any defence of the fact that the Scottish Regulations are being treated differently from the English Regulations.
Mr. Ross: Before I recommence my speech, may I continue this point of order? You have ruled, by implication, Mr. Speaker, that if a correct roneoed copy had not been available now, it might well be that the discussion would have been out of order. The fact is that until this evening these correct roneoed copies were not available. I have a copy in my hand, the second copy which I have procured in the past few days. I obtained it about an hour ago, and it contains corrections in ink made by someone—I do not know by whom; it might have been by someone in the Vote Office for all I know. Surely it is unfair to expect hon. Members to consider and pass into law Regulations of this character on such a document as this. I submit to you that the discussion ought not to be allowed to continue at this stage.
Mr. Rankin: I hold in my hand two copies of these Regulations. One is the copy belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). One copy is signed, the other copy is unsigned. Like myself, my hon. Friend obtained his copy from the Vote Office. Which Regulation are we discussing—those which I have or those which my hon. Friend has? Can we go ahead with the discussion of Regulations such as those which he possesses, which bear no signature at all?
Miss Margaret Herbison: I obtained this copy from the Vote Office about an hour ago, and it has additions in ink at the side.
Mr. Manuel: Are we back to that again?
Miss Herbison: It has deletions in ink, too. Such copies were being given to hon. Members in the Vote Office about an hour ago. The point I want to put to you and ask for your ruling upon, Mr. Speaker, is that if we look at the various roneoed copies which have been available in the Vote Office we find there is not one which is a complete Statutory Instrument. The one which some of us have has corrections in ink with the date when it was made and the date when it was coming into operation—
Mr. Manuel: But the corrections are not initialled.
Miss Herbison: The one which other hon. Members have has all the corrections put in properly in typing, but that has not the date when it was made or the date when it is to come into operation. Since there does not seem to be a single copy which is a complete copy of what a Statutory Instrument should be, it seems there is not much use our continuing to discuss this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The authentic copy laid before this House when Regulations are made is laid in the Library, and that is the standard by which hon. Members are supposed to direct themselves. The printing has become customary for the convenience of hon. Members, and I am very sorry that it has not been done in this case. There may or may not be good reasons for it, but that does not prevent us going on with them. It may be a reason for voting against the

2713
Regulations, but it does not prevent the House discussing them.
Mr. William Hannan: May I put a point through you, Mr. Speaker, to one of the signatories? I see that one of the hon. Members present is one of the two Lords Commissioners whose signature is attached to this copy. It may very well be, as I know the difficulties about Lords Commissioners speaking in the House, that he cannot give any explanation, but it might be helpful to know whether the signatures were appended to the document before or after the alterations were made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman could offer us any advice on that matter, or whether he is aware of the alterations at all. It may very well be that the hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) may have been asked to sign this document but was not willing to take that responsibility, although he could have signed it.
In the absence of a better explanation, like my hon. Friends I feel that we should take exception to this document which, although it is before us, is not a document in which any of us could have faith. As I understand it, in the insurance or legal world, when changes are made to a document of this character, the alteration has at least to be initialled. There are no such initials here. Therefore we must pursue the matter to get a clearer exposition of the Regulations.
Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You recollect that I still have the Floor of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I do remember that, and I think the House can continue to discuss the Regulations. I understand from the speeches of several hon. Members that there are slight corrections and discrepancies between the different editions of the roneoed script. Am I right about that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If those are not material alterations, it does not matter because the House is quite used to correcting verbally printers' errors and that sort of thing.
Commander Galbraith: I think that if the original copy which was laid is consulted it will be found that all the alterations have been initialled. In addition, before you took the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I did explain that a number of the alterations are concerned with the reprinting of
2714
original Regulations which are repeated here. That can be seen perfectly well by looking at the document.
Mr. Manuel: It is not clear to the people of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I think nothing has been said that induces me to rule that the House cannot proceed with the matter, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has the Floor.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in page 9 of the Regulations, after the word "regulations," there is inserted in handwriting "other than this regulation"? That might be exceedingly important and not merely a typographical error; it might affect the whole of the paragraph.
Furthermore, in page 15, in paragraph (i), line 5,
"being land which has an unexpended balance of established development value at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat"
has been deleted. As far as I can make out, this might make a substantial difference to that part of the Regulations. It is impossible for any hon. Member to know exactly the purport of the Government in view of this document.
Mr. Speaker: I must say that, if something is deleted, it is deleted. We are told that the document could not be completed in time and that this was the best that could be done. As I have said, I regret it very much, because it is far better to have these things in proper form; but if the House chooses to go on with the Regulations, I cannot stop it.
Mr. Rankin: If I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that because a correct copy is laid in the Library, that is sufficient justification for the House to proceed, assuming the rectitude of the Government's intentions. But is it not the case that Members depend upon the Vote Office to be acquainted with Government proposals? Time and again we are told that a Government paper or Bill will be available in the Vote Office at a certain hour; we are not told that it will be in the Library.
One copy is in the Library. Has that copy to be used by all Members? We should get individual copies at the Vote

2715
Office. We are placed at a considerable disadvantage in discussing regulations which have been laid in this fashion when there are verbal differences in the contents which, so far as we know, may declare different intentions on the part of the Government. We are entitled to ask the Government to proceed no further with these Regulations tonight.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Government to do that, but from my point of view the Regulations have been laid before the House properly, and the House can go on with them if it likes. That is all I can say.
Mr. T. Fraser: In the circumstances, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
It must have been clear to every Member in the House that the House is not in a position to proceed to discuss these Regulations. There are too many different copies of them. There is, at least, a shadow of doubt as to whether we have the right and the authority to debate them. It is normal practice for regulations, when made by Her Majesty's Ministers, to be printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and made available for sale to the public. That has not been done on this occasion; copies are not on sale and have not been made available to the public.
I ask the House to adjourn the debate. The Joint Under-Secretary has paid attention to all that has been said—in no spirit of acrimony; we have been discussing these matters in a reasonable frame of mind. I ask him to say that he is willing now to withdraw the Regulations. I cannot believe that any great harm would come to the mineral developers if the Act should come into operation on 1st January and the Regulations should come into operation at some date a few weeks later.
Miss Herbison: Before we have an answer, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in proposing that the debate be adjourned. When I raised a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, you said that we could get copies of the document in the Vote Office and that the main copy was the one in the Library. I went immediately to the Library. I discovered what I did not
2716
know before, that one has to go to one of the librarians who has to open a locked cupboard to get out the Statutory Instrument. It seems to me strange that 71 Scottish Members, besides the English Members who may want to compare the English and the Scottish Regulations, should have to queue up in the Library and get the librarian to open a locked cupboard to get out the document. That seems to me strange, if it is the practice of the House to rely on a copy in the Library.
I read the copy in the Library and compared it with the one I got in the Vote Office. I discovered that the insertions in the one I have and that are in ink are not in the copy in the Library. If the copy in the Library is the important copy, it seems to me we ought not to be discussing these Regulations any further tonight; or at least until we are sure we have in the Library the correct copy. I would ask you to rule accordingly.
9.42 p.m.
Sir William Darling: It seems to me a pity that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who, I understand, had the Floor—
Mr. Ross: The hon. Member cannot have been paying his usual attention to the proceedings. We are now on an entirely different Question.
Sir W. Darling: I am well aware of that.
I was reflecting that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who had the Floor of the House, was, by a series of points of order, prevented from making what I am sure would have been an interesting and illuminating speech, when the excessive haste and anxiety of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) induced him to move that the debate be adjourned. I was reflecting that I had been prevented from having heard a speech which, I am sure, would have been illuminating and entertaining.
I think that my fellow countrymen are being unusually pernickety tonight on what is relatively an unimportant matter. I am not at all clear and I have not heard from you, Sir, or from anybody taking part in the debate that it is a Standing Order that Statutory Instruments or, indeed, Bills must be printed.
Mr. Manuel: They should be correct.
Sir W. Darling: I am not discussing correctness, but printing.
The gravamen of the attack on my right hon. and gallant Friend is that this document is not printed. I think it is desirable that it should be printed. I am as much an admirer of William Caxton as any other hon. Member here, but printing is not a sine qua non. It is not apparently necessary, according to the Standing Orders of the House. What is important is that Statutory Instruments should be laid, and there is no doubt—I am reinforced here by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), whose investigation bears out what I understood to be the case—that the Regulations have been laid and very carefully laid; laid to such an extent, as the hon. Lady has discovered after many years in the House, that they are not only laid but laid away in a glass case only to be opened by one of the principal Librarians.
So, whatever apparent slackness on the part of the Government may be urged by the Opposition, no one will deny that they have carefully laid these Regulations, and I call in support of my contention the hon. Lady and also the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is being so pernickety and so desirous of having everything right. However, it is important for him and all of us to have in our minds that Statutory Instruments need not be printed as long as they are laid.
As a Scotsman I see here an instance of a very desirable public economy. I notice that, with a generous Christmas spirit, the English Regulations are not priced. The last page of the Regulations bears the words "Price d. net."
Mr. Rankin: They are priceless.
Sir W. Darling: I commend this economy and the expedition of my right hon. Friends. If it is desired by the Government and it is in the public interest that we should have these Regulations for England, why should Scotland toddle behind? Is it the desire of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North to show that we are always behind the English? Even with a roneoed copy, the English with characteristic adaptability
2718
have got together two Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in order to dispose of Scottish business.
My right hon. Friend signed the document which we have had roneoed and now the only thing that prevents our having the Regulations approved is this rather pernickety feminine fastidiousness of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North and her too simple followers. I hope that we shall proceed with all possible speed and have these Regulations approved before Big Ben chimes ten o'clock.
Miss Herbison: Which Regulations?
Sir W. Darling: Those which have been laid, and if the hon. Lady would like them read I will go into a corner with her and read them to her privately. We should proceed forthwith and have the Regulations approved by ten o'clock.
9.46 p.m.
Mr. A. C. Manuel: In supporting the Motion which is before the House, I should like to take this matter a little further. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has based his case on the printing of the Regulations, but I want to put before the House what is apparent to all of us on this side. It is that the copy of the Regulations which has been laid in the Library is a copy which is devoid of the insertions which the Minister is trying to get passed by the House tonight. That is the main point.
It is most unbecoming for Scottish Tory Members to be agreeing that the procedure which has been adopted by their Front Bench is proper. They should agree with us that the Regulations have not been properly laid and that our constituents in Scotland have a right to be able to go to the Stationery Office and procure a copy in the same way as constituents in England have a right to do.
Why should Scottish constituents who are interested in the mineral workings and development charges and the rest which arise from these Regulations not have that right? Is there any hon. Member opposite who dares to say that they should not have the right and that they should be fobbed off with three editions of roneoed copies, not one of which is alike? If the Regulations have been

2719
properly laid in the Library we must accept that the matter can be placed before the House and debated but, with respect, after examining the insertion on page 5 of the Regulations I maintain that the Minister is trying to have passed by the House something which is missing from the copy which has been laid in the Library. On that ground I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and submit that it would be utterly wrong for the House to proceed in the circumstances. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is leaving the Chamber—
Sir W. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member sought to confuse the issue by discussing in an irrelevant way the question of laying these Regulations. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that the object of laying the Regulations is to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing and studying them. The facts here show that hon. Members of this House have not had access to the Regulations in the true sense, for a variety of reasons.
One reason was that there was one copy of the Regulations in the Vote Office and a different copy in the Library. There were two copies of the one in the Library. I am arguing that the object of laying Regulations is to give hon. Members access to them so that they can consider and study them with a view to putting their views before the House. Hon. Members have not had that opportunity, because there were three sets of Regulations. There was one set containing certain matter in the Vote Office and another set which purported to be the same, but were different in their content, in the Library. Even those in the Library were inaccurate—they differed from those in the Vote Office; so how, therefore, could hon. Members know which were the right Regulations to rely upon?
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If the hon. and learned Member will forgive me, I am trying to hasten this matter and I have now sent for and obtained the copy laid in the Library. I think it was the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who made the point that something had been inserted in page 5. If he will show me his copy and let me compare it with the one in the Library—
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How are we to consult the copy in the Library if you have it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do so now.
Mr. Hughes: If we cannot consult the copy in the Library, how can this debate be in order?
Mr. Speaker: I now have the copy from the Library.
Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you propose to examine each of these copies individually? Obviously—it is all very well for the Leader of the House to frown and look annoyed about this, but the fact is that each of these Regulations—or what purport to be the Regulations—have been altered by someone in pen and ink. If you, Mr. Speaker, wish to check that we are all discussing the same thing—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I have now put myself in possession of the facts of this case, and I see that in the copy on which the House has been working there is, at the top of page 5, an insertion in ink which, I understand, is material to the Regulations. I do not find that in the copy laid in the Library. Therefore, I rule that there is a material difference in the Regulations and that the Regulations must be re-laid.
Mr. T. Fraser: In view of what you have just ruled, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
It appearing that the copy of the Regulations laid before the House was incorrect, Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Question thereon could not be put.

LACE INDUSTRY
Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1954 [copy presented 15th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]
Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1954 [copy presented 15th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE, CANVEY ISLAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]
9.55 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: Despite the excitement and uncertainties of the last few moments, the House has spent a constructive and useful day discussing needs and assistance. Tonight I want to fix attention upon the needs of a particular group of my constituents and to implore the Minister's assistance. It was in February, 1953, that Canvey Island, which I have the honour to represent, was swept into the new by the East Coast flood disaster. No other part of the country suffered such grievous loss. The whole island was inundated. AH but a handful of the population were evacuated. The casualty list was long.
At that time Canvey Island had and has today only one link with the mainland, a ramshackle swing bridge which was installed some years ago when the island's population was but a fraction of what it is now. The bridge is a constant source of anxiety to the road engineers responsible for looking after it. It has to be inspected weekly and must now be nearing the end of its useful life. If it had collapsed under the strain of the flood evacuation—and let me say that at the time there were many who were fearful on that score—then the casualty list would have been much heavier as speedy evacuation would have been impossible and the bulk of the casualties were people who suffered from exposure.
The case for a new high level bridge spanning both the railway which runs along the mainland and the narrow waterway which separates Canvey Island from
2722
the mainland is unanswerable. I do not propose to go into any detail on the subject, because my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with the representations that I made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in the late Labour Government as long ago as July, 1951. Broadly, the case is as follows.
Canvey Island has a population of over 11,000 people. Most of the people go to work on the mainland, travelling out and back daily. There are also important oil installations. There is no railway, and the sole link of the island community with the mainland is by means of a road over a swing bridge and a level-crossing on the mainland which is closed frequently during the working day.
As a consequence, the island's economic life and its development potential is throttled by traffic congestion. It has been established that during a normal working day, from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m., the level-crossing gates are closed for about 40 per cent, of the time. During the morning peak hours the gates are closed for 60 per cent. of the time, and during the evening peak hours for as much as 69 per cent. of the time. It is impossible in the short space of time at my disposal and in this atmosphere to convey very much of what this means to my constituents.
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
Mr. Braine: But it is obvious that very great inconvenience is caused both to residents on the island and to the large number of visitors who go there, particularly during the summer months, because Canvey Island enjoys a growing reputation as a holiday resort.
Secondly, very considerable delay is caused to commercial vehicles and public transport. I am advised that the elimination of the level-crossing gates and the introduction of a high-level bridge would reduce operating costs by many thousands of pounds a year.
Thirdly—this is a very important point, particularly bearing in mind the past history of Canvey Island—effective mutual aid in respect of fire and ambulance services cannot be implemented

2723
under present conditions. On a number of occasions ambulances have been held up at the level-crossing for 10 or 15 minutes or more, a delay which can make the difference between life and death.
Lastly, the floods last year gave the authorities a dreadful warning. I doubt very much whether the present bridge, which stood up to the strain very gallantly then, would withstand another great tidal surge sweeping down the Thames Estuary.
Everybody knows that the position is intolerable. Successive Ministers of Transport have admitted that it is unsatisfactory; the Essex County Council has admitted that it is unsatisfactory; and the local authorities admit that it is unsatisfactory. In August, 1951, the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, then Minister of Transport, wrote to me saying that while he agreed that some improvement such as a high-level bridge was highly desirable, both to eliminate the level-crossing and the opening bridge over Benfleet Creek, as well as improve the road, the restricted funds available to him made it impossible to approve any road schemes at all other than those which were necessary to preserve essential communications.
The matter was again raised with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), the Minister of Transport in the following year. On 11th December, 1952, a body of ratepayers of Canvey Island who had raised the matter separately with the Ministry, were informed:
"The Minister agrees that an improvement of this nature is highly desirable, both to eliminate the level crossing and the opening bridge over Benfleet Creek, as well as to improve the road, but apart from certain works which are indispensable to the progress of the new towns or the reconstruction of blitzed cities, the restricted funds at his disposal makes it impossible for him to approve any major improvement schemes at all, however desirable they may be on general grounds, other than those specially designed to promote road safety."
That was in 1952.
At the end of January, 1953, came the floods. It was only by a miracle, as this House well knows, that Canvey Island was saved. Momentarily every one was jolted into awareness of the precarious nature of the island's communications
2724
with the mainland. By the autumn the Highways Committee of the Essex County Council had placed the high-level bridge project second in the order of priority among the county's major road works. There was no doubt about it, because I have been told so by the county council, that what had happened during the floods played a large part in determining that priority.
My constituents and I find it exceedingly strange that, having decided that this bridge should be regarded as the second highest priority in the county, it should then be placed in the second five-year development plan. Why should that be? I wrote to the county council and got this answer on 11th December, 1953:
"… the Canvey Island scheme was not included in the first five-year period, as it was felt by the Highways Committee that, in view of the restrictions which had been, and were still being, imposed as a matter of Government policy on expenditure in connection with the maintenance and improvement of highways, it was most unlikely that it would be possible for work on a scheme of this magnitude to be commenced during that period. The scheme was therefore included in the plan as one of those to be commenced during the succeeding 15-year period."
That is fair enough. But it is not only because the economic circumstances of the country have altered so dramatically since that letter was written that I am making this plea tonight.
I have discovered that, despite the high priority which the Essex County Council gives to this project, no attempt has yet been made by that authority to design a bridge or to prepare a detailed statement of cost. Before the war—the matter has been on the stocks for a long time—such a project would have cost about £100,000. Today estimates vary from £500,000 to £600,000. In one of the letters that I have had from the Ministry the figure of £650,000 is mentioned. Nobody really has a clue as to what the project would cost.
In short, the matter has been handled with such a lack of vigour that, even if approval in principle were forthcoming, it could not be given, because nobody would know what the project was going to cost. To be quite fair to the Essex County Council, there are certain difficulties. The first is that the Port of London Authority, which has jurisdiction over the narrow waterway which divides the island from the mainland, has refused to reduce the headroom that is

2725
required above highwater level. As a consequence, a possible saving by the county council of £200,000 or more on the total cost of the bridge cannot be effected.
It seems, too, that after months of negotiation and dilly-dallying, nobody yet has a clear idea as to whether the bridge should be where it is generally supposed to run—where the present bridge runs across Benfleet Creek—or whether, as the Port of London Authority suggests, it should run some 1,500 yards to the west.
The reasons for the Port of London Authority's attitude on this subject are not at all clear. The Authority has not taken the public into its confidence, and nobody has been able to find out why it insists on maintaining headroom, because the waterway is not used by commercial traffic but by small pleasure boats.
The second difficulty is that the county council, assuming it has a clear idea as to where the site is to be, says that to prepare plans would take 18 months and would involve considerable expense. It is not prepared to put its staff to work and to incur such expense without some promise of assistance from the Minister of Transport.
Here lies a dilemma. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, quite clearly, is not likely to authorise a grant unless a specific scheme is forthcoming. On the other hand, the Essex County Council will not prepare a specific scheme unless it has an assurance of financial support. So we have an impasse. In the meantime, my constituents are affected adversely. The development of the island is retarded.
I am told that there are proposals to import a considerable population under the Town Development Act. Presumably if that is done then industry must move in as well. Let us get the priorities right. It would be the height of folly to add to the population of Canvey Island before the high level bridge is provided. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take due note of that.
But then this is all the more reason why a decision on the provision of such a bridge should be speeded. My abject
2726
in raising the matter tonight, therefore, is to urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to resolve this dilemma. Either funds are to be made available for the project, or they are not. If they are not, then let us be told. Then we shall know precisely where we stand and we can plan accordingly. Either the bridge is a high priority, as the Essex County Council say it is, or it is not. Either lip service is being paid to Canvey's claims or the county council genuinely believe that the bridge should be provided at the earliest possible opportunity. If the latter, why the delay?
Let us get the facts clear. What my constituents want to know is how the matter stands. It has hung fire long enough. If my hon. Friend considers that a grant would be forthcoming eventually—I do not say at present although the economic climate is improving rapidly—then surely some arrangement can be made now whereby the county council can get on with the job of deciding upon a specific scheme and getting out estimates of costs. I beg my hon. Friend to use his good offices to end the deadlock and to persuade the Essex County Council to get on with the job of planning the bridge. If my constituents can be given that assurance tonight they will be content.
10.13 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has not unnaturally raised this question tonight because he and his constituents are much concerned about the communications between Canvey Island and the mainland. However, it does not necessarily follow that, because there is some problem involving communications, the Minister of Transport is the appropriate authority to deal with it. It was because my hon. Friend was under the impression that there was a deadlock that he thought it right to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight.
My information is that discussions are taking place between the Essex County Council, as the highway authority, and the Port of London Authority, which is concerned about the head room provided by any new bridge. I think that my hon.

2727
Friend is labouring under a misapprehension. These are difficult matters and these two important authorities are naturally considering the position and discussing it with each other, and the engineering experts are looking at each others arguments; but certainly so far as my information is concerned there is no deadlock and we in the Ministry of Transport hope that the discussions which are taking place will result in a satisfactory agreement being reached between the Essex County Council and the Port of London Authority.
This is an essential first step. The road and bridge come under the heading of a classified road. As such, the authority responsible for the building of them is the Essex County Council. My right hon. Friend is directly responsible only for trunk roads. Therefore he is not directly responsible in this case. If and when an agreement is reached and a satisfactory proposal made, then as soon as we can afford it we shall provide an appropriate grant for the building of the bridge and the necessary approaches to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay is very familiar with the line which has provisionally been drawn and which is intended to be close to where the bridge is at the present time. As far as we can make out, it seems likely that rather a different line will be taken on the mainland if the new bridge is constructed.
All these matters are the responsibility of the local highway authority and it is difficult for me to say anything about them. If, unfortunately, these two authorities were unable to reach an agreement—and I have no reason to suppose that that will happen—my right hon. Friend, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, might be called upon, under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, 1949, to decide one way or the other. Obviously it would be entirely wrong for me to give any indication of the views of the Department if it might be called upon to give a ruling in a quasi-judicial capacity. Indeed, I am quite unable to do so because the Department has been at pains to keep clear of this matter precisely because of this possibility. We hope, therefore, that the two bodies responsible will pursue their discussions and that they will, in the near future, arrive at a satisfactory agreement and decide where the
2728
bridge ought to be built and what the headroom should be over the creek.
I should not like to leave my hon. Friend without some indication of what our attitude will be if and when that agreement is come to. There is not the slightest doubt, as he said, that if Canvey Island is to be developed, and if indeed the residents and the industries already there are to have a satisfactory communication with the mainland, it is important that a new and better bridge and road should be constructed. In due course, we hope that that will be done, and we shall, of course, pay the grant appropriate for a Class II road.
At the same time, I ought to tell my hon. Friend that, in spite of the great increase in the amount of money which has been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary in his speech in the debate on the Address—there are a number of other roads which would be likely to have priority over this one. The principle upon which grants are made for classified roads is their value as arteries of through-traffic. That, of course, is one of the disadvantages under which any island must necessarily labour, and so I cannot possibly hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that this particular bridge and road will be at the very head of the queue. At the same time, we are familiar with the needs of Canvey Island. My hon. Friend has once more explained those needs and has expressed them in a very forceful and cogent way. I look forward to the time when a new bridge and road will be constructed and when the appropriate grant will be made from the Road Fund.
Mr. Braine: While thanking my hon. Friend very much for what he has said, may I ask him whether he is seized of the point that I made, namely, that even if full agreement is reached between the Port of London Authority and the Essex County Council, the Essex County Council have made it clear that they will not proceed with the preparation of detailed plans without some assurance of financial aid from the Ministry? Though I do not expect my hon. Friend to commit himself on that point, would he be prepared to make some comment on it before he concludes?
Mr. Molson: Yes, indeed, I will gladly do so. If and when an agreement is

2729
arrived at between the two authorities, and after discussion with the Ministry of Transport, we should then think that it was reasonable and proper for the Essex County Council to begin to make the necessary preparations for the construction of the road. We attach the greatest importance to plans being prepared long in advance of the time when authority is given to begin the work. In point of fact, owing to the special problems connected with the sea, the creek, the tide, the mud and so on, I understand from our technical advisers that this will require very careful investigation before it is decided exactly how the bridge is to be sustained. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Essex County Council to begin to make these necessary preliminary preparations some time
2730
before it is possible to fit it actually into the programme for the year. As regards the designing of the bridge, it might be better for it not to be designed in advance because of the very rapid technical progress which is being made at present in the building of bridges.
I hope that what I have now added will give my hon. Friend the feeling that although I cannot indicate that anything can be done at present we confidently expect that this will be undertaken in due course, and we are anxious that ail necessary preliminaries should be undertaken as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Remploy Workers (Wages)
  Remploy Workers (Wages)
  Southampton
  Southampton
  Appointments Offices (Vacancies)
  Appointments Offices (Vacancies)
SCOTLAND
  Edinburgh (Redevelopment)
  Edinburgh (Redevelopment)
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  Creetown Relief Fund
  Creetown Relief Fund
  Aged Sick (Hospital Accommodation)
  Aged Sick (Hospital Accommodation)
  Medical Superintendents
  Medical Superintendents
  Tuberculosis, Greenock
  Tuberculosis, Greenock
  Certificates of Disrepair
  Certificates of Disrepair
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Requisitioned Buildings
  Requisitioned Buildings
  Porta Pia Site, Rome
  Porta Pia Site, Rome
  Albert Memorial (Scaffolding)
  Albert Memorial (Scaffolding)
  New Offices, Glasgow
  New Offices, Glasgow
RESEARCH
  National Physical Laboratory (Mathematics Division)
  National Physical Laboratory (Mathematics Division)
  Low Temperatures Research (Metals)
  Low Temperatures Research (Metals)
  Road Research Laboratory (Select Committee Report)
  Road Research Laboratory (Select Committee Report)
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (MINISTRY OF FOOD)
  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (MINISTRY OF FOOD)
BRITISH ARMY
  Court-Martial Sentences, Canal Zone
  Court-Martial Sentences, Canal Zone
  Army Act
  Army Act
  Field Marshals (Pay and Allowances)
  Field Marshals (Pay and Allowances)
  Service Personnel (Home Purchase Facilities)
  Service Personnel (Home Purchase Facilities)
  Artillery Camp, Redesdale (Amenities)
  Artillery Camp, Redesdale (Amenities)
  Boy Soldier's Death, Plymouth (Inquiry)
  Boy Soldier's Death, Plymouth (Inquiry)
  Barrack Room Discipline
  Barrack Room Discipline
  Mau Mau Suspects (Questioning)
  Mau Mau Suspects (Questioning)
  Marriage Allowance
  Marriage Allowance
  A.A. Command (Disbandment)
  A.A. Command (Disbandment)
  Personal Case (Welfare Officer's Evidence)
  Personal Case (Welfare Officer's Evidence)
  Warcop Hall, Westmorland (Purchase)
  Warcop Hall, Westmorland (Purchase)
  Far East (Free Parcel Post)
  Far East (Free Parcel Post)
  English Civil Offences (Scottish Soldiers)
  English Civil Offences (Scottish Soldiers)
  Transfers to Reserve (Numbers)
  Transfers to Reserve (Numbers)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  U.S. Motor Cars (Imports)
  U.S. Motor Cars (Imports)
  Exports to China (Medicines)
  Exports to China (Medicines)
  Wholesale Trade (Census of Distribution)
  Wholesale Trade (Census of Distribution)
  Chinese Newsprint (Import)
  Chinese Newsprint (Import)
  Anglo-Chinese Trade
  Anglo-Chinese Trade
  East-West Trade (Strategic Controls)
  East-West Trade (Strategic Controls)
  Home Flax Scheme (Termination)
  Home Flax Scheme (Termination)
  Tomato Imports (Spanish Shipment Restrictions)
  Tomato Imports (Spanish Shipment Restrictions)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Tax Credits
  Overseas Tax Credits
  Air Pollution Report (Tax Reliefs)
  Air Pollution Report (Tax Reliefs)
  Town and Country Planning (Compensation Payments)
  Town and Country Planning (Compensation Payments)
  University Grants (Commonwealth Students)
  University Grants (Commonwealth Students)
  Entertainments Duty
  Entertainments Duty
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Special Property Revaluations (Private Valuers)
  Special Property Revaluations (Private Valuers)
  British Dependencies and Mandated Territories (Gifts)
  British Dependencies and Mandated Territories (Gifts)
  U.K. Cotton Exports (Indian Import Duties)
  U.K. Cotton Exports (Indian Import Duties)
  Civil Service (Equal Pay)
  Civil Service (Equal Pay)
  Nationalised Boards (Salaries, Pensions and Expenses)
  Nationalised Boards (Salaries, Pensions and Expenses)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Storm Damage (Emergency Powers)
  Storm Damage (Emergency Powers)
  Mineral Workings (Planning Permission)
  Mineral Workings (Planning Permission)
  Industrial Derating
  Industrial Derating
HOUSING
  Holborn
  Holborn
  New Towns (Building Costs)
  New Towns (Building Costs)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Storm Damage, Pembrokeshire (Camrose Exchange)
  Storm Damage, Pembrokeshire (Camrose Exchange)
  Coin Boxes (Design)
  Coin Boxes (Design)
  Kiosks (Rural Areas)
  Kiosks (Rural Areas)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  1951 Census (Pembrokeshire Report)
  1951 Census (Pembrokeshire Report)
  Spastics
  Spastics
  New Hospitals (Cost)
  New Hospitals (Cost)
  LUNE VALLEY ROAD
  LUNE VALLEY ROAD
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (ADMINISTRATION PAYMENTS)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (ADMINISTRATION PAYMENTS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTION)
  BRITISH GUIANA (SUSPENSION OF CONSTITUTION)
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (FEDERAL LEGISLATION)
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (FEDERAL LEGISLATION)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Ship Repairers, West Ham (Assistance)
  Ship Repairers, West Ham (Assistance)
  Pensions (Overseas Residence)
  Pensions (Overseas Residence)
  NEW SCHOOLS
  NEW SCHOOLS
  FLOUR IMPROVERS (AGENE)
  FLOUR IMPROVERS (AGENE)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (PRESS ARRANGEMENTS)
  FOREIGN OFFICE (PRESS ARRANGEMENTS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  SPANISH PRODUCTION OF DORNIER AIRCRAFT
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give any information as to the reported production and trials in Madrid of the D.O. 25, manufactured under the direction of the Aero-Union, which includes firms as well known in this country as Dornier, Junkers, Focke-Wolf, Messerschmidt and Heinkel; and whether production of these machines and their further development will in any way be controlled or checked after the ratification of the Paris Agreement.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, I understand that the prototype of this aircraft, which was designed by Dornier's of Madrid, and built by Construcciones Aeronauticas, of Seville, made its first flight on July 25 this year. The aircraft is reported to be a high-wing all-metal light liaison monoplane, with a 150 h.p. piston engine and a designed maximum speed of about 110 m.p.h. It was built to a specification put out by the Spanish Air Ministry. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's Question is that the production and development of aircraft in Spain cannot be controlled either now or after the entry into force of the Paris Agreements, to which Spain is not a party.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, would the noble Marquess bear in mind what happened between the years 1923 and 1926, when the then German Government (not the Hitler Government), evaded the terms which controlled German rearmament by setting up poison gas factories and aircraft factories in
  562
  Russia, when General von Seeckt was head of the Armed Forces and Brockdorf Rantzau was Ambassador at Moscow? Has the noble Marquess looked into that parallel?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I will bear in mind what the noble Viscount has said.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is useless for the noble Marquess to bear anything in mind unless he does something. He will forgive my speaking with some feeling, but the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, which we thought were complete, were evaded in this way. Now we find that six of the best-known manufacturers of military aircraft have formed what is called the Aero-Union to produce types of the innocent kind which the noble Marquess has described. Does the noble Marquess think it is just sufficient to "bear it in mind"?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am doing precisely what the noble Viscount has asked me to do. He asked me to bear it in mind and I said that I would bear it in mind; and I will.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, that is a pretty bit of verbal by-play, but it does not obscure the fact that there is a loophole in this control of German rearmament which deserves consideration by those who desire to keep Germany in her proper place in the military armament of Europe.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if a factory is set up by nationals of any country in another country, nobody can stop them doing that, or stop them manufacturing things in that country, except the Government in the country in which they have set up. The noble Viscount has produced what he says is a parallel case, and I have said that I will bear it in mind. I really do not know what more I can do in order to satisfy him.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Except to get the facts right. Why was it, for example, that when the Dornier 25 was exhibited in Madrid, Generals and the heads of the Spanish Air Staff went to see it? Does that mean that the whole control of German rearmament has been by-passed in this way, as it was thirty years ago?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should have thought that that was an extremely exaggerated view to take of the occasion to which the noble Viscount referred.

1958 BRUSSELS FAIR
2.39 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who will be sponsoring and co-ordinating the British participation in the Brussels International Fair of 1958; and whether plans are now being laid to ensure that this country's contribution to the Fair reflects the greatest possible credit upon us.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the Belgian Government's invitation to participate in the Brussels Universal and International Exhibition of 1958–a project which they warmly welcome. The Central Office of Information will co-ordinate the British contribution to the Exhibition under the authority of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. Baron Moens de Fernig, who has the chief responsibility for the organisation of the Exhibition, recently visited London when both my right honourable friend and I had cordial conversations with him and were able to hear from him something of his plans. A Treasury grant has been promised and the Departments concerned are already actively considering the form of this country's contribution. An opportunity will certainly be given to industry to co-operate in the enterprise.

MULTIPLE EXCHANGE RATES AND EXPORT SUBSIDIES
2.41 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they now propose to secure appropriate compensatory relief to British exporters from the effects in overseas markets of multiple exchange
564
rates, such as employed by Uruguay, and from the effects of export subsidies such as employed by France.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the very real difficulties to which my noble friend Lord Barnby refers. I am not quite sure, however, what measures he has in mind as likely to provide compensatory relief to United Kingdom exporters in overseas markets from the effects of multiple exchange rates or export subsidies. Her Majesty's Government's policy is to tackle this problem not by adopting similar measures themselves but at the source. They are seeking, therefore, to secure the withdrawal of export subsidies or other forms of artificial aid to exporters by international agreement. They are actively pursuing this in the present discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at Geneva and in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the reassurance that his reply has given me, in view of the vehemence of the memoranda that have been put out by different trade associations complaining of these practices, I would ask him whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government failing to get relief from these malpractices by the methods at present being followed, he will make representations in the proper quarter that they should have in reserve alternative methods of more drastic character which will be more likely to bring results?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, of course I will make the representations which my noble friend Lord Barnby desires. I should like to remind him, however, that our present practice has met with some considerable success, notably in the case of Germany, and I very much hope we shall have further successes. That does not mean, of course, that we are prepared to set our faces completely against any more extreme measures if they are required, but I hope that they will not be required and that our present practice will be successful.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, may I ask him also to

565
bear in mind that the absence of effective action tends to encourage the nation concerned to use these practices in a wider field?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot wholly agree with the noble Lord, in that I think there is a general feeling internationally today that these practices are undesirable, and that more and more people are coming round to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and, indeed, of Her Majesty's Government.

CYPRUS
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, after a word with my noble friend Lord Lucan, may I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House why we were not favoured with the statement on Cyprus which was given in the other place at the end of Questions yesterday?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it was because the Opposition did not put down a Question. If they had put down a Private Notice Question, as was done in another place, they would have had an answer. There was no statement in the other place, in the sense that the Government initiated a statement; they merely answered a Question which was put dawn by the Opposition. It is always open to the Opposition to put down Private Notice Questions, and we have never been backward in giving an Answer when it has been requested. On any future occasion, if the Opposition wish to put down a Question on private notice, we shall be happy to discuss it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Marquess is quite right, and I agree that he has shown the greatest courtesy in this matter. But reading the account of what happened in another place, it appeared to me that the Question was invited by the Government; it appeared to have that form—what is called a "bonnet" question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I will, of course, inquire into that, but so far as I know that was not the case on this occasion; it was just an ordinary Question and Answer, the Question being by private notice. I would also say that it did not incorporate any
566
statement of future policy but was merely an account of past events.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it did include the remarkable statement that the decision of the United Nations gave moral support to our position in Cyprus.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I think the House is glad to have the opportunity of examining this Bill in the first place, because there are a number of noble Lords who take a real interest in these problems and have had considerable experience in dealing with them, and who, if I may say so, have never hesitated to press their views on successive Ministers of Transport, whoever they may be. In the rather narrow way in which we use the word in Parliament, this is a non-controversial Bill. But somebody has said it is the sort of Bill on which almost everybody holds a different view, and anywhere outside of Parliament that would be considered controversial. It is natural that that should be the case, because there is nobody who can be uninterested in this Bill, whether he is a pedestrian, a cyclist or a motorist. It is part of the Government's programme for dealing with what I am sure we all agree is an absolutely first-class problem in the organisation of the daily life of this country. If I may use an illustration used by my noble friend Lord Webb-Johnson, we are almost being throttled by over-circulation.
Let us face it: we have not had any substantial extension of our road system for twenty years. It is probably true to say that the extension of the Cromwell Road is the first large new road in inner London for fifty years. We are not to-day dealing with the question of capital investment in roads. That, I am sure all your Lordships will agree, is a matter of tremendous Importance, but I am not in a position to say anything about it. All we can do to-day is to recognise the importance that everybody in the country attaches to that matter. It is fair to say that there is already in existence a substantial body of law, and it includes a

567
good many powers which have enabled us in recent years to do quite a number of things—such as providing for unilateral parking, one-way streets, zebra crossings, and other things, which to some extent do ease our problems. None the less, we have had no Road Traffic Act for twenty years, and, while I would not argue that the introduction of this Bill is an epoch-making step, I say—and I hope to persuade your Lordships—that there are a number of important developments which can be made here, in addition to those provided under the existing law.
Before coming to the Bill itself, I should like to make one general observation. Besides the question of vastly improved roads, I feel sure that everyone will agree that we require a higher standard of discipline on the roads. In this matter, however, I think it is important to keep a sense of balance between what I may describe as the discipline imposed by the law and the discipline which the driver imposes on himself. If we have too rigorous an external discipline, we run the risk, in some ways, of encouraging drivers to observe the letter rather than the spirit of the law. We may run the risk, also, of making the task of those who have to enforce the law—namely, the police—more difficult and reduce the standard of courtesy and consideration that is so essential.
In this country we have two great advantages on the road. The first is the good relations which exist between the police and the general public; and I feel that we are all indebted to the spirit of consideration and imperturbable resolution with which the police deal with the problems of the road. Secondly, the standard of courtesy which most drivers use on the road is extremely high. Here I should like personally to pay tribute to the standards which those drivers who have to take heavy lorries up and down the country display to other road users and the general public in their very exacting task, carried out on roads many of which are hardly adequate for their purpose. I think we are deeply indebted to the courtesy which these men show. In saying that, I am no more than echoing what my noble friend Lord Mancroft said a few days ago when speaking on heavy loads.
568
This Bill deals first of all with safety, secondly with congestion, coupled with the provision of parking places, and, thirdly, with a new basis on which to deal with the very complex problem of the carriage of private parties. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will welcome most warmly the proposals which we make here. As I have said, this Bill is in supplementation of the existing law. It is therefore, I think, fair to say that there is no one theme running through it; it is merely adding to the existing powers.
If I may deal now with the individual clauses, I will explain them as shortly and as clearly as I can. Clause 1 deals with the testing of vehicles. As your Lordships know, from, I believe, the year 1896 and, of course, particularly from 1931, the law has laid down requirements for the mechanical condition of motor cars, particularly in reference to brakes, lights, steering and that kind of thing. Up to the present time, it has not been possible systematically to ensure that these conditions are enforced. In only a limited way is this done by the police, and also by the Ministry of Transport examiners. My right honourable friend thinks it essential that some step forward should be taken and, of course, this obviously is necessary, because the failure to maintain a vehicle in good roadworthy condition may lead to accidents. In this sphere, I should say that we are quite a long way behind the United States of America, although I do not want to make the comparison too close. I think it is true to say that in the United States half the States make testing compulsory and car owners are obliged to have their cars tested twice a year. These tests are carried out partly by State-owned organisations and partly by private organisations. I believe compulsory testing was started as long ago as 1927 in Massachusetts, and has now extended to such populous States as Texas and Pennsylvania, which have in them as many cars as we have in this country. None the less, there is, and we have to face it, a considerable practical problem.
First of all, there is the problem of sheer numbers—there are 5 million vehicles to be tested—and, secondly, there is what I might describe as the technique of testing: that is to say, how it should be done, the speed with which it can be completed, and how frequently tests

569
should be carried out. Therefore, we want to ascertain what sort of periodic test is the most efficient and practical. It is for this reason that my right honourable friend intends to start a pilot station by which he hopes to gain experience in this field. At this station tests will be voluntary and will be free. I think it is fair to say that the public and private interest is here identical. Most people will be glad to know, before it is too late, whether their steering gear is defective. Many of us are aware that the lights of other cars are perhaps not all they might be, whereas until we are told we may well be ignorant of defects in our own lights.
The question which will arise is: What is the next stage? My right honourable friend could proceed by extending his own stations or he could proceed, as your Lordships will observe, by using authorised examiners as prescribed under Clause 1 of the Bill. As he gains experience in the technique, he proposes to proceed either by one or other course or possibly by both. In this field we should welcome suggestions from your Lordships as to what you consider the most practical way in which testing can be carried out. I should say that we propose that this scheme should pay for itself, so that there will not be any charge, or at least any substantial charge, on the Exchequer. The sort of idea in my right honourable friend's mind is to start by testing the older cars, probably the pre-war cars—although I should say here that he keeps a kindly eye on those highly valued and remarkable conveyances known as "old crocks," though I believe that most of them would pass the test with flying colours.
Clause 2 is a small addition to the powers of the Minister to make regulations to enable the removal of cars from the road if they are causing obstruction. At the present time they can be removed only if they constitute a danger. It will now be possible for them to be removed if they cause obstruction. I think your Lordships will agree that such a course is necessary, particularly where an ambulance or a fire engine is obstructed, for one car can cause a hold-up over a wide area. Clause 3 deals with cyclists. The effect of the clause is to bring cyclists and tricyclists without any power-assisted drive more fully within the ambit of the Acts of 1930 and 1934–that is to say,
570
they can be charged with driving carelessly, recklessly or dangerously. At the present time, I am given to understand, they can be proceeded against only under an Act of 1835 which deals with furious riding which, I suppose, is intended primarily to refer to riders of horses and to horse-driven vehicles. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 lays down the penalties for conviction on these offences which are, however, at a lower scale than those which apply to motorists. We are the greatest cycle-manufacturing country in the world, and one of the largest users of cycles. I think it behoves us to have a very high standard of road sense in the use of these essentially home-produced vehicles. It is important to emphasise to all who use the roads that, without necessarily involving themselves, they may cause danger to others. We want to make it clear to all road users that it is essential for them to maintain a high standard of discipline. I may add that there is no intention of requiring the registration of bicycles.
Clause 4 makes it an offence for a pedestrian to fail to comply with the instructions of a police constable in uniform who is engaged in controlling vehicular traffic. At the present time, the only two offences for which a pedestrian is liable are loitering on a pedestrian crossing or obstructing the free flow of traffic. As your Lordships will observe, it is a very limited power to control pedestrians which is here given, and in practice the instructions of the police are at the present time substantially observed as a matter of routine.
Clause 5 enables the Minister of Transport to carry out experiments at crossings to control pedestrians. At the present time, only regulations of a universal character can be made. It is felt that there might be considerable advantage in having regulations applicable to certain crossings, and experience thereby gained applied to controlling the more difficult crossings.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Will the noble Earl forgive me? Can he inform the House briefly precisely what the word "experiments" means in this context? Can he give the House some example?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think what my right honourable friend has in mind is this. There are certain very complicated crossings. Take, for example,

571
Hammersmith Broadway or a place of that sort. Without laying down a flat dogmatic way in which it should be done, my right honourable friend wants to put into force a certain method of controlling the traffic and the pedestrian. He will see how it works and try it out. If it does not work he will take it away. If it works well he may extend it somewhere else. That is what is meant by "experiments." Perhaps it is the antithesis of the zebra system. These crossings were laid out all over the country. This is a specialised ad hoc instruction to meet the requirements of some particular crossing, and my right honourable friend wants these powers. I think that in certain cases this power may be quite valuable.
Clause 6 is designed to rectify what we believe to be a defect in the law which arose from a Divisional Court decision in 1952 in Blenkin v. Bell. In that case, the owners and drivers of goods vehicles were released from the necessity of conforming with the statutory speed limit laid down for goods vehicles except when the vehicles were actually carrying goods. By analogy we think this may have the effect of making other safety requirements, such as the maintenance of vehicles, drivers' hours and the keeping of records, inapplicable or without force. The Bill intends to make quite sure that these requirements are enforceable, whether the vehicle is carrying goods or not.
Clause 7 deals with the learner drivers. It is, I believe, strongly supported by the police. There is believed to be a fairly widespread evasion of driving test requirements. As the law stands at present, if a man is prepared to accept the inconvenience of being a learner driver—that is to say, of carrying "L" plates, having a qualified driver beside him and paying 5s. a quarter—he can continue in this way indefinitely. Of course, the temptation is much greater with the solo motor cyclist, who is not required to have someone with him. The purpose of this clause is to enable local authorities to refuse to grant a further provisional licence if they think that the applicant does not intend to submit himself to a test. Clause 8 enables the Ministry of Transport and local authorities to spend money on road safety propaganda. Some doubt was expressed recently in regard to these powers. If I
572
may now come to Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 14–
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting him?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl mind dealing with Clause 9 before he passes on to Clause 10? I want to ask him one question. Does the repeal of subsection (10) of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes the 30 m.p.h. speed limit, go further than making the 30 m.p.h. speed limit permanent? I assume the noble Earl will tell the House that it does not invalidate the Minister's powers under subsection (3) of Section 1 of the 1930 Act to vary the speed limit of 30 m.p.h., and to do away with it on certain roads, as the Minister may think fit? I just wanted that point cleared up before the noble Earl left this particular point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a question of law on which I am afraid I must get advice before I answer it. The position is simply this, and no more: that it takes this provision out of the Expiry Laws Continuance Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is what I thought.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Clause 9 in no way changes the law. My noble friend Lord Mancroft will deal with that point more authoritatively when he speaks at the end of the debate.
We now come to deal with Clauses 10, 11, 12 and 14, which deal with parking. I think your Lordships will agree with me that in certain places this problem has become so bad that we should be delighted to see anything tried which had any chance of making this problem rather less pressing. That is precisely what my right honourable friend wants to do. He has therefore suggested certain experiments in regard to the control of parking, and particularly the charging for parking on the road. I do not even suggest that what we are proposing here will necessarily become a permanent part of the organisation. What we want to do is to try it out, to see whether it will bring some improvement in the very congested and complicated situation which exists in our big urban centres. As a matter of fact, as far back as 1925, when the Public Health Bill was under

573
discussion, charges for supervision of cars were agreed to by your Lordships' House but were refused in another place. The proposal, therefore, is not entirely new. Charging for parking, particularly with parking meters, is fairly common in the United States of America, and also in other countries. One should be careful about making comparisons but it does, broadly, seem to serve a useful purpose there.
If I may explain the purpose, it is, first of all, to drive away the long-term parker. Secondly, it is to attract the short-term parker. Thirdly, it is to encourage parking in garages or, alternatively, the use of public transport. This is done by giving the short-term parker at least an assurance that he is allowed to stay there for a specific period. Moreover, it provides some money for the local authorities which must be used exclusively for providing better parking facilities. I should add that it is the first time that there has been what may be called a fund in the hands of the public which can be used for this purpose. Finally, it will, of course, generally encourage the use of the roads for circulation rather than for parking.
The recent Report on Car Parking in Inner London—and I believe that the situation is much the same in other centres—shows that rather under half the cars are parked for long periods. The actual figures show that in September, 1951, 44 per cent. of the cars were parked for from four to eight hours. The second thing that this Report shows is that the garages and off-street car parks were not by any means used to capacity. I know, of course, that these garages and parks are not always in the most convenient places but I think we must encourage their use so far as we possibly can. One important point I should like to make is that this must be done systematically and on a fairly wide scale in the areas selected; otherwise, the cars will simply be driven from one street to another. As I have said, this is going to be done on an experimental basis and will be done only after very careful examination. Indeed, that examination will be conducted at four stages. First, the local authority will make a recommendation after consulting the chief officer of police. Secondly, the proposal will be advertised—and I may add that in London the advice of the London and Home Counties
574
Traffic Advisory Committee will be taken. Thirdly, if there are objections, an inquiry will be held. Fourthly, the Minister will make up his mind in view of the report submitted to him. It is quite clear from this that every case will be examined very carefully and that it will be done essentially on an experimental basis. I feel sure that everyone will welcome an experiment which can give a hope of relief to this most burdensome problem.
Clause 15 increases the penalties for driving offences. It also makes a driving test compulsory for a driver who has been disqualified for reckless, dangerous or careless driving or driving under the influence of alcohol. This is the first time that, where a licence is taken away, a test is made compulsory before it is restored. Clause 16 removes an anomaly which was brought to our attention—and we are most grateful to him for it—by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. I hope that what we propose to do here will meet the point that he had in mind.
EARL JOWITT: What is the point?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The point is this: that when a man has his licence suspended and gives notice of appeal, the suspension of his licence is deferred until the appeal is heard; yet the period of suspension, if that appeal is dismissed, runs from the time of conviction. Therefore, during the period between conviction and appeal the man is allowed to drive. In other words, the period of suspension becomes automatically reduced. It is a small point but I think it is a sensible solution. I hope that we meet the point of the noble and learned Lord here.
Clause 17 deals with a small point on licences which was recommended by the Committee on Road Safety. First, it enables the police to seize a driving licence if there are reasonable grounds for believing that it has been improperly obtained; and, secondly, failure to surrender a licence becomes an offence. Clause 18 deals with the question of revealing the identity of a driver: it is not much more than a technical amendment of the existing law. It enables the police to require the owners of vehicles, or any other person, to give any information in their power about the identity

575
of the driver of a vehicle alleged to be guilty of an offence. That power already exists over a fairly wide sphere. All this clause really does is to supplement the existing law by putting all offences in all places on the same basis.
Clauses 19 and 20, with the Second Schedule, seek to clarify the law in regard to the conveyance of private parties. I think it is inevitable that a distinction between a bus carrying a private party and one providing a regular public service must often be difficult to define clearly and fairly. I think we all agree, moreover, that the position at the present time is profoundly unsatisfactory. What we have done here is to repeal all former legislation and to start entirely fresh. At the same time, we have sought to keep as near as possible to the old forms of legislation, subject to the necessary amendments. First of all, the "special occasion" reference, which was the main cause of the bother, has been completely removed. The drafting is perhaps not very easy to understand but, if I may speak very roughly, what we seek to do is to say that a private party in which those travelling pay separate fares must be privately organised. By that, I mean that the trip must not be publicly advertised or organised by a travel agency or anybody else for financial considerations; nor must the journey take place regularly. Whilst your Lordships will wish to examine this provision very carefully, I hope, without going into it in detail, that what we have done here will effectively carry out the intentions of Parliament in this matter.
My Lords, I have gone through the Bill in detail. I would add just this. This is, as I have said, only part of the Government's approach to this matter, and, if I may say so, perhaps a relatively small part. Nevertheless, we think that there are a number of important points which are included in the Bill. We shall welcome your Lordships' comments and criticisms, so that the Bill may be put in the best form possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the Bill which your Lordships have before you this afternoon will eventually be the fourth Road Traffic Act since 1930–there have been the 1930
576
Act, the Acts of 1934 and 1937, and now this Bill. The noble Earl, who has introduced this Bill with the thoroughness and charm of manner which he always displays, has said that when it comes to Party alignments this Bill is non-controvercial. In saying that he is perfectly correct. We on this side of the House will give this Bill a Second Reading; we shall give Her Majesty's Government every possible help to make it a better Bill than it is now. There is no division of opinion—nor could there possibly be—upon any side of your Lordships' House as to the necessity for doing something to rescue the road traffic law from the deplorable state into which it has fallen over the years. If there is on the Statute Book legislation which requires radical overhaul, it is certainly the road traffic legislation. The 1930 Act is archaic; it goes back into an era that has for long past made no effective contribution towards dealing with modern conditions. I would appeal to noble Lords in all parts of the House to lend their experience and their wisdom towards seeing whether by this Bill we can make a substantial contribution.
I do not think there are many noble Lords who would quarrel with what this Bill tries to do—except in one respect—but I am certain that there will be violent criticism of the methods employed. I do not think I am putting it too highly when I say that, as the Bill now stands, I am afraid we shall end up with another mass of regulations piled upon those already in existence, and that this Bill will have an infinitesimal effect upon the two great national problems which we are trying to solve—namely, road accidents and road congestion, the one leading to the other. I would also appeal, with the greatest respect, to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Much of this Bill is of a complex legal character, and I hope that we shall receive the valuable help of his noble and learned colleagues upon some of its aspects. There is one particular provision in this Bill which, since 1930, Parliamentary draftsmen have twice tried to put into force as the will of Parliament, and upon each occasion the courts have ruled that they have done no such thing. That concerns the point which the noble Earl mentioned, in regard to the anomaly of the private party on a special occasion.

577
May I get the nice part of my speech over first. May I sincerely thank the noble Earl and the Government for putting so quickly into operation the undertaking which was given me by the noble Earl only a few weeks ago: that at least he would attempt to do something to clear up this very unfortunate legal interpretation of the 1930 and 1934 Acts, which deprived so many people in the rural districts of this country of the amenities of the town.
Having said that I will proceed to the Bill. What the Bill does is to set out four major advances in road traffic law. First of all, by Clause 1 it proposes to give the Minister power to set up testing stations and to issue certificates as regards vehicle fitness; secondly, it brings cyclists within the law of driving offences; thirdly, it applies the principle of the control of pedestrians; and, fourthly, it legalises parking upon the Queen's highway and charges for such parking. Taking the first of those four points, the setting up of public examination stations for vehicles, may I say straight away that there is no difference of opinion as to the desirability of seeing that every vehicle using the roads is in a fit mechanical condition to do so with safety to other users of the roads. But, whilst there can be no difference of opinion about that, I question very seriously whether this is the Way to do it.
May we first look at the problem that we are trying to solve. I shall base quite a number of my arguments upon the statistics issued by the Ministry of Transport. The latest statistics regarding accidents on the roads are the road accident figures for 1952. In 1952 there were approximately 4½ million motor vehicles on the roads of this country, some of which, such as public service vehicles, had imposed upon them a statutory requirement of inspection. If any of your Lordships happens to have the Tables of accident statistics before him, he will see in Table 38 the total number of pedal cycles, motor cycles, private cars and goods vehicles which were considered by the police as contributing to accidents. In the statistics the definition of an accident is one from which personal injury resulted; accidents where no personal, injury was involved are not enumerated. Out of 4½ million vehicles, there were 3,991 vehicles involved in accidents which the
578
police regarded as having been caused, or contributed to, by mechanical defect or failure.
Strangely enough the pedal cycle, which was not included among these 4½ million vehicles, contributed to more accidents than did, the motor car. The pedal cycle was responsible for 1,490 accidents, the motor cycle for 761, the private motor car for 1,059 and the goods vehicle for 681. All were accidents involving mechanical failures or defects of brakes, tyres, wheels, steering and other causes. Many accidents are caused by failures other than those. But the Construction and Use Regulations, as the noble Earl has rightly said, already empower police officers in uniform or Ministry of Transport inspectors and enforcement officers to take action. They can stop a vehicle on the road at any time and test it under the conditions under which it is operating. Will the noble Earl bear that point in mind, because it is very important? Such inspections are frequently made in regard to goods vehicles, but although this regulation has been in force for years I cannot recall one case where an authorised officer has ever stopped a private motor car Why not? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, with the organisation which he has behind him, knows of cases. I do not.
A NOBLE LORD: They are not entitled to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes they are, under the Construction and Use Regulations which I will read to the noble Lord. Regulation 103 of the Construction and Use Regulations, 1951/201, states:
(1) Any police constable in uniform, and any person for the time being appointed by the Minister of Transport as a Certifying Officer or Public Service Vehicle Examiner under the Act, or as an Examiner under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933(h), who shall produce his authority if required, is hereby empowered to test and inspect either on a road or, subject to the consent of the owner of the premises, on any premises where the vehicle is, any brakes, silencers or steering gear fitted to a motor vehicle or trailer.
So these officers have plenty of power already to inspect vehicles under the condition which is the only possible condition for inspection—the condition in which they are being driven on the roads. It is no good testing a commercial vehicle for its fitness to be on the road unless it is tested with the load that is being

579
carried upon the vehicle. Are you going to say that all commercial vehicles must go into your pilot station or any other station fully loaded? If not, then you are not testing those vehicles under the conditions which apply when they are on the road.
One of the contributory factors to the accident-proneness of commercial vehicles is the method by which commercial vehicles are taxed—not the amount; I am not interested in that at the moment—because they are taxed upon their unladen weight. That tempts a vehicle manufacturer to produce a vehicle as light as he can make it in order to get it below a taxation level. A purchaser is induced to buy the cheaper kind of vehicle and the lower tax vehicle; but once he has it he grossly overloads it. The 20 miles per hour limit for commercial vehicles of over three tons unladen weight offers precisely the same inducement. The manufacturer is induced to build a vehicle under three tons weight so that the operator may have the benefit of a speed of 30 miles an hour; and again, after he has bought the lighter vehicle, the operator grossly overloads it. Until the whole system of taxation of commercial vehicles is altered and imposed upon their gross weight on the road—either laden or gross weight—we shall never solve this problem of the overloading of commercial vehicles the brakes and steering of which are then inadequate for the job.
I am at one with the noble Earl in wanting to see mechanical fitness enforced as much as may be possible, but I believe that all we are doing here is to set up another horde of officials and pilot stations to do something for which adequate and better regulations are already in existence. Personally, I should be firmly against placing the task of testing vehicles for public safety in the hands of private motor traders, for that would be putting them in a ridiculous and unfair position. I do not for a moment question the end which the noble Earl seeks to achieve, but I doubt the wisdom of what he is doing here. Why put into these road traffic Acts still more regulations when no serious attempt has been made to carry out regulations already in existence? I do not know whether any of your Lordships have had a different experience. Can any noble Lord give an instance of the testing of motor cars on
580
the road by an examiner of the Ministry of Transport? What is this certificate, and what validity has it? Does it mean that a certificate is prima facie or conclusive evidence of mechanical fitness in case of an accident? Does it mean that no excise licence can be granted or renewed for a motor vehicle until the owner has produced a certificate? Over 5 million cars and commercial vehicles have to be licensed every year. Then what of the almost brand new motor car? If the noble Earl would ensure that the present law is enforced in regard to the fitness of vehicles on the road he need go no further whatsoever. And on my statistics I think that proves my case.
Now we come to Clause 4, because this is where the next principle comes into force. I am not going to say anything about Clause 3 because I absolutely agree with the noble Earl; I think it embodies a very wise step. But it would be only fair to point out to your Lordships the gigantic task which the Government are going to place upon the police force. There are, I believe I am right in saying, somewhere in the region of nine million to twelve million cycles on the roads of this country—I had the figure here a minute or two ago but unfortunately I have mislaid it. And into which category, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is going to reply, does the motor-assisted pedal cycle come?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I referred to any cycle which was not assisted by any power-driven unit.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not finished my question. I ask the noble Lord into which category does the motor-assisted pedal cycle fall? Obviously, it is not a cycle. Is it a motor cycle? The noble Lord indicates that it is. So it comes into the category of a motor cycle. That is what I wanted to know. Therefore we can take the motor-assisted cycle right out of the cycle class. But there are, I believe, somewhere in the region of 9 million to 12 million cycles. Look at the gigantic job the police will have—and already we have a depleted police force. We cannot enforce the law with regard to dangerous driving, careless driving and reckless driving in respect of motor cars, let alone do so in the case of the number of cycles we are now going to bring within the scope of police jurisdiction.

581
As I said, Clause 4 embodies the next principle. Again, I applaud the Government for at last thinking of controlling pedestrians. But how are they doing it? What they are really doing is not even playing with the problem. The Clause starts with the words:
"Where a police constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road. …"
That police constable is the only constable to whom this power is given. If a half-witted individual, male or female, wants to dash across a road, at danger to himself or herself and the traffic, and a policeman who is not controlling vehicular traffic but is walking along the pavement puts out a hand to stop him, that individual can tell the policeman to mind his own business.
Let us look at the statistics again. There were 44,750 cases in which the police say the pedestrian was a contributory factor to the accident—that is in Table 40. Just look at Table 40 and see how the 44,750 accidents were caused. We see listed: "crossing road masked by stationary vehicle," "crossing road not masked by stationary vehicle," "walking or standing in road," "heedless of traffic—playing in road," "stepping, walking or running off footpath or verge into road." Not one of those cases would come within the scope of the police constable engaged in regulating vehicular traffic. But just realise that out of the 44,750 accidents which I have mentioned, no fewer than 41,703 were accounted for by those causes. Why not give this power to all police in uniform? Why stop at the officer who is controlling traffic? So perhaps one thing we shall try to do on the Committee stage is to widen the power of the police in this respect. As I haw said, we quite agree with the principle.
On Clause 6, I want to ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I hope that he will answer it when he speaks at the end of this debate. I quite agree with the necessity of this amendment on safety conditions. I have no quarrel about that, but I want to ask the noble Lord whether I am right in my assumption that that reverses a decision of Parliament whereby utility vehicles—estate wagons, or other vehicles of that type—were relieved of the 30 miles an hour speed limit. That was done. I believe, in 1950. The instrument was the Motor
582
Vehicles Variation of Speed Limit Regulation, 1950. We did that because of the anomaly which arose; we agreed that when an estate wagon was used as a motor car and not for the carriage of the goods of the owner, it should come out of the 30 miles an hour limit. I believe that what this clause does is to put it back within that limit. It really means that every estate wagon to-day—and they are becoming one of the most popular types of motor vehicle for the private owner—will now be classified under a C licence as a goods-carrying vehicle and go back within the 30 miles an hour limit. I do not think that that is what the Government intend, and we may have something mere to say about that matter later.
There is another anomaly here. If the noble Lord will be kind enough to look at subsection 1 (b), he will see that it relates to:
"limits of speed and weight, laden and unladen, and the loading of goods vehicles. …"
I am very apprehensive about this matter, because not one commercial vehicle in a hundred—I am speaking in general terms—once it leaves the weighbridge after being weighed for the purpose of its Excise licence, is the same weight afterwards as when it went on the weighing machine. That, again, is one of the anomalies caused by our archaic method of taxation. Does the clause mean that when one of these vehicles is stopped to have its examination or on the grounds under which it can be inspected under this clause, it may be reclassified? If so, the result may be that we shall have practically every commercial vehicle in this country reclassified for taxation purposes every year. Perhaps the noble Lord will deal with that point when he speaks later on.
I come to Clause 10, and this is where we really have, in some degree, to part company. May I say again that we are at one with the noble Earl in our desire to ease congestion. I quarrel with hardly a word he said when speaking upon this clause, but I hold fundamentally the principle that the Queen's highway ought never to be used for the parking of vehicles. That is a first principle. The Queen's highway should be used for the free flow of traffic. Secondly, I am fundamentally opposed to hiring out the Queen's highway for the parking and garaging of vehicles. But even if, in the

583
cause of expediency, I have to sink both those principles—and I admit the position is so desperately serious that we have to sink some of our principles—I say that this is fundamentally the wrong way to do it.
Perhaps I may put it this way to the noble Lord: what has happened is that the Ministry have wanted to copy America without having the courage to "go the whole hog." It is no good taking one little thing out of the American system without the others. The use of parking meters on highways in America goes alongside on-the-spot fines—what was once called "pay as you err." What happens there is that when a motorist leaves his vehicle by a parking meter and it flashes a light, or squeaks, or rings a bell (I do not know the sort of parking meter the noble Earl envisages), the "cop" (I think that is the technical expression in America) comes up and says, "Five dollars," and has almost punched the receipt before he tells the motorist what it is for. This Bill will strew our roads with meters, but will do nothing to ease the position.
Clause 10 gives local authorities power to have parking meters or not, as they desire—though either way they make charges. Local authorities who have any sense will not waste their money on parking meters, because they have only one advantage (perhaps I should not say this, but we have to be truthful): the meter is more honest than a car park attendant. The time a motorist may leave his car on the average car park is measured by the amount of tip he gives the attendant. One cannot tip an automatic meter, but we can have the same trouble. This Bill gives local authorities power to institute proceedings which to-day only the police can do. But who is going to collect the evidence about the offence?—the police. Who is going to prove the offence? Suppose the noble Earl's wife is driving his car and leaves it on a parking lot, puts the money in the slot and gets a ticket, and then outstays her welcome. The owner of the car is responsible, and ownership must be proved; and the only people who are allowed to collect evidence and present it in court to-day are the police. The police will therefore have just as big a job as they have to-day with parking attendants. The only thing the Bill is doing is to strew the kerbs
584
with a lot of ridiculous devices to collect money.
Where are we going to put them? On the main highways, in Pall Mall, in Regent Street or Oxford Street, or in residential areas? Would the noble Earl like the front of his house adorned with a parking meter? If cars are parked in echelon, there will be a meter every seven feet; and if they are parked end to end there will be one every six to eight yards. If we are to have cars parked radiator to tail, we are going to waste a great deal of space. They will, therefore, have to be parked in echelon, and along the streets and residential neighbourhoods at every seven feet there will be one of these wretched meters. It is not necessary unless the Government are going to adopt the whole of the American system. If the Government have made up their minds that they are going to have on-street parking, and are going to charge for on-street parking, what I would say is: put people in charge of it, and pay them a wage to be honest. Do not let them be at the mercy of having to pick up tips. But certainly there is no need for parking meters.
The noble Earl says the charge imposed for these parking lots will be paid into a special fund. That is "where we came in." As the noble Earl was speaking about this matter, I saw the ghost of Lloyd George stalk through your Lordships' House. That is what he thought. He thought he was going to have a special tax on motorists to provide the roads; but that was not proof against impecunious Chancellors of the Exchequer, the first being the gentleman who happened to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926. If the Government are going to use this as a revenue-earning fund which is supposed to be earmarked for a special purpose I would ask noble Lords for how long in the fiscal history of this country has any fund ever escaped the clutches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, eventually to find its way into the national revenue. If noble Lords are bent on this scheme, I would say: do not try it in London. I suggest that that is about the worst place in which to try it. Go to a town or city in the provinces where they have at least some off-street parking.
A NOBLE LORD: Abingdon.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, I should not say that; I should say a town of about 100,000 inhabitants, where the experiment can be given a good test. I very much hope, however, that the Government will have second thoughts about this clause, because all it does is to provide an excuse for indolent local authorities, whose duty is should be to provide off-street parking but who will go in for parking meters and hire the streets out, so that the traffic situation will be more confused and worse confounded. I ask the Government seriously to look at this matter again. We will give the noble Earl what help we can. We admit that this problem has to be solved, and we admit that we may have to have street parking and have to charge for it; but I think we may be able to suggest that there are certain streets, right the way through the country, which should never be subjected to parking.
I am afraid that I am detaining your Lordships, but this is such an important subject that there is a great deal to be discussed. I have mentioned the four main principles, and I should like now to deal with some minor ones. I would ask the noble Earl by what process of reasoning he comes to the conclusion that increasing the maximum penalties will make the roads safer. I should like to know that, because I say, here and now, that if the existing maximum penalties for speeding, for driving without due care and attention, for dangerous driving and for driving under the influence of liquor were imposed, there wood be no reed for any increase in the penalties. When I was at the Ministry of Transport I lived through the era of the agitation for the increase of maximum penalties and for fixing minimum, as well as maximum, penalties. I personally did not want to increase maximum penalties, and I always wonder why they should be increased when the penalties which Parliament has already fixed are nowhere reached.
I am going to give your Lordships some staggering figures. What I am about to say I say with a full sense of responsibility. If there is one single factor which has added to the road accident casualty list in this country it is the dilatoriness of the magistrates who have failed utterly and completely to carry out the will of Parliament. I will tell your Lordships why I
586
say that. In the present legislation the maximum penalty for exceeding the speed limit on a first offence is £20, and on a second offence £50. Out of 4½ million motor vehicles in 1952 there were only 87,345 convictions for speeding, and the average fine was £2 3s.—noble Lords can get these figures from the Home Office statistics. For driving without due care and attention, again the maximum penalty on a first offence is £20 and on a second offence £50. There were 22,305 convictions, and the average fine was £3 17s. For dangerous driving, on a first offence the maximum penalty is £50 or four months' imprisonment, and on a second offence £100 or four months' imprisonment and disqualification. There were only 3,237 convictions treated by fine, and the average fine was £10 10s. For driving under the influence of drink or drugs, the penalty for a first offence is £50 or four months, or both, and on a second offence £100 or four months, or both. There were only 2,099 convictions in the year 1952, and the average fine was £19 15s.
When we come to disqualifications, we find that less than one-third of those convicted of dangerous driving had their licences suspended, and some of those were second offenders, where the suspension was automatic. Of those found guilty of careless driving, totalling 23,201, only 678, or 3 per cent., had their licences suspended; and the suspension of a licence for that type of offence was solely in the jurisdiction and at the consent of the magistrates. These are farcical figure. When Parliament in their wisdom have said that these should be the maximum fines that can be enforced, surely a process of arithmetical reasoning would demand that the average fine should be half-way between the two—zero and maximum.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord a question, not because I criticise what he is saying. He has given the figures for convictions, and he has given the figures for cars upon the road. He did not give the figures of prosecutions. He will see what I mean, and I think it is important. Suppose it turned out that there were a large number of prosecutions and few convictions, then that would be a strengthening of his case. But if it were found that there were few prosecutions, it might mean merely that those applied to

587
speeding offences, and it might mean that people kept within the speed limit.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I speak from memory, but I do not think it gives that figure. It gives only convictions, either where a fine or a prison sentence is imposed. I quote these from official figures. I thought they were the best figures to give to your Lordships, because these are the cases where the magistrates convicted and said that an offence had been committed. If we in this country have built up our social system and our legal system upon the firm principle that punishment for wrongdoing is a deterrent to wrongdoing, then the punishment imposed should be a deterrent; and nobody can say that the average fines that I have given to your Lordships have proved to be any deterrent. They have proved to be a deterrent to the police to bring cases, because up and down the country, on speaking to chief constables, one hears: "What is the good of trying to enforce the law when your officers kick their heels in the waiting rooms of police courts, and after the case has been heard the offenders go away with a small fine? That is no deterrent at all."
I hope the noble Lord will tell us what has been the argument for increasing the maximum fines. I will agree that the case is made out for a greater suspension of licences, but I expect that noble and learned Lords will argue that if you try to put any minimum penalty you will fail to get convictions. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is powerless in this matter: he has power to appoint magistrates and he has power to dismiss magistrates; but he has no power whatsoever to tell a magistrate how he shall administer the law, unless the magistrate is perverse. On these figures, I would say that many magistrates are perverse. Be that as it may, I want to know why we are increasing the maximum fines. Will it prove any greater deterrent?
Those are the major points that I wish to make. Noble Lords on this side will, of course, try to help in this legislation. We are considering a number of suggestions that could be covered by this Bill. I know that the Minister of Transport is anxious to see whether something cannot be done about abnormal loads, and it may well be that it can be done within
588
the compass of this Bill. Possibly we can do something about straying dogs that cause over 2,000 accidents a year; and we may be able to do quite a good deal on the clause about the contract carriage, which I think needs careful consideration. I hope the noble Earl will rest assured of this: that we are at one with him in trying to do these things. It is not as to the end, but perhaps as to the means to that end where we may have some slight difference of opinion. I began by giving the Bill a welcome. I have wearied your Lordships for longer than I intended, but I wanted to put the facts as I see them to your Lordships, so that each and every one of you can help to improve the Bill. I take it as a great compliment to the legislative abilities of your Lordships' House that this Bill should be introduced here. Let it go from this House a credit to us and an earnest of our intention to do something to ease a terrific problem which has been forced upon the Government by existing conditions, and in which they have my sympathy.

THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
3.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to interrupt the debate to make a statement which I think your Lordships may wish to hear. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is laying before both Houses to-day as a White Paper the text of an Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community which was signed this morning between Her Majesty's Government, on the one hand, and the Governments of the States members of the Community and the High Authority of the Community on the other. This Agreement establishes a Standing Council of Association composed of four representatives of the United Kingdom Government of whom at least one will, whenever possible, be a member of the Government, and four representatives of the High Authority of whom at least three will, whenever possible, be members of the High Authority. In view of the powers and responsibilities which have been conferred by law upon the National Coal Board and the Iron and Steel Board, the representatives of the United Kingdom Government on the

589
Council of Association will include one member of each of these Boards.
The function of the Council of Association will be to provide means for continuous consultation in regard to matters of mutual interest relating to coal and steel. It will also provide for appropriate consultation in regard to the co-ordination of action, to deal with these matters, consistent with the international obligations of the parties concerned. The Council of Association will also examine restrictions and other factors affecting normal trade in coal and steel between the two areas, with a view to making such proposals for their reduction or elimination as may be agreed for the mutual benefit of the United Kingdom and the Community. The Agreement also provides for special meetings in which the United Kingdom Government will meet with the Council of Ministers of the Community. The High Authority will participate fully in these meetings.
Due regard will be paid to the interests of consumers as well as of producers of coal and steel, to the interest of third countries and to the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth. The Agreement will remain in force for the duration of the Treaty setting up the Community. I trust that this new arrangement will help to promote a growing association between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community which will contribute to our common prosperity and to the unity of Europe.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lord, I wish to thank the noble Marquess for the important statement which he has made and which I feel will be generally welcomed by all Members of the House. Of course, we have not yet got the White Paper before us to study, but the Agreement as summarised by the noble Marquess will, I think, give great satisfaction. I was particularly interested in the last paragraph, in which there is a reference to a contribution to our common prosperity and the unity of Europe. I feel that the Agreement will be particularly welcomed by member States of the Community, and that they will probably regard this as additional evidence of the determination of this country to play a
590
full part in the development of European unity to which we all attach so much importance.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, give his support to this Bill. I, too, give it my support, though I am afraid that I am not very impressed by some of the proposals in it. This Bill has no doubt been introduced to promote road safety, and to relieve the congestion of traffic on our roads; and in so far as it is an attempt to meet these twin problems I, of course, welcome it. But I would point out that some of the clauses which may be likely to require amendment are merely enabling clauses, and without further details of the intention of the Government it is difficult to appreciate their full meaning.
May I draw your Lordships' attention for a moment to Clause 1 of the Bill. I think it is true to say that the motoring organisations in the country are entirely in sympathy with the object of this clause—as I am—which is to establish a system for testing the roadworthiness of vehicles. On the other hand, I should be strongly against any compulsory system, which would be most expensive to operate. Surely, there are other alternatives that might be considered. So far as I am aware, no serious effort has been made to encourage owners to submit their vehicles to a test, and I was interested to hear from the Minister to-day that a voluntary pilot station would be instituted as a first step. That, of course, is all to the good; but I cannot help feeling that advantage could be taken of the fact that owners are required to produce an insurance certificate before a licence is issued.
At the present time, it is the practice of a number of insurance companies, before a policy is issued, to require evidence of roadworthiness in respect of old cars. Incidentally, is quite common, as many of your Lordships know, for the motoring organisations to carry out examinations of vehicles on behalf of the owner. I think it should also be remembered, as

591
was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the police already have power to stop and examine vehicles upon the road. I am afraid that I cannot give him any figures of instances where that has been done. I know that there have been cases, but they have been comparatively infrequent. I suggest that a link-up with the insurance companies, allied to a system of voluntary examination, would go a long way to achieve the results desired.
In these days we cannot contemplate the establishment of another large Civil Service to control the examination and issue of certificates for motor cars and maintain a vast number of State-controlled testing stations. We simply cannot visualise such a thing. According to the Report of the Committee on Road Safety in 1947, the cost of establishing a sufficient number of testing, stations would be in the region of £15 million, and no doubt at the present time would be upwards of some £20 million. The proposals in this clause envisage the testing of all motor vehicles. I wonder whether it is fully realised that if the inspections were carried out every twelve months, over five million would be involved. I have little doubt that, in introducing these proposals, the Minister of Transport, as he has mentioned through his Minister acting for him to-day, has been influenced by the reports which he has received from America. It is certainly not true that vehicle inspection is universal in the United States, as I have seen stated in the Press. Only thirteen States out of the forty-three have, in fact, adopted it, and some of them have already abandoned it because they were not satisfied with the results it set out to achieve. It is interesting to note that in some States the inspection station is State-owned, while in others certain vehicle repair stations have been appointed. Neither of these two courses has proved very satisfactory. The appointment of garages and private repair stations, in particular, has been found, for obvious reasons, to be open to abuse. I can assure Her Majesty's Government that the motoring organisations would be opposed to the appointment of privately owned testing stations because of the possibility of abuse at the expense of the motorist.
May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it really is their intention to in 592
clued goods vehicles? I am not clear on that point, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has pointed out, under Sections 17 and 18 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, statutory requirements are already in force for the maintenance of goods vehicles in a serviceable condition. It may be that Clause 4 (b) of Clause 1 of this Bill is to apply. I do not know, and I hope that we may have some information on this point. Another type of vehicle which does not require further provision for examination is the hackney carriage and the good old taxicab, which are licensed by the local authority. I do ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this clause again, and to consult with the motoring and insurance organisations before the next stage of the Bill, to see what can be done to arrive at a workable plan, as I believe can be done.
I would now turn to Clause 2 of the Bill, which makes provision for the removal of vehicles from the road if they are causing obstruction. I say at once that if the intention of this clause is to enable the police to remove vehicles which are causing actual obstruction, I give it my full support. On the other hand, I suggest that the word "obstruction," if construed with the existing law, is capable of a very wide meaning indeed. It would, in fact, enable the police to remove vehicles which might be causing no serious obstacle to other traffic. I would therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this clause again.
Clause 6, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, appears to nullify a decision of a Divisional Court, which ruled that a utility vehicle was not restricted to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit when not carrying goods. There may be the difficulty of definition, but surely it is not impossible to find a proper definition distinguishing utility cars from goods vehicles. That may not be the reason for the Divisional Court decision, but I rather suspect that it is. In view of the popularity of this type of vehicle, I think something must be done in this direction, and that the decision of the Divisional Court should not be reversed. Clause 7 has the primary object of preventing holders of provisional licences from continuing to drive under them without making any serious attempt to pass the driving test. This practice has, I think, been most common among

593
motor-cyclists, for obvious reasons. No doubt, it should be modified, but the provisions of this clause are very vague. How, for instance, is the licensing authority to be satisfied whether or not the applicant intends to submit himself for a test? Also, is the applicant to have no right of appeal when an authority has decided that he had no intention of carrying out a test? Surely there should be a right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction.
Turning to Clause 9, I understand that the intention of this clause is to make permanent a general speed limit of 30 m.p.h. in all built-up areas, instead of having them renewed annually by Parliament. I will not deal with that particular point, but I feel that the time has now come when all further extensions of the 30 m.p.h. limit on trunk and classified roads, when justified by the creation of new built-up areas, should be by order subject to confirmation by the Minister of Transport. I also suggest that the installation of new street lighting systems should no longer carry with it the automatic restriction of a trunk and classified road. In some cases roads to which the 30 m.p.h. speed limit has never applied have become restricted by the installation of street lamps, although the character of the road may not have changed at all.
I come next to Clauses 10–14, which deal with parking on the highway and the installation of the parking meter. I suggest that we should be quite clear in our minds that the installation of parking meters, or the making of a charge for parking on the highway, will not increase the space available for parking. On the other hand, if the intention of Clause 14 (3) (b) is that local authorities are to use funds received from parking charges for the provision of underground and aboveground car parks, then I personally am prepared to accept parking meters for experimental purposes.
I would remind your Lordships that in the Report of the recent Working Party on Parking, published in 1953, it was clearly laid down that parking meters should be used experimentally when, but only when, provision was made for additional parking space. This additional space has not yet been provided. So far as I am aware, no start has yet been made to provide the additional space for these cars. It appears that the proposals
594
in this Bill for a charge for parking on the highway are not restricted to the central areas of large towns where congestion is acute, but could be applied to the highway where congestion is not acute. There is a real danger that seaside resorts, for instance, may obtain powers by local legislation to secure the revenue from parking meters for general rate purposes. That might well happen. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether these provisions apply to commercial road users. Those users will certainly not welcome the suggestion that they must carry further substantial financial burdens in order to obtain parking places on the highways merely to uplift or deliver goods and passengers.
Your Lordships have noted that Clause 15 increases the penalties for certain driving offences. I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said concerning these provisions. We all know that there is a school of thought which cries out for heavier penalties. But what are the facts? How often is the present maximum penalty imposed, as the noble Lord has said? I notice that it is intended to increase the maximum penalty for a first offender exceeding the speed limit from £20 to £30. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, gave some figures in connection with dangerous driving. I wonder whether it is realised that the average penalty imposed for the offence of speeding at the present time is something less than 50s. I cannot see how an increase in the maximum penalty can benefit the position in any way whatsoever. I cannot help feeling that in some ways it is another little "dig" at the motorist. If it is intended that the average penalty should be increased, surely this is a matter for the magistrates and the Home Office. It is also proposed in Clause 15 that, on a second conviction for exceeding the speed limit, disqualification from driving can be imposed. I should have no objection to this provision if it were limited to cases where the driver had on his record a current endorsement, but, as the clause is drawn at present, it would mean that a man, say, fifty years old, who thirty years ago was convicted of exceeding the speed limit, might find himself punished for the sins of his youth. That does not make sense to me. I hope that Her Majesty's

595
Government will look a little more closely at the drafting of this clause.
There is yet another inconsistency in this Clause 15. There is a provision that if a driver is convicted for driving under the influence of drink he shall automatically be obliged to face a driving test. A driving test, I would say, is a test of competence to drive, and not a form of punishment; and I am very surprised that such an inconsistency should have crept into this Bill. I think it is a pity that the Minister of Transport did not take the great motoring organisations, through their Joint Standing Committee (of which I have the honour to be Chairman) and the National Road Transport Federation (of which I am President) more into his confidence before drafting this Bill. I must say that I do not think it has been very well thought out; it could have been greatly improved if experts in these matters had been consulted. I certainly welcome the Bill as an attempt to promote road safety and solve the problems of traffic congestion on our highways, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be willing to consider a number of Amendments which I feel it will be necessary to make to this Bill in order to make it a workable measure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me now to give the House the figures which I could not find earlier. It is estimated that there were 9,150,000 cyclists of sixteen years of age and over and 12 million cyclists of all ages. That was the figure that I could not find when I wanted to give it to your Lordships in the middle of my speech.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Twelve million—and what was the other figure?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is estimated that there were 9,150,000 cyclists sixteen years old and over.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: And the total number is 12 million. So there are quite a number of cyclists of sixteen and under.
4.18 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence on this occasion, the first time that it has been my privilege and honour to address your
596
Lordships. I believe that in the main the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House is an extremely good and constructive Road Traffic Bill, but I feel that it does not go nearly far enough towards tackling the problem of the vast number of accidents that happen nowadays. I should like to mention, first of all, one or two criticisms that I have of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the removal from the highway of vehicles that are causing an obstruction or are a danger. Any vehicle, whether a lorry or even a hand dust-cart, when parked on a main road is a cause of grave danger. I feel strongly that this clause should be extended to prohibit any vehicle whatsoever from being parked on a main road outside the 30 miles per hour limit. I often nearly come to grief through stationary vehicles, and I am informed that in fact they are a frequent cause of accidents.
It is almost always possible for a driver to get his vehicle off the road when he wants to stop, unless he is stopping to obey a signal; and if his vehicle breaks down it is usually possible for him to push it off the road through a gateway or on to a verge. It is at any rate possible for the driver of a lorry to get his co-driver to go about a hundred yards along the road to warn oncoming vehicles, particularly if he has broken down round a corner. I am convinced that such an extension to the clause would not only be workable but would reduce the number of accidents, particularly on the faster roads. An exception could possibly be made for delivery vans in cases where they are unable to deliver other than directly from the main road; but this would be the case only where houses are immediately on the road, which in itself would give warning to oncoming motorists to expect vans and other vehicles of that type to be parked on the road.
I welcome Clause 5, which deals with pedestrian crossings. Many pedestrians in towns are knocked down by reason of their walking out from parked vehicles into the path of oncoming traffic. Railings along the middle of the roads have proved extremely effective in reducing the number of accidents, by channelling pedestrians into proper crossing places. I should like to see a far more liberal use of this device, particularly in busy streets.

597
An alternative is to have railings along the side of the pavements. Though successful to a degree, they have their own dangers in allowing people to run outside them to catch their buses. In narrow streets motorists are also discouraged from parking their cars alongside the railings. Some streets—I am thinking of one in particular—have so many accidents that, starting with a clean sheet at the beginning of the year, after only six months there is no room on the police map of the streets to stick in another accident flag. I wonder whether the painting on the roadway of these worst streets of a red circle at the scene of every accident would make pedestrians realise how many accidents there had been, would make them choose much more carefully the moment at which to step off the pavement and would reduce the number of casualties.
Clause 8 is a good clause. It is remarkable how few people know the procedure for crossing a zebra crossing, in spite of the publicity given to the matter comparatively recently in the Press. I am sure that money spent on road safety publicity would be well spent. I should like to see short films made which would illustrate one or two different features of bad road craft and which could be shown regularly in cinemas throughout the country. I can find no enthusiasm for that part of Clause 10 which deals with parking meters. The motorist already pays far more in tax than he gets back, and I do not see why he should have to pay to park in the street in order to reimburse the local authorities for the cost of providing alternative parking spaces which could well pay for themselves. I foresee what has already been mentioned—namely, parking meters reaching out into the provinces, and eventually the profits from them not being used any longer to pay for new parking spaces. I hope, however, that if parking meters are introduced they will be directed against the long-term parker, and that the person who parks just to carry out some shopping will not be charged; otherwise it will get to a stage where one would have to put sixpence in a meter in order to stop just to buy a packet of cigarettes.
My Lords, a policeman spends a large part of his time in court. I understand that it was no exception when, the other day, I and the policeman concerned as witnesses to an accident spent from ten
598
in the morning to four in the afternoon waiting for our case to be called. Could not the system of "on the spot" fining be introduced for certain offences, to reduce the number of police man-hours spent in court? I understand that that has proved a very successful method in many other countries. My final point is that many drivers who have had accidents have been driving badly for years but have just "got away with it" up to now. Would not a compulsory driving test for all drivers who have been involved in an accident find out those bad drivers, many of whom have never taken a test in their lives, and would it not help to maintain a higher standard of driving on the roads? I have no doubt that in a very short time there would be many fewer vehicles on the roads, and I should not object to the use by local authorities of any surplus from the charge for these tests towards providing new parking spaces instead of parking meters.
4.27 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sure that I am only saying what we all feel, that the noble Lord who has just spoken has made an extremely good maiden speech. He has put forward some constructive and novel ideas, ideas to which I feel sure noble Lords on the Front Bench will pay attention and do all that they clan to bring into force. If I may, I would just give the noble Lord, whom I wish to congratulate most sincerely on his very able speech, a word of warning for the future. With the best spirit in the world, he will find that, whenever he feels the urge to speak in this House, some people will come to him and say, "Do you really want to speak? Are you so sure that you must speak?" I will not say where these people come from, but it is a practice that is carried out; and I suffer a great deal from it. I would say to the noble Lord that, if he really feels that he must speak, and wants to speak, let him pay no attention to these people.
As your Lordships heard me speak only two days ago for over half an hour, I propose to let you off to-day with a very short speech. So far nobody has touched on the subject of the lights on cars. I have ventured on this matter before in your Lordships' House. Why do we not adopt what the French do, and have our car headlights covered with yellow paint or yellow paper, which

599
entirely does away with dazzle? Admittedly, it may mean that the traffic cannot go quite so fast, because drivers do not see so far in front of them, but it makes a considerable difference to traffic coming in the opposite direction. So much has been said in regard to Clause 2 that I do not propose to weary your Lordships any more with it. Clause 3 deals with cyclists. How often have your Lordships driven along the roads and found cyclists (who, I understand, are not supposed to ride more than two abreast) riding three or four abreast? One can hoot as much as one likes, but they will not pay the slightest attention. I think some rather serious punishment could be provided in regard to that matter, which might have the effect of making cyclists adhere to the rules.
Now I come to Clause 8, in regard to which my feelings are very much like those of my noble friend who has just sat down. How many people read the rules? How many people know about the Highway Code? Do they know where to get it? I should like to see some money spent in ensuring that a pamphlet of some sort, a comprehensive document, is issued and distributed to every house and to every family, because I believe that there are thousands of people now driving cars who have never seen the Code at all. I hope that that may be done, because I believe that it would help people to understand the dangers they are running in some of the things they do. On Clause 9, I only hope that the present speed limit will be enforced. Every day when one drives within the 30 m.p.h. limit one finds another driver hooting from behind and going past at 50 m.p.h. That happened to me this morning and happens nearly every morning when I drive to my station. At some "Halt" signs, too, people pay no attention, and I should like some really severe penalty for those who ignore the regulations in this respect.
In regard to Clause 15 I would say (not for the first time) that it is useless merely to fine people. Many people do not mind paying fines. Let people pay the first time, but the second time give them hard labour. That is the only way to stop offences. A noble Lord looks horrified at the idea, but if he had been caught driving to the danger of the public, or driving
600
under the influence of drink (although of course I do not suggest such a thing), and had been fined for that offence, he would, if he repeated it, show that he had either forgotten the fine or that he did not mind paying a fine. I believe that no one would like a prison sentence, and I would give these people three months' hard labour, irrespective of who they were. Although I have never yet done it, I am told that hard labour is pretty tough.
A NOBLE LORD: It has been abolished.
LORD TEVIOT: Oh, has it been abolished? Then I would ask the noble Earl who speaks for Her Majesty's Government immediately to put it back for these offences.
I come now to the question of speed on the roads. I very much doubt whether it is a good thing to improve the roads so that motorists may drive faster. It appears to me that the cause of many road accidents is that people are going too fast in places where they ought to be going a great deal slower. There are even within the 30 m.p.h. limit, places where one ought not to drive at more than ten miles an hour. There should be grave thought over the wisdom of altering and strengthening roads to enable people to travel faster. I do a fair amount of motoring and find the roads extraordinarily good. Admittedly, there are blind corners, but if one takes them at a reasonable pace, taking care to keep well over to the proper side of the road, there is no danger. If such bends are made less difficult, people will only take them much faster. As I promised, I will detain your Lordships no longer but will congratulate my noble friend on his magnificent speech and will relieve your Lordships from listening to me further.
4.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like very warmly to associate noble Lords on this side of the House with what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, on his admirable maiden speech, admirable both in subject matter and brevity. Speeches by younger Members of your Lordships' House are all the more welcome because they are rare, and we very much hope that the noble Lord may be able to help us again on future occasions. I believe that all noble Lords

601
would like this Bill to be made the most effective instrument possible for dealing with the two great national problems to which the noble Earl, Lork Selkirk, referred in his opening speech—road safety and traffic congestion. I will try to keep to an assurance that I have already given to a certain noble Lord and speak extremely briefly on one aspect of the second of these problems, traffic congestion.
The aspect with which I wish particularly to deal is traffic congestion in the streets of London. I think noble Lords will agree that, although this may be a local problem, from the point of view of expense, inconvenience and delay there is no place anywhere in the country where the problem is more serious, or where traffic congestion is worse, than in London. I believe that this Bill offers an opportunity of proceeding a step further towards the solution of this problem. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to make sure that this step is taken, and that the appalling congestion in Central London at the present time is not prolonged by any unnecessary delay in seeking a more effective remedy.
Noble Lords will remember that the Working Party on Car Parking in London, which reported in 1953, recommended a threefold plan to reduce the number of cars waiting in the London streets and thereby free the flow of traffic. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the three parts of the plan which make the whole: an improved system of waiting restrictions, the introduction of charges, by means of parking meters, for street parking, and the building of garages below and above the street level. Those three parts of the original plan Her Majesty's Government have accepted in principle. The Minister has already tightened up waiting restrictions in London and the Bill will give him power to authorise local authorities to make charges for parking in the streets. Action has, therefore, already been taken, or shortly will be taken, to implement the first two recommendations in the Working Party's Report. The third part of the plan (which must be taken as a whole if substantial relief is to be afforded), the building of new garages in or near he centre of London, is not directly referred to in the Bill as it stands. The noble Earl did not mention this important subject in his opening speech, but I hope that the
602
noble Lord who is to wind up this debate may refer to it.
I do not for one moment blame Her Majesty's Government for this omission. I know as well as the noble Earl opposite does how long any negotiations with local authorities are apt to take. I am not making any reproach at all so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, but I believe that there will be no great improvement in London until we have the additional parking space off the streets which these garages will provide. I know that the noble Earl opposite agrees with me on that. I am afraid we shall not get this additional parking space unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give London authorities the powers and assistance they will require in order to build these new garages, whether above or below ground. Careful consideration has been given to the possibility of allowing private enterprise to do the job, but it has been shown that this work cannot be done on a commercial basis, and the experience of a big firm like Lex Garages has already proved this point in London. I believe that I am speaking for local authorities in London in expressing the hope that this operation of constructing many-storeyed garages above the ground and, if necessary—and probably later on—other garages under the surface of London, will be carried out in close and friendly co-operation between the Ministry and the local authorities in all the areas affected. I am sure Her Majesty's Government will share that hope. That is an essential condition of success.
So far as the London County Council are concerned—and I should like to make this plain now, because I believe that it may be useful for Her Majesty's Government to take this matter into consideration at the earliest possible moment—there is no unwillingness at all on their part to take their fair share of responsibility in this joint enterprise. The London County Council accept in principle the proposal that they should undertake the construction and operation of multi-storey garages; but their acceptance in principle must be subject to certain conditions, without which this work cannot be successfully carried out. I hope that the Government will agree that these conditions which the Council have in mind are fair and reasonable. Perhaps

603
I may be allowed to mention them, because they have a direct bearing not only on the broad problem but on the Bill.
In the first place, it is obviously desirable that there should be agreement between the metropolitan boroughs of London and the London County Council about the exercise of their concurrent powers. At the moment, these powers in relation to garages are exercised only by the metropolitan boroughs, but there is no reason to suppose that the boroughs would object if the Minister were to give similar powers to the London County Council. It is clearly desirable that this should be done with the consent and agreement of all local authorities concerned, and this particular matter is one that can be settled without reference to the Bill. But the other matters, to which I shall briefly refer, and which the London County Council regard as vital to the success of the scheme in London, are all matters which will require fresh legislation. That is why I wish to direct the attention of the Government to them at this early stage in the consideration of the Bill.
The first is procedural; I mention it only briefly. The complexity and dilatoriness of the procedure now involved when the Council wish to acquire or use land as parking space would be a very serious obstacle to the provision of these garages. The existing procedure is the same whether the land is in or off the streets. That, I think, is in itself a reason for reconsideration of this particular procedure. The Council take the view that if this scheme is to be carried out—as it will be carried out—by the local authorities in the London area, with the assistance of the Government, there must be some measure of simplification of this complicated statutory procedure.
The other matters relate to the financing of this operation. If it is impossible—and experience indicates that it will be—for garages of this type to pay their own way, the most difficult problem will be that of finding the means for dealing with the financial loss involved. One way of reducing the deficit, of course, would be through the provision of ancillary services, such as shops, showrooms, petrol stations and repair facilities, in addition to the parking spaces and new garages. But the powers in relation to garages which are already available,
604
under existing legislation, to local authorities do not cover the provision of these ancillary services which I have just mentioned. The Council would therefore like additional powers for this purpose to be included in the Bill, so that they are made available at the time the garages are constructed. Of course, such powers would be equally desirable if the metropolitan boroughs were to undertake this work in addition to, or in place of, the London County Council.
But even if the income from the running of these multi-storey garages was increased by these ancillary services, and, in addition, there was a slight surplus—which is hinted at in the Bill—from the use of parking meters and the charges made for parking in the streets, even if all these factors on the credit side were added together, the Council are of opinion that these garages would still not be self-supporting. It has been calculated that charges ranging from 6s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. a day would have to be made for each car if a loss was to be avoided. Such charges, obviously, would be unreasonable from the point of view of motorists, and would have the effect of making the long-term man—the man waiting for a day or for a large part of a day—leave his car in the street, which is the reverse of what we want. But if such charges as the Working Party recommend in their Report were made (they mention charges of from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a day for each parked car), it would mean a loss on each garage of about £25,000 a year.
While the council are not averse to making some contribution towards this loss from the London rates, they feel that the main bulk of it should be borne by the Exchequer. It will be generally agreed that the London traffic problem is a national, rather than a local, problem. London is the metropolis of the Commonwealth, as well as the capital of the country. It is the shop window of the country for visiting foreigners. The London traffic problem is a matter that is much larger than a local problem; and, if that is the case, the main responsibility for its solution must rest with the Government. Indeed, this principle is already recognised in the 75 per cent. grant paid by the Exchequer towards street improvements in London. The London County Council hope (they do not hope for anything fresh) that the

605
same principle will be applied in dealing with any deficit that may result from the construction and use of these garages, as they are an essential part in the complete plan. I very much hope that the Government will be willing to co-operate, and in conclusion I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply two questions. The first is whether the Government would be willing to enter into negotiations with the London County Council on the basis of what I have just said, and the second is whether, if these negotiations reach the stage of agreement—which is what we all hope—the Government will be willing to introduce an appropriate Amendment into the Bill.
4.47 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I quite agree that the time has come for another Road Traffic Bill, but I do not think very much of this one. Of course, it is the Government's Bill. It is a poor thing, but their own, and they have got to carry it through. I am glad I am not at the Box in charge of it. I consider that, the Bill lacks imagination, and that it is rather reactionary and wholly unintelligible. With a Bill of this sort, it is very important that everyone should understand exactly what is in it. Certainly no one can do that in the case of this Bill. I say that for this reason. When you come to the matter of offences, it is about the only side of life in which the ordinary man in the street comes into contact with the police. Therefore he should know exactly what he must do and what he must avoid. At the present time, the complexity of the regulations and the difficulties of knowing what one has to do and what one has not to do are immense, and the courts are crowded. I can speak only from my own experience. I was up before a stipendiary magistrate, and there were thirty-four cases before mine. The only thing the magistrate was interested in doing was in getting through the cases. I was not even allowed to question witnesses. That is against the fundamental idea of English justice. And that sort of thing is going on up and down the country. What is so dangerous is this. The poor man, who has probably parked or done something quite insignificant but against the regulations, goes into court and comes away and says to himself: "If that is the way a burglar is convicted, well I think very little of the police and
606
of the justice of this country." That is why we should be very careful what we do in a Bill of this sort.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I dislike interrupting the noble Lord but I wish to ask him this. When he was before the magistrate, did he plead "Guilty" or "Not guilty"?
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I was not guilty; of course I was not.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly aware that he could have cross-examined every witness there until the cows came home.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: That is what I am trying to convey to your Lordships. I thought I had the right to ask questions of witnesses but I was not allowed to do it because the magistrate was in a hurry. That is the sort of thing that is going on to-day.
Would your Lordships turn to Clause 16. I will try to read it as intelligently as I can. It says:
"In calculating the period for which under the Act of 1930 or the Act of 1934 a person is disqualified on a conviction or by an order made in consequence of a conviction or the time after which under section seven of the Act of 1930 a person may apply for the removal of such a disqualification, any time after the conviction during which he was not disqualified shall be disregarded."
It is pure Greek, except to the lawyer. I agree that it is explained in the preamble, but if it were not for the explanation in the preamble, nobody could possibly understand what it meant. I ask that this sort of thing should be redrafted. It is a drafter's dream, but to the ordinary citizen it is a nightmare. I object to the Government's putting themselves in the position of the cricketer who complained because he was sent in in the middle of a hat trick. They rather take the view that all the blame is on the motorist and not on them. Of course, an enormous amount of blame is upon Government, never mind of what Party, for not improving our roads up and down the country. The Government, so to speak, turn upon the motorist and now try to increase the penalties, for no reason at all that I can discover. Is it really the opinion of the Ministry of Transport that somebody is going to start at nine o'clock in the morning in his car, resolved to drive more carefully

607
because the penalties have gone up from £20 to £30? Is that really the idea? Because it is absolutely false psychologically. It is basically wrong.
I quite agree that offences such as those the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke about, like reckless driving, cannot be punished severely enough. I entirely agree with that. But your Lordships have to remember that the offence of speeding, of going over 30 miles an hour, is nothing else but a technical offence. A motorist is caught doing over 30 miles an hour only on roads where it does not matter. That is one of the reasons why almost all speed limits are invariably wrong. There are many cases of dangerous driving under 30 miles an hour, but the motorist has justification for going over 30 miles an hour because he is told he can do so. The Labour Government were very sound when they did away with the speed limit altogether in the 1930 Act and relied upon prohibition of dangerous driving, A motorist can drive just as dangerously at 20 miles an hour as at 70; yet we have given the motorist the idea that he can go at 30 miles an hour and, so long as he is within that limit, it is almost impossible to prosecute him for dangerous driving.
I must say that I am very annoyed with Clause 15. It is quite unintelligible. One has to go to the 1930 Act to know what it is all about. It refers to the offence of driving "without care and attention"—that is rather a good offence, because I remember I introduced it myself. It is half way between dangerous driving and exceeding the speed limit. A motorist is usually summoned under that clause when he misinterprets the directions of a policeman. I am not saying that policemen are not crystal clear generally, but often they are not, and people are prosecuted under that clause when they are perfectly good, honest citizens. Now I see that for a second offence of that kind a motorist can be put into gaol. It seems to me exceedingly severe.
What I should like to see in this Bill are some amendments of the old Acts. Some of the clauses and penalties have been tightened up, but in the old Act of the Labour Party there was no speed limit, as noble Lords will remember. Then the Government brought in the 1934
608
Bill, and I should like to remind your Lordships of what many people forget, the opening words of that Bill. They were:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall not be lawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle on a road in a built up area at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour between the hours of five in the morning and midnight."
In other words, it was the Government policy of the day that there should be no speed limit between midnight and five in the morning. Your Lordships threw out that arrangement, which was made in another place, but I never can see the reason why it was thrown out. There are no accidents at that time of the night. If your Lordships will look at the records you will see that the accident curve goes down absolutely to zero, and if a driver is summoned for going over thirty miles an hour during that time, I say plainly that he was caught only by way of a trick. There are times of the day when it is very important that motorists should go slowly—when people are going to work and when children are on the road going to school. Speed should be varied according to conditions pertaining at the time. But it is absolutely absurd that on a broad road in a suburb of London a motorist can be trapped at three o'clock in the morning for going at thirty-five miles an hour. I should like to see us going back to what was decided in another place on the 1934 Bill.
I wish to say a word about that very difficult subject, drunkenness. If noble Lords will look at the 1930 Act they will see that the question of drunkenness comes up in Section 15. It says there:
"Any person who when driving or attempting to drive, or when in charge of, a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is under the influence of drink or a drug …"
I could not be more enthusiastic on the severest penalties in the world for people who go upon the road intoxicated. Everybody agrees with that. But these words "or when in charge of" are causing great injustices up and down the country. The sort of thing which has occurred is this. A man goes out to a party, perfectly sober. At the party he may drink too much, and he comes to the conclusion that he is not fit to drive back. He sits in the back of his car and gives his ignition key to somebody else. He is prosecuted for being in charge of that motor car. That is a travesty of justice;

609
and, what is more, it is an encouragement to the man to drive when he has made the sound resolution in his mind that he is not capable of driving. This Act, as it is worded, encourages a man to get into a motor car and try to drive when he knows perfectly well that he should not. At some stage I should like to see the words "or when in charge of" deleted from the Act, because it is a definite encouragement to people to drive when they should not.
There is one other point which I should like very much to see amended. In Section 10 of the 1930 Act, which deals with a speed limit, it is laid down—and it has never been questioned—that
"A person charged under this section with the offence of driving a motor vehicle of any class or description on a road at a speed greater than the maximum speed allowed in the case of a vehicle of that class or description, shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person charged was driving the vehicle at such greater speed."
Nothing was clearer than that: you were not to be prosecuted or convicted on the opinion of one person as to the speed of the vehicle. Then a curious case occurred. A policeman in a motor car followed a car for one and a half miles—and it is true to say that if he followed it for one and a half miles he must have been going at the same speed as the other vehicle, or he would have overtaken it, or been left behind. It was held in the courts that that was not an opinion of speed, but it was evidence. From that date every magistrate up and down the country has interpreted that case as allowing a motorcyclist policeman to pop in behind a motor car, go for 200 yards and estimate the speed; and that is meant to, be evidence, and you are convicted. You are convicted against what I consider was the definite decision of Parliament in Section 10 (3) of that Act. If you are followed for a mile, I can quite see that it is perfectly right; but what is happening to-day is that many motor-cycle police patrols pop out from a side corner to chase the motor car for 300 yards—and naturally they are going faster than the motor car, because they are going to catch it up. You are put into court, and you have no defence at all. I should like to see that particular section regularised to express what was the wish of Parliament at that time.
610
As to parking meters, I am not at all happy about the situation. I do not admit for a moment that anybody has a right to sit on the road anywhere. Do you want money out of the parking meters, or what? I do not understand what it is for. I do not admit that anybody has a right to park anywhere. I know that it is a nuisance for all of us, but I do not admit the right. Finally, I should have liked to see a little more imagination in this Bill. I should have liked to see powers given to the Ministry and to the Government to close roads for motor racing. What a dreadful thing it is to say now! But we are all motorists. Your Lordships may think that the Derby is a big race, but it is nothing to a Grande Prix motor race for popularity. If we had a Grand Prix on our roads, stimulating as it must be to one of our greatest industries, it would be a great thing for this country and for the industry; and it would not incommode anybody to close four or five miles of road for two or three days. I should have liked to see that in the Bill. I shall give this Bill moderate support, and I hope that some of the suggestions I have made will be adopted.
5.3 p.m.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, I propose to deal almost exclusively with one clause in the Bill—that is, Clause 9–because the others have been dealt with by other and more experienced speakers much more effectively than I could hope to deal with them. I am relieved, I must say, to have a great many of my opinions confirmed by the noble Lord who has just sat down. Your Lordships may remember that we had a debate last January on the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in built-up areas should be more strictly enforced. At the end of the debate the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his Motion. I think it was sufficiently brought out during the course of the debate that speed in itself is not a danger factor, provided that it is wisely used. You may say that naturally it is not wisely used in a built-up area. But speed may be unwisely used on any piece of road, built-up or not. If we are going try to reduce accidents by reducing speed, then let us have a speed limit over the whole country—but that, of course, we cannot do. Can one say with any truth that it is always unwise, at any hour of the day or night, to exceed 30 m.p.h. in

611
a restricted area? When one considers how these areas vary, both in their nature and in the conditions at different times of the day or night, one can realise how absurd it is to lay down a hard and fast law as to what is a safe speed.
I can give your Lordships an example of the sort of injustice that arises from the present regulations. A young friend of mine was driving through a restricted area at one o'clock in the morning, when I do not suppose there could have been a vehicle or person on the road in front of him. Suddenly he was overtaken and stopped by a police car, and he was told that he was exceeding the 30 m.p.h. limit. For that offence he was fined £3, and had his licence endorsed. One can say truly that both the police and the magistrates were to blame for such an abuse of justice: the first for having done more than just warn him, and the second for having imposed a penalty which was out of all proportion to the offence. But we must remember that, with the general tightening up of discipline and the increase of penalties provided for in the present Bill, that sort of thing will become commonplace. Yet every day one sees motorists who, though not breaking the actual letter of the law, are a real source of danger on the roads, either through ignorance or through lack of consideration for others—and I am afraid that I would put the latter as in the majority.
What earthly use is a speed limit in a restricted area with such a man, who, the moment he is free of it, is going to forget all sense of responsibility. Even within it, he can be a definite source of danger, through such things as turning or pulling up suddenly without giving a signal. It is possible to drive very dangerously at even ten miles per hour, I drive 150 miles a week during the term at my teaching work alone, apart from any private driving I do, and I have become more and more convinced that one of the chief sources of danger is lack of wisdom in overtaking, particularly on bends. It is certainly irritating on a winding road to get behind a slow-moving lorry, and I think there are too many drivers who allow their impatience to overcome their good judgment.
There is another aspect of this matter. The employment of police to stop motorists who are exceeding the limit, even
612
though without danger, as in the case to which I have referred, makes for bad feeling between the two. Motorists naturally feel resentful against the police at being convicted for an arbitrary offence; and the police, I cannot help feeling, too often look upon motorists as fair game by which to secure a few more convictions. This is the last thing to make for greater road safety. What we want is a mutual feeling of confidence and co-operation between the two. Clause 9 of the Bill proposes to make these restricted areas permanent. I should like to see them abolished altogether. In their place I should like to see what one might call controlled areas, indicated by a recognised sign, inside which the police should be empowered to warn a driver—but no more—that he is going too fast. Incidentally, there are many Stretches of road outside so-called built-up areas where that would be most useful. I feel convinced that the majority would respect such a warning, and the few who would not would be those extremely selfish drivers of whom I have spoken, who, I feel, can be eliminated only by a gradual process of education and training the young.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, spoke of the question of self-discipline, and that, rather than discipline by the police, is something which will make for road safety. For such selfish drivers as those I have mentioned, driving tests, as they exist now, are nothing short of a farce. Naturally, a man is going to be on his best behaviour when he is given his test. The moment he has passed it he is free to do as he pleases; and, unfortunately, very often does. I should like to emphasise one thing. If this clause is passed as it stands, I feel very strongly that all restricted areas should be justifiable, and that a general re-inspection of them should take place. The mere existence of lamp posts is not a sufficient justification for the imposition of a speed limit. One thing is certain: whatever form this Bill may take, in the end we are all united in one thing, the desire to increase the safety of the roads, even though we may not be united in our ideas as to how to do it.
5.12 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I could not agree more with the last few words that fell from the noble Lord who preceded

613
me. It is on that basis that we must consider this Bill. We must also consider the background to this Bill, and it is a depressing one. We have the worst and most inadequate roads of any major country in the world; we have the greatest concentration of traffic of any country in the world, and the people who use our roads have to pay the highest taxation of any country in the world. The motor world is at the moment paying upwards of £400 million a year for the privilege of driving on these roads. For years many of us have tried to warn successive Governments that motor traffic was increasing, both in number and importance, up and down the country, and that unless something really constructive was done, and some real planning undertaken, stagnation was just round the corner. Now I think everybody realises how true that is.
Delays to traffic under present conditions on our roads (I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is not in his place, because he seemed to wonder why anyone should want to go any faster) are estimated to be costing the country from £140 million to £150 million a year. Another background to all this is that the Government seem able to authorise large public corporations like the British Electricity Authority, the railways and so on, to raise large sums of money, either to improve their plant, their lay-out or rolling stock, and yet relatively nothing is done for the roads. Not only this Government, but the last Government and all Governments going right back for a very long way, seem to have no real road, policy at all. It has been a policy of desperate expedients, rushing from one little idea to the next; and there have never been better examples of that than what, we find in this Bill. This Bill seems to me to do exactly nothing. It proposes new restrictions; it proposes fresh charges, and stiffens up the penalties and that sort of thing. But notwithstanding all this, it seems to me that the Government are tackling the problem at the wrong end.
Whether Ministers realise it or not, the fact is that there are millions of people up and down the country who are getting more infuriated and more frustrated every day by the conditions under which motor traffic has to carry on in this country. The attitude of the Government on occasion appears to be absolutely supine. They do not seem to understand—whether they do
614
understand or not I do not know; I hope they do, but they do not give that impression to the public—the magnitude of the problem. The other day it was announced by the Foreign Secretary in another place that more money was to be spent on the roads. This Government have decided to spend more money, but it may well be that, in the not too far distant future, some other Government will come into being. Will that Government take the same view? If, on the other hand, we had a Road Authority, with powers to borrow, the moneys that they had would not be subject to the needs of a Chancellor of the Exchequer on the look-out to raise more money.
I mention all these facts because they provide the real background against which this Bill is brought forward. It seems to me that it would have been far better if the Government could have tackled the road question in a realistic way in the first instance, and brought in this measure as a result afterwards. It has been done the other way, and so I suppose we must put up with it. I listened with great attention to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he was introducing the Bill. He introduced it to us as a Bill to deal with a first-class problem. Of course, we all agree with that. There has been no Road Traffic Act for twenty years. Great play was made on the experience of the United States. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk (I am sorry he is not in his place now), has not been properly briefed, because while it is true that they have examinations for vehicles in parts of the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, pointed out, these examinations have been given up in a number of States there because they have been found to be unworkable.
The present idea is admirable, but the trouble is that everything is to be done by regulation. For instance, take the examination and testing of cars. It is an admirable idea, but we have not been told how the scheme will work. It seems to me that the scheme has been launched at the country in almost a haphazard way. We are told that the Minister is to have a pilot testing station somewhere—presumably that is to find out some of the problems which will face him. One of the immediate problems with which he will be faced is the fact that to have a realistic test of a motor-car requires a fairly superior type of man to carry it

615
out. He would be a man more or less of the calibre of a garage foreman. The ordinary garage hand would be no good for this, and competent garage foremen are not easily found in these days of full employment. Moreover, this will be an entirely new requirement. There are upwards of six million vehicles on the roads of this country to-day. In 1953 there were about 5,250,000. We have gone on since then, and motor vehicles are increasing at the rate of about 500,000 a year. How in the world will it be possible to examine and test the brakes, steering and lights of cars when there are these colossal numbers to deal with? It is not to be done once and for all; it will have to be done again the following year, and always at an ever-increasing tempo. It seems to me that this point has hardly been considered.
I could have understood it if the Minister had said, "We are going, first of all, to say that before a car can be sold second-hand, it must have a certificate of roadworthiness provided by the owner." That would be a limiting factor on the problem. If the Minister had said that the police would institute "spot" checks of vehicles up and down the country, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has pointed out, the police already have power to do that, though I do not think they use the power. I do know of one police force that has carried out "spot" checks, not of the mechanical condition of cars but of the lighting. It has been a huge success. I refer to the County Constabulary of Oxford, where they have stopped cars at night, made them pull into lay-bys, tested their lights and shown the drivers of the cars how hopelessly badly focused and badly aligned their headlights were. That has been a huge success. More of that type of thing could be done up and down the country. But for the Government to say that it is possible to test six million cars effectively seems to me to be just moonshine.
Then the Bill does not say whether the testers are to be private citizens. Are they to be Government controlled? Are they to be civil servants, or are they going to be just garage hands? Then, of course, charges will be made for the services. Suppose each test takes five minutes—and five minutes is little enough time in which to test any particular vehicle. Imagine the time that it will
616
take to test 6 million vehicles. To me, the provision does not make sense. So much for that provision. The Bill contains many more which I think are extraordinary. Clause 2 has been referred to by many noble Lords. One has sympathy with the police in their difficulties in the matter of the removal of cars. The way in which an obstruction arises in law, so far as I understand it—which probably is not very far—is that there can be actual obstruction or theoretical obstruction. I believe I am right in saying that the driver of any motor vehicle that stops anywhere on a road for any length of time can be charged by the police with causing an obstruction. Under this Bill, if a motorist stops for a few minutes in a street or on a road anywhere, he is liable to have his car hauled off by the police. It is going to be rather a strange affair. I do not think it is a very satisfactory way of dealing with what is admittedly a difficult situation.
Clause 7 enables a local licensing authority to refuse a provisional driving licence to anyone who has had one within the preceding twelve months and does not seem to intend to take a driving test within a reasonable time. It also increases the fee, and so on. It seems that here there should be (I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, again mentioned this point) a right of appeal. There is a right of appeal to the Minister, but the Minister is made judge and jury of his own business. That I do not think is quite fair.
LORD MANCROFT: There is a right of appeal to the courts.
EARL HOWE: Yes. Then we come to the very important question of parking. Parking is not the only cause of traffic delays in towns like London. It is certainly one of the main causes, but I believe there are other things which the Government could do to deal with parking. One of the difficulties, of course, is the narrowness of streets and the lack of parking facilities. Has it ever occurred to authority, and is it at all a feasible suggestion (I do not know whether it is, but I should like to know), to allow higher buildings and to require, as a condition, that the frontages should be set back, the extra height being a compensation for setting back the frontage? I do not know whether anything like that could be done. But look at what

617
authority has done, and our planners are doing, with traffic congestion.
One of the busiest intersections, as every noble Lord in this House knows, is the junction of Bond Street, Bruton Street and Conduit Street. The authority—it may be the London County Council; it may be the Government: I do not know—have allowed an enormous hotel to be built right at that intersection. I am perfectly certain that, when that hotel gets into operation, we shall see there a traffic block such as has never been seen in the West End of London yet. It will very likely spread back into Oxford Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly, in fact, all over the West End of London. I think it is an amazing thing to have done. The street is narrow there.
LORD MANCROFT: The street is being widened. I think I informed the noble Earl of that when he asked me a supplementary question about it in this House eighteen months ago.
EARL HOWE: How will the traffic that will be using that hotel be dealt with? To allow that sort of thing to happen is quite childish in these days.
To get back to the actual question of parking and parking meters, parking meters may work very well in other countries—they may work perfectly well in America, for all I know. But it seems to me that the parking meter is not necessarily a cure for parking problems in London. In fact, it may make them worse, because of the difference in the size of vehicles. If you are going to have parking meters to deal with vehicles parked longitudinally along a street, you have to allow enough space for the biggest ears that may want to park. Only a small car or a motor-cycle may be there, but the same amount of space has to be allotted. On the other hand, in such places as Portland Place, St. James's Square, Grosvenor Square, or anywhere where cars may be parked with their backs to the kerb, or diagonally, then a parking meter may help.
Parking meters, however, will require supervision. I do not see any provision in this Bill for supervising them. I think it is a most dangerous thing to allow the revenue from parking meters to be appropriated by local authorities. It seems to me like the thin end of the wedge. In fact, when the motor world is paying £400 million a year, is it really fair or
618
necessary to impose a further charge in any shape or form for the use of the King's highway or the Queen's highway? I think that the motor world, which already pays so much in taxation, has a perfect right to say that the Government must tackle this question, or at least the cost of it, in some other way. I could not follow the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who wants to extend that enormous octopus, the London County Council, by giving it control of garages. I thought we had had the last of all that when we had civic restaurants; heaven help us if we have L.C.C. garages all over the place! Perhaps I am a little prejudiced in the matter—I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I am sure the intention of this Bill is excellent, but it is a most miserable affair. I wish that it could be taken away, recast and entirely redrafted. Then I believe that a very much better Bill would result.
5.30 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for very long, but I should like to say at the outset that I, personally, look upon this Bill as a very bold effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government to deal with a condition of near chaos. There is no doubt that in producing the Bill they were calling down a load of trouble upon their heads, but I hope that the load of trouble will be translated into a large number of really constructive criticisms, because there is no doubt that something has to be done, and done quickly. That has been said quite often, but I think it bears repetition.
I want to touch upon Clause 1 because, like the noble Earl who has just spoken, as it at present reads I cannot imagine how it is going to be worked. Owing to the colossal numbers that have to be dealt with, and the fact that these fairly frequent tests have to be performed every year, a great deal of loss of time will be caused, especially to those who use their cars for business, purposes. I do not know how it is going to be done. We hear of the idea of a pilot testing station. I think it would be a good idea to set up perhaps more than one on an important road. I have never yet found out—I suppose it is entirely my own fault—how to get my car tested if I felt it necessary. I should like to see this pioneer station on the Great North Road

619
or the Great West Road, or at some other important point where the road is fairly straight. There should be a big notice to the effect that it is a Government testing station. I should like to see it used in two ways: partly for what is called a "spot" test—that is to say, where officials would have the right, if they were doubtful or curious, to pull up a car and give it a test—and also for voluntary tests, so that people like myself, who would like to know what the official, expert opinion of their car was, could go in and pay a fee, have a test, and perhaps receive a certificate for a period. I do not know whether that sort of test is in the Minister's mind, but I believe it would give a pointer as to whether or not these tests were going to be successful.
There is only one other clause upon which I want to touch, and it is one over which the noble Earl who introduced the Bill slid lightly. I see the reason why he did so. I am referring to Clause 8 and the question of education. As to adults, I think they ought by now to be able to educate themselves on road safety; but, to my mind, the education of children is extremely important. It has been proved that they can be taught and that they can be properly trained in road sense. In a previous debate on this question, I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that to the old traditional basis of our education—namely, the "three R's"—should be added "road sense." However, I see the difficulties, because it is a question of a tripartite arrangement between three Ministries: the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Education and, so far as the police enter into it, the Home Office.
We all know what valuable voluntary work the police all over the country have been doing; but what I have not been able to find out is whether education of this kind in Government schools is general throughout the country. Can it be said that in every village school in the country, or in every school within our built-up areas, there is somebody who is able to instruct the children on this vital matter? I do not believe so. I asked a question on that matter some time ago, and I received the reply from the then Minister that he thought it was fairly general. I do not believe that is good enough, and I hope that, if Clause
620
8 means anything, it will mean that the education of our children in road sense is made more general and more effective. We owe a great tribute to the large number of people who give voluntary help in this matter. I have seen a private, not a Government, school where there was a most wonderful and attractive large-scale model in plasticine laid out on the floor, with every sort of road difficulty illustrated, with lamps and motor cars and so on. It was there some time ago, but I do not know whether it is still there. It can be made extremely attractive for children, who can be trained to a great extent by it. It is being done; but is it being done enough? That is all I want to know. That is all I propose to say on this Bill, which is bristling with difficulties. I can only hope that between us we shall be able to turn it into a much better Bill than it is at present.
5.36 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I will follow the example of my noble friend who has just sat down and submit my points to your Lordships as briefly as possible. I suggest that Clause 7 should be strengthened, to impose a definite time limit during which a provisional licence can be used without taking a Government test, and I suggest that twelve months should be that limit. As your Lordships know, at the present time many persons are driving motor vehicles whilst in possession of only a provisional licence and an "L" plate. Having failed on one or more occasions to satisfy the requirements of the Government examiner for a full licence, they are able to carry on indefinitely with a provisional licence, without any obligation to present themselves again for a test during the rest of their driving career. I suggest that that is an abuse of the intentions of the Act of 1934 which, so far as I see it, the present Bill will not entirely remove.
With regard to penalties and disqualifications—two matters which have already been mentioned by noble Lords who have spoken previously—wide experience in the testing of commercial drivers on behalf of those operating large fleets of vehicles shows that a considerable number of drivers, despite their having satisfied a Government examiner in the past, have subsequently acquired careless and even dangerous habits which contribute substantially towards the present incidence of road accidents. I suggest that

621
the Bill should be so amended that any person convicted under Sections 10, 11 or 12 of the 1930 Act, which deal with dangerous and careless driving, should automatically be disqualified from holding a licence until another test has been taken. I suggest that in the circumstances such disqualification, combined with the necessity to submit to a further driving test, would be a most useful deterrent and would have a real effect upon road accident figures. Might I also suggest that the heavy goods vehicle driving test, which was suspended at the outbreak of war in 1939, should be reinstated? As your Lordships are aware, in present circumstances a young man on his twenty-first birthday, can pass a Government driving test with a pre-war 8-horse power car of any type you like, and the following day be entrusted with a vehicle with a laden weight of as much as twenty tons. That is obviously absurd.
The suggestions I submit to your Lordships arise from the fact that for a long period of time I have been associated as a patron with The British School of Motoring, which noble Lords may remember was established over forty years ago. It has trained some two million drivers, one million before the Act and one million since. It has therefore amassed much useful information. It is on the basis of that information that I have submitted these points to your Lordships, and I would suggest to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill that the statistics obtained in the work done by the British School of Motoring (which are available to the noble Earl) would be extremely useful in the consideration of the modifications which have been suggested in your Lordships' House this evening.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I have heard it said that when there is a debate on roads in your Lordships' House there is always a long list of speakers. I make no apology for speaking tonight, because I want to bring out one or two points. I think it is a good thing that so many noble Lords are interested in this vast problem. Recently one of the leading Sunday newspapers ran a competition on the lines of introducing a Bill into Parliament, and I believe that, of some 500 entries, no fewer than eighty dealt with matters of road safety. There are not
622
eighty noble Lords wishing to speak on this Bill however, and that is probably a good thing. In general terms, I welcome this Bill and will give it as much support as I possibly can. It has received tonight a certain amount of criticism with which I do not entirely agree, because this is the first time since 1934 that any Government have dared to bring in a Bill at all; and it might well be suggested that a Road Traffic Bill could easily have been introduced during certain other Parliamentary time. I am going to praise Her Majesty's Government for the fact that we have at least an effort. It may not be quite right, but at least it is a very good try to get something done; and when your Lordships' House has dealt with the Bill in the Committee stage it will probably be a much better Bill than it is now. We have seen that happen several times before in this House.
If I may be a little topical, with the approach of the festive season, during the time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, which is some twenty-two years, I have always had the impression that the Ministry of Transport was the Cinderella of all Government Departments. Now it seems that the Ministry has found her Prince Charming in my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, ably assisted by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whom I might be so bold and impertinent as to call Buttons. Of course the Ministry have always suffered from the presence of the Wicked Stepmother, for which rôle I would pick the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assisted by Ministers in two Government Departments which took all the money that was available. I suggest that they are represented here by my noble friend Lord Mancroft at the Home Office and my noble friend Lord Carrington (who I am sorry is not here at the moment), at the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps I might be so impertinent as to call them the Ugly Sisters.
Having given the Bill some welcome, and possibly damned it with faint praise, I will turn to Clause 1, which seems to have been heavily attacked. I must admit that I do not see how the Ministry propose to operate that clause. I hope it does not mean many more civil servants, and I sincerely hope that it will not incur a further charge on the motorist, because the motorist pays a very heavy tax on

623
petrol, and also his Excise licence. Turning to subsection (2) of Clause 1, I notice there some words of which I am not very fond: that if a person is aggrieved he "may appeal to the Minister." That is typical of post-war legislation. I wish we could go back to the words frequently used in pre-war legislation. Glancing at the Public Health Act, 1936, recently, I saw there that a person who was aggrieved could appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. If the same principle could work in this particular clause I propose to put down an Amendment to that effect. I do not like this idea of an appeal to the Minister. The Minister is both judge and jury. I have had some experience of these cases. A very able gentleman comes does and holds a public local inquiry and hears all the evidence. He is most impartial and very fair. He then closes the inquiry and goes away; and very often weeks and months pass before the result is known. Let me give an instance. I attended a local inquiry, and at the end of five months there was no news of the result. I wrote to the Minister myself and the answer came through in four days. We do not want delays of that kind, which can so easily happen when a decision cannot be given and the matter has to go back to the Ministry for the decision.
May I now turn to Clause 3, dealing with pedal cyclists? There is often much criticism that pedal cyclists will not use cycle tracks where these are provided. I find that the reason generally is that the surface of the cycle track is greatly inferior to the surface of the main highway. I should like Her Majesty's Government to insist that, where the cycle tracks are provided, their surface should be as adequate as that of the main road. Many of our main road surfaces to-day are thoroughly adequate. Clause 7 has been mentioned briefly. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government, on the question of the driving licence, whether there is not a loophole Whereby a licence can be obtained in Northern Ireland without any test whatsoever and that licence then used in this country. If that is the case, that loophole should be closed or the position tightened up. My noble friend Lord Hampton has spoken on Clause 8, and I will add little to what he so ably said. There are, all over the country,
624
local road safety committees, and I have been trying to gather from members some information as to whether their suggestions are carried out or are appreciated. I am afraid the news I have gathered is that their suggestions get to a certain level and there get stuck; they get no higher. I am afraid that that does happen. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would at some time ask the Minister whether that is so.
The next matter which I wish to mention has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Sempill—it is the question of the heavy goods vehicle licence. I strongly support every word that the noble Lord said about that. I know what it is to drive an ordinary motor car, and then, suddenly, to get into the cab of a lorry with a load of about twenty tons behind. Driving such a vehicle is entirely different from driving a car—as I say, I have done it myself. Naturally, the issue of the heavy goods vehicle licence was suspended in 1939, owing to the war, but I think that it should be reintroduced.
One of my reasons for so saying is this. You may well get a young man, or a young woman, who has obtained a licence at the age of eighteen, and who has a clean record after working for three years in the service of a good employer. Then, suddenly, when that young person has attained the age of twenty-one, he or she is told: "You must drive this vehicle with this load, because the regular driver has been taken ill." So that individual goes out on the congested road with a vehicle carrying a load of twenty tons. He or she cannot have had previous experience of driving such a loaded vehicle, because, under the terms of the existing licence, a person may not drive a heavy goods vehicle until he or she is twenty-one years of age. I am afraid that I have detained your Lordships for a little time. I must frankly congratulate the Government on bringing in this Bill. As I said earlier, it is the first time for many years that such a Bill has been introduced, and I do not doubt that this is an experiment on their part. Probably, in a future Session, we shall yet see a further Bill. I hope that we shall.
5.53 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I think that a striking feature of this debate has been that every noble Lord who has spoken has welcomed the Bill. I am glad

625
to add my note of welcome. It has also been striking, in my opinion, that a good many people have criticised, the Bill rather heavily. A remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, impressed me as being very much to the point. He said that he was connected with two big societies—the British Road Federation and another—and that neither of them had been consulted before the Bill was brought in. I have noticed the same thing with regard to other Bills. Big societies are concerned with subjects which are dealt with in legislation, and very often they are not consulted. I think that what Lord Teynham said in this connection ought to be underlined. When there are people who really have specialised knowledge of subjects, it would save the time of your Lordships' House if they wore consulted, before a Bill is brought out, more often than they are.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, made a good point with regard to which I agree some action might be taken. He asked how many people know of or have had brought to their notice that excellent little, pamphlet a copy of which I obtained in your Lordships' House the other day. I am not sure what is its title—I think it is Rules of the Road. It contains guidance, for motorists in a small compact form. There ape illustrations showing the correct signs to make and, generally speaking, there are a number of simple rules for helping motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. All of us, I think, could benefit from a study of such a production. On this subject of safety, there are large numbers of people who go out in small cars, particularly at week-ends, and who have not read the rules of the road. If something could be done to spread the knowledge of the rules and to get that book, which has been brought out by the Ministry of Transport, into the hands of a great number of people, I am sure it would be valuable.
The reason I am taking up a few minutes of your Lordships' time today is not that I am an authority on motors. I happen to be a member of a county council, and seeing what a lot of reference to county councils there is in the Bill I asked our converter. "What about it?" He happens also to be the convener of the Association of County Councils in Scotland. He said to me: "Go to Edinburgh and ask the Secretary of the
626
Association of County Councils in Scotland what they think about it." The Association is one that guides county councils with respect to such matters as Bills, so I thought the advice was sound. I should like to make it clear that, though I am proposing to quote a letter from that Association, I do not speak for it. I have not been asked by the Association to speak on their behalf.
A Clause to which I should like to draw attention—it is one that interested me most when I first read the Bill, apart from the provisions as to safety which probably constitute the most important part of the Bill—is Clause 10, which has come in for a good deal of criticism. I should like to ask this question. Is it fair, is it reasonable, to put an additional charge on the motorists? They already pay enormous sums, in taxes and for petrol, and so on. Here, it seems to me, is provision for what amounts to additional taxation with no additional benefit. There is nothing in the Bill at all to say that the person who pays the licence fee for parking on the road will get any additional benefit. And I think one is apt to forget the great numbers of people—there are thousands of them—using small cars, who cannot afford to pay more taxation. Just look around Smith Square and see the vehicles parked there. In the main they are small cars, the property of men who come up to London for their daily work. They are vehicles of low horse-power. I do not think that in the case of people such as those who own these cars it is right or fair to charge them more. They will get no benefit from underground garages. I understood from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the money would be spent on such things as underground garages and so on. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the men of whom I am speaking will not get any benefit from such places. This means that many of the people who pay will not get the benefit.
If I may, I will now read to your Lordships the letter which I have received from the Secretary of the Association of County Councils in Scotland. It is dated December 17 and it is very short. It states:
"As promised, I write to say that the appropriate Executive Committee of the Association at its meeting yesterday approved of the view expressed by a sub-committee against charges being made for parking on highways as it is considered that the burden

627
of taxation on motorists is already so severe as to make such additional charges for parking quite unfair. The provisions regarding parking places are set out in Clauses 10 to 14 of the Bill."
I thought that I would report that letter to Her Majesty's Government, because the Association of County Councils in Scotland is a cross-section of the public of the whole of Scotland. I think it is a serious thing that in their opinion these clauses of the Bill which has been brought out by the Government should be regarded as unfair. They do not make any other comment. I expect they approve of a good deal of the Bill.
I should be sorry to feel that this Bill went out in such a form that such an important section of the country felt it was unfair. They give the reason for thinking it unfair that there is too heavy a burden of taxation on the motorist. I have not been able to see them since and I do not know whether there are any other criticisms, but I thought it worth passing on to the Government that comment. I can only strongly express the hope, as others have done, that the Government themselves will see their way to pay special attention to the clauses mention and draw them up in such a way that it will not be possible for a large part of Her Majesty's subjects to say they think they are unfair.
6.1 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall not be long. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill said that it was not controversial, and in the sense in which he used the word, I agree; it is not a Party controversial Bill. We have no Party policy with regard to these matters as yet, and as I see it the function of this debate is merely to have a general discussion and to indicate certain points which the Government may consider, in order that they may meet us with their considered views about them on Third Reading. To that extent, and to that extent only, I propose to say one or two words about a few points. They are only preliminary views, and it may be that on further consideration I shall resile from them altogether. I give merely my own personal impressions at the present time.
I start with the inspection of cars. It seems to me that that will be a most expensive and laborious business. I do not like the idea of having authorised
628
people to carry out this inspection. In my own town we have two garages—I will call them A and B. I take it that to avoid the vast expense of setting up their own establishments for testing all these vehicles, the Government will authorise either A or B. Then A would have to inspect the cars provided by B, or vice versa. The experience of America has shown that that has proved most undesirable and leads to all sorts of abuses; and I am not at all happy about it. Is it really worth while?
I speak without any special knowledge about this matter, but I have here Road Accidents, 1952, in which I have looked to see to what extent accidents on the roads are due to the fact that cars are in a defective state. In 1952, there were 171,757 accidents, and if noble Lords look at page 55, they will see that, so far as private cars were concerned, the police attributed the accident to a defect of the car in only 1,059 cases. That is only a little more than one-half of one per cent. of the total number of accidents. It is nothing like so important a factor as dogs in the road. That being so, I ask myself: is this inspection really worth while? What shall we gain by setting up this very, expensive machinery—because it will be expensive and elaborate? At the most, we might avoid 1,059 accidents out of a total of 171,000-odd.
The next thing I want to ask about—and here the noble Lords, Lord Howe and Lord Brabazon of Tara, know vastly more than I do—is: how far would an inspection once a year prove any good at all? I do not drive now, though I still take out a driving licence. I have had one for over forty years, but I have given up driving. I thought, as Lord Chancellor, that the risk of having an accident and being "had up" before a magistrate was too great to run, so I decided to give up driving. I do not know what the present Lord Chancellor is doing—very likely we shall find that he has followed the same course. If a motorist has his car inspected, say, on January 1 and gets a certificate to say that his car is all right, it does not in the least follow that it will be all right on February 1 or March 1. I send my car periodically to the garage to have the brakes tightened up. Defective brakes are one of the most important of the defects causing accidents. Another defeat is worn tyres, which sometimes burst

629
and cause an accident. Tyres may be examined on January 1, but what will they be like on April 1? It does not follow in the least that we are going to gain anything by having a certificate saying that a car is all right on a particular day. It does not in the least follow that it will remain all right all that year.
On page 55 of this report on road accidents contributory factors are listed as follows: mechanical defects, failure of brakes, 131; tyres and wheels, 200; steering, 95; and other causes, 335. I am making these observations only so that they can be considered—I do not expect any answer to-day. Defective vehicles are only a very small cause of accidents, and I do not see that this inspection will be in the least effective, because the fact that a vehicle is examined at stated intervals does not ensure that it remains in a good condition. Therefore, I am not at all enthusiastic about this provision, though I am perfectly open to persuasion, and may be there is a much better case for it than I at present realise.
With regard to the provision of parking meters, I confess that I am quite unenthusiastic about that proposal. I am afraid that I begin to regard people who park their cars as a great nuisance. As I say, I do not drive, but I am driven about occasionally, and I see roads which ought to be wide enough for three or four rows of traffic reduced to a miserable lane by cars parked on both sides. I do not like to encourage the idea that people should park, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said. If this is a scheme for raising money, it may be a good scheme; but I do not think we want to raise any more money from the motorist. If it is a scheme to try to deal with the unutterable nuisance of the parking of cars, I do not like it at all. The only way is to use the Parks to the fullest extent. I sympathise with what the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, said yesterday about using Rotten Row for parking. There are, unfortunately, very few people who ride nowadays. I should like to see people parking their cars in the Park, and, in return, I should want then not to park their cars in the streets in the way they do to-day.
Then I should like it to be considered whether or not people who live in a particular street cannot be given priority in parking. For instance, we all have had
630
occasion to go to a doctor or dentist. A motorist who drives up in a car to any house in the Harley Street—Wimpole Street area, finds it impossible to find any place to put the car, as your Lordships know. I am told by doctors, who feel rather bitter about this matter—whether they are right or wrong I do not know—that there are people who come up from the country in the morning, park their cars in Harley Street and leave them all day long, though they have nothing whatever to do with Harley Street. They go and do their business in the City and elsewhere, and simply use Harley Street as a convenience for parking. It would be much better, if a scheme could be worked out, rather than having parking meters, or allowing these people, who are really foreigners, to park there, to give the doctors, or people calling on the doctors, some kind of facility. I am not enthusiastic about this parking meter plan. However, it may be useful to try it as an experiment—and that is all that is suggested here—and we may learn much more after the experiment has been tried.
I was disappointed with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in one respect. I am sorry he does not like the idea of the provision of garages by the London County Council. I do not mind who provides garages; so far as I am concerned, "Old Nick" can provide garages; it is better than having no garages at all. If the Government are going to provide garages, that is excellent. If private enterprise will provide them, that is better still; and if the borough councils will provide them, that is all right. But if one of those who seem to be willing to provide garages, given State assistance, is the London County Council, I should have thought that the noble Earl would welcome the scheme, as I do. I feel that this is one of the things that we must try to do. Private people will not do it, because it does not pay. We considered this matter at the Temple, and the charge that would be required to pay the costs of underground garages is one that people would never pay. It has got to be done as some kind of service. I should have thought that if the London County Council were willing to take on the job, they should be encouraged in every way.
I want to say a word or two about this question of offences. Here again, I do

631
not expect any answer, and I am merely making a few observations so that it may be considered whether they have any merit or none at all. First of all, do let me remind your Lordships of this fact. It is a profound mistake to think that you necessarily prevent a thing from being done by making the penalties severe. May I give a simple and homely illustration of that? There was a time when to steal goods of the value of 5s. from a dwelling-house was a capital offence; and in the nineteenth century the judges protested when there was a question of doing away with the capital penalty. Where the judges failed to realise they were so wrong in those days was in this respect: that juries were not convicting; they were bringing in absolutely perverse verdicts, because they were not going to expose an unfortunate defendant to the risk of being hanged for the theft of some trumpery article. And even if it was not a trumpery article, they used to find that it was not of the value of 5s., in order to prevent those consequences. Always remember that if a jury get it into their heads that a man has done a particular act but about which they might say: "But for the Grace of God, I might have been in the dock myself," they will certainly find that man not guilty. That has been the experience of nearly all judges.
There went out a suggestion, not long ago, that everybody convicted of driving a car under the influence of drink ought to be sent to prison. That is a sentiment with which I personally agree. The result was that juries got it into their heads that if they found a man guilty of that offence he would go to prison. We found people of exemplary character appearing before juries, and juries from that day onwards nearly always found those people not guilty. It is with the greatest difficulty that any judge can get a jury to convict a man of driving while under the influence of drink. I do not in the least object to an increase of the penalties, but do bear in mind that what matters is that people should be convicted, not that they should be sent to prison. I mention that by way of a word of caution.
I now want to deal with a class of case in which I never had a considerable practice, and in which it is many years since I practised at all—the noble Lord,
632
Lord Mancroft, will know much more about this than I do. Take, first, the offence of manslaughter. The courts require degrees of negligence for these various offences. Manslaughter must be through criminal negligence, of course, because all the offences we are now talking about are crimes. It must not only be criminal negligence, but negligence of a very, very, very—there are three "verys"—bad kind indeed. I think I am right in saying that the sort of negligence which would support the lesser charge of dangerous driving is not the sufficiently high degree of negligence required to support a charge of manslaughter. If you are doing that which would constitute dangerous driving, and as a result of that dangerous driving you have the misfortune to kill somebody, then I believe I am right in saying that it would not constitute manslaughter. But the relevant section of the 1930 Act contains also the word "reckless." I do not know why, but I think the words are, "dangerous or reckless driving." I should have thought that reckless driving would have supported a charge of manslaughter. The unfortunate judges, in dealing with these cases, have to try to convey to juries the varying degrees of negligence which are required.
There is the type of negligence which is required to support and sustain a charge of manslaughter. Then the next stage down the list is the type and degree of negligence which, though not enough for a charge of manslaughter, will support one of dangerous driving. Next down the list is the type of negligence which will support a charge of driving without due care and attention. When you finish all those, you then get into a different class of negligence, which would not be sufficient to constitute any criminal offence but is yet sufficient to constitute a civil offence and render you liable in an action for damages, if you do any damage. It is quite impossible really to indicate to a jury clearly the differentia between these varying types of negligence. At the present time, on a charge of manslaughter, a jury is by Statute entitled to bring in a verdict of dangerous driving, and they sometimes do. They are not entitled to bring in a verdict of driving the car under the influence of drink. I should like the noble Lord to consider—I do not mean now, but between now and the next stage of the Bill—whether or not it would be

633
right (either by having a separate count, or by treating it as dangerous driving is treated to-day, where it can be done by a provision of the Statute) to leave it open to a jury not only to bring in a verdict of dangerous driving on a charge of manslaughter, but also to bring in a verdict of driving while under the influence of drink.
We then come to the next stage in the category, that of dangerous driving—and I have already said that I think the word "reckless" needs to be looked at. On a charge of dangerous driving that is tried on indictment by a jury, because the defendants desire that to be done, what you hear counsel say is this: "Members of the jury, no doubt you may think that my client was negligent, but the negligence of which he was guilty was not really that high degree of negligence which is required to constitute dangerous driving. It was no doubt careless driving, and you may think it was careless driving, but that has nothing to do with you; that is not a thing you can try. Careless driving is a summary offence to be tried before the magistrates." Therefore, when the whole case is tried out on indictment at Quarter Sessions, Assizes, or wherever it may be, and the man is charged with dangerous driving, it is not open to a jury to find that he was guilty of careless driving. I suggest that that matter might be looked at to see whether or not a reform is desirable. I have already referred to the offence of driving "without due care and attention," which needs, as I say, the lowest degree of negligence required in any of these offences to support a criminal charge.
Now I come to the offence of "drunk in charge," as it is commonly called. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, made rather a good point here which has rather worried me sometimes. I heard of a case of a man who left his car on the road outside his house and did not turn on his lights. He proceeded to dine at his own house, not wisely but too well, and was rather drunk after dinner. He was wearing his pyjamas when the police came along and wanted to know who was the owner of the car. They wanted to have the lights turned on. Down went the gentleman in his pyjamas to turn the lights on, the police saw he was drunk and they prosecuted him for being drunk in charge of a car. I cannot think that
634
that kind of thing is desirable. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, put the case of a man wise enough to realise his condition and sensible enough to stop the car and get into the back seat. I take it that the answer might be that the man might start driving again; therefore the matter needs consideration. I am not expressing any final opinion on these points; I am saying merely that it is a matter to which I hope the noble Lord will pay particular attention.
Let us keep a sense of proportion about this matter. I look at page 576 of this Table, and find there that the police list the factors which they think are important as contributing to accidents. The grand total of accidents where the driver is under the influence of drink or drug is 870, and this number includes 166 pedal cyclists. As I told your Lordships before, we are dealing with a total of 171,000 accidents. Now I turn on to the next page, and I see that they attribute to the dog in the carriageway 2,635 accidents. I never realised before that, according to the opinion of the police, three times as many accidents are caused by dogs in the highway as are caused by people being under the influence of drink. The number of cases of accidents caused by people under the influence of drink is really a negligible proportion of the total number of accidents—870 out of 171,000. I cannot do the sum, but it is a very small fraction indeed.
I do not know whether or not my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned the point about dogs in the highway. That is a matter which I think the Government might consider. If this is really a serious cause of accidents perhaps it would be worth while trying to do something about that problem, although one would hate doing so. Those are points which occur to me. We will certainly co-operate with the Government in giving this Bill close attention. We, with them, desire to do everything we can to contribute to lessening the appalling toll of accidents. I hope that the few observations I have made and which other noble Lords have made may assist the Government between now and the Committee stage to see whether or not the Bill can be altered, perhaps in some respects tightened up and in other respects loosened.
6.25 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in the course of one of the most interesting speeches in this interesting debate my noble friend Lord Hindlip drew our attention to the competition, the results of which were announced in last week's Sunday Times. This competition required readers to give the Short Title, the Long Title and the Explanatory Memorandum of any Bill they would like to see introduced by a Back Bencher into Parliament. The noble Lord was not quite right when he gave the number of Bills suggested—it was actually 148; but he was quite right when he said that 83 of those were on the very subject of the Bill we are discussing this afternoon. I think it shows yet one further example of the prescience and farsightedness of Her Majesty's present Administration that this Bill should be introduced for First Reading in between the setting and the judging of that competition, and that three of the subjects which were included in most of those draft Private Members' Bills find their place in the measure before your Lordships for Second Reading to-day.
The other provisions of these draft Bills were as varied, as conflicting and as complex as has been the multitude of suggestions which we have had put forward in this most interesting debate this afternoon. I have listened carefully to every speech that has been made, and I have counted all the suggestions that have been put forward. In all, 79 concrete suggestions have been offered to Her Majesty's Government this afternoon, and material for twelve or possibly thirteen new clauses has been put forward. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I, if at this late hour we were offered sufficient liquid inducement, could perfectly well produce twelve or thirteen more of our own.
Whilst thanking your Lordships warmly for your concrete and practical help, and at the same time assuring you that the most serious consideration will be given to all the proposals which have been put forward, I should be holding out false hopes if I suggested that all the proposals could be incorporated in the Bill as we shall finally see it. That, of course, would mean the risk of blowing the Bill up until it exploded and then not getting the Bill at all. I should like to thank your Lordships very warmly
636
indeed for the very friendly reception this Bill has been accorded—friendly, but reserved, and in regard to practical suggestions very reserved indeed. I can assure in Lordships that those reservations, n so far as they escape my meagre intelligence—and they do it frequently—will be most carefully examined by the experts to the satisfaction of your Lordships.
What has been the main criticism of this Bill? There has been hardly a speaker who has not said: "This is an excellent idea; this is a most useful little Bill as far as it goes; but it does not go far enough. It is tackling the problem at the wrong end. What we want are sweeping proposals and radical proposals and you must really get down to it." There most have come to a full stop. They have not been very helpful in saying what these broad, sweeping and radical suggestions can be. Perhaps I can be of some assistance, because whilst these speeches to which I listened with such attentive interest were being made, I drafted the ideal Bill. This Bill, I am certain, would have your Lordships' complete approval. It has only three clauses. It would please the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I think it might even please my noble friend, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I see that he is now sitting on the Conservative Benches. He made his speech from the Cross-Benches. He told us that he once appeared in a court where the magistrate had refused to allow him to ask the witness questions. Having listened to the noble Lord for many years, I should dearly love to meet that magistrate.
This is the Bill I have drafted. It consists of three principal clauses. The first clause lays down that all main roads in the country are to be dual carriageways, with fly-overs throughout the entire length, and all towns shall be by-passed. The second clause enjoins Her Majesty's Government to build garages forthwith for at least two million cars. The third clause makes it imperative that all drivers should exercise not only the skill of Jehu, who, as students of the Second Book of Kings among your Lordships will remember, drove furiously, but also the divine skill of Archangel Gabriel without the assistance of his horn.
EARL JOWITT: I have listened to a great many of the speeches but I have not heard any single noble Lord make any such foolish suggestion.
LORD MANCROFT: I am making these "foolish" suggestions because I am trying to show your Lordships what we really want. Every noble Lord who has emphasised the difficulties has told us that our real trouble is that for twenty years we have not built sufficient roads; that we should have tackled the garage problem years ago; and that we should have done something a long time ago to combat the causes of congestion. Of course we should. That is part of the Government's programme. This Bill must be read in conjunction with the rest of the Government's programme. It is not really practical to ask that the Bill should contain what it does not, or criticise the Bill for what it is not, rather than criticise it for what it seeks and sets out to be; and what it seeks and sets out to be is a much more modest Bill than many noble Lords have assumed in their criticisms.
As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, pointed out in his opening remarks, there is no clear-cut theme running through the Bill. That is true But through many of the clauses, as certain noble Lords have pointed out, there runs the old and ever-pressing theme of keeping death off the road. That is not an abject over which any noble Lord would argue. The need for keeping that theme in the forefront in as many of these clauses as possible has been accentuated by the sharp increase—18 per cent. was the figure, if I remember aright—in casualty figures announced only a few days ago.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave a figure for the cost to the country each year of casualties of (I think it was) £150 million—and it may be more. For my part, I include the problem of congestion in the problem of safety. I believe that the troubles caused by congestion, particularly in the big cities, and on the highways as well, lead to irritation, carelessness and bad driving. I believe that the two are part and parcel of each other. This Bill, let me make it perfectly clear, is not anti-anybody. It is not anti- any particular class of road users, but it does face the fact that there is a problem which we must tackle. Far too many road users of all types to-day are still just potential
638
accidents looking for somewhere to happen. This Bill really emphasises, for the first time, the fact that pedestrians and, cyclists must be included as part of the traffic.
That brings me to the second criticism made by several noble Lords, the criticism that there are too many restrictions and negative provisions in this Bill—legislation which says: "You must not do this" and "You must not do that." I am afraid that that is inherent in the problem of traffic: it always has been. It is inherent, surely, in the actual nature of the vehicle itself. Here is a potentially dangerous weapon put into the hands of a man who, unless guided by certain instructions, which must be restrictive in certain measures, will use it wrongly. There is no getting away from that fact. The figures which have been quoted freely to your Lordships to-day unfortunately go to prove it. As I think Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out on more than one occasion, there is no need to be particularly angry with these restrictions because they are negative in content: after all, over 50 per cent. of the Ten Commandments were strictly negative in their content, and they have not been criticised particularly on those grounds.
The next point is parking, which has caused criticism. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I think practically every other speaker in the debate, has made mention of the parking meters provisions. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Earl that the real nuisance which we are trying to combat is the man who comes up to town, five days a week, driving his car, with no other passenger in it, and who leaves his car the whole day outside, or very near to, his place of business. Whilst not going so far as to agree with the Lord Mayor of London in his recent strictures, or with Sir John Elliott, I would suggest that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is right when he emphasises the nuisance that this type of driver is becoming. I would even go so far as to say that I believe that that type of driver has a sort of motor drug: he cannot move a yard without his car. When I look at those cars parked round Berkeley Square, of which just under half come into the class which we are discussing, I seriously wonder how many of their owners would suffer, in their person or in their business, if they were not allowed to come up by

639
car and had to go by public transport, always bearing in mind that this class of driver tends to travel outside the rush hours, when the traffic and public transport is getting considerably easier.
This sort of scheme was criticised when it was introduced in every other country. It was criticised in America; it was criticised in Sweden very much; it was criticised in New Zealand, where their problem is quite like ours, in some respects. It was also criticised in Switzerland. But all users of these parking meters have now come to regard them as useful and to seek them more. We are seeking power in this Bill to introduce them on only a very small scale. I agree that asking people to pay for using the highway is an innovation, but are they, within the ordinary sense of the word, "using" the highway? Are they not really adopting "squatters' rights" on the highway? Are they not obstructing ordinary circulating traffic? Take the case of a motorist who wants to park for an hour's shopping: he has to go round and round and round looking for parking accommodation.
We have been criticised from the point of view of the Road Fund. The money received from parking meters is not coming back to the central Exchequer; it is going to local authorities, as an instigation and encouragement to them to provide alternative parking facilities. I will, of course, look carefully at the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the London County Council, but I cannot go so far as to agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about civic restaurants. I would warn the noble Earl that I think that at the moment there are one or two central features in that idea quite contrary to the scheme as Her Majesty's Government see it. I should like to look at his proposal more carefully to see whether negotiations along the lines he suggested might be fruitful.
I quite agree that this scheme should not be rushed. It may possibly be advantageous to spread it to another city, to another small town, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth suggested. I think these proposals may prove a useful contribution towards easing this intolerable problem. When your Lordships bear in mind that we have 18·1 vehicles to
640
every mile of road in this country, compared with, say, 6·7 vehicles in France, the contrast shows how much greater is our problem than that of many countries, and how much more necessary it is for us to try any scheme, particularly one like this, which has proved satisfactory in the past, to see whether it will not do something to ease our troubles.
The same defence can be put up—and I am now going to put it up on— the next most controversial point raised by many noble Lords, the inspection of vehicles. This is a pilot scheme. We are not going to launch a scheme straight away with millions of civil servants, or millions of engineers, inspecting cars extensively from the day the scheme is launched. We are going to try only a very small scheme at first and then, if it proves successful, extend it possibly to a new but very small class of vehicles. In this country, over half our cars are over fifteen years old. Two million are over seven years old, and by 1960 we shall have seven million cars. I would not suggest for one moment that maintenance is a leading factor in our accident rate (the figures, of course, disprove that), but it is one factor. I believe that it may be a bigger factor than these figures suggest; because it may be indirectly responsible for quite a number of accidents. Is there any disagreement about that? Those of us who come within the scheme as volunteers are being asked to submit ourselves to a scheme which I am certain nearly every reliable and reputable driver in the country voluntarily undergoes at least twice a year without any objection. I think one or two noble Lords are making a little heavy weather of the trouble which we are likely to encounter in the working of this pilot scheme, and even when it is extended to a wider class.
I have been asked why the appeal should be to the Minister and not to the courts. That is an old and vexed question. The question to be decided in such cases would be purely one of fact. To which court would the appellant go: the divisional court or the county court? The question at issue would, for example, be whether one's brake were actually in alignment, as one claimed, and not out of alignment, as the inspector alleged. I see great difficulty over that.

641
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and many other noble Lords spoke on the question of fines. That point was also male by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, in his most interesting maiden speech. Lord Lucas of Chilworth went so far as to say that he thought in some cases magistrates were being a little perverse in fining at such a low rate. It is not for me to make any comments on that suggestion, save to say that by increasing the fines we are hoping to emphasise the seriousness which at least Her Majesty's Government feel should be directed at this matter. Let me mot it no more highly than that. As to fines on the spot—the American custom which several noble Lords, among them Lord Teviot and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned—I have two things I want to say. One is that it is quite alien to anything we have ever had in this country. I do not mean that it is wrong for that reason, but it would be a most radical change. The other practical point to make is that the matter is now the subject of an inquiry by an Official Committee who have not yet reported, and I think we should keep silent on it until we see what they have to say about it.
I turn now to the question of obstruction, dealt with in Clause 2, which several noble Lords, including Lord Teynham and Lord Howe, have mentioned. The point there is to enable the police to deal with the genuine obstruction that they occasionally encounter such as cars parked carelessly and heedlessly outside, the main ambulance exits to hospitals—a problem all too common in London. The head of the London Fire Brigade has expressed considerable anxiety about his ability to get his fire appliances through particularly crowded areas—for instance, in and around Soho, where one car wrongly placed can block the traffic for hundreds of yards either side. Since the police must themselves take the cars away, exercising their power under this clause, I should have thought that that fact alone was sufficient reason to think that they would exercise their power only when they found a genuine obstruction. I hope that that will be a sufficient guarantee to your Lordships that the power will be used only when it is really needed.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and two or three other noble Lords, mentioned the
642
question of the right of appeal when the issue of a driving licence had been refused. I have not checked this point in detail, because I have not the Act in my hand at the moment, but I think I am right in saying that the right of appeal to the courts, not to the Minister, already exists in the 1930 Act. I will check that, but I am pretty certain that it is so. I have answered Lord Listowel's point about the L.C.C. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, when he made his point about Grand Prix motor racing. I will certainly look at that point. Obviously, it is a complex matter, involving several new and difficult principles; but I would not turn down his suggestion straight away, because I see the point of the arguments he advanced.
The noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Hindlip, both talked about the education of young children—an important point and I am grateful that they directed attention to it. I am not able to tell them that it is 100 per cent. covered in the elementary schools of this country, but road safety and the need for road safety is widely taught. The most efficient teacher of all is the village policeman, and I am glad to say that he is called in on a large number of occasions to teach the children—most of whom he knows personally by name—the matters which we have been discussing this afternoon. I only wish that more local authorities would make greater use of the police; I can assure them that the police are only too happy to make their services available for instruction in road safety. The noble Lords, Lord Sempill and Lord Hindlip, both asked me about the reinstatement of the test for the drivers of heavy road vehicles. There have been frequent requests for that. The reason why reinstatement has been put off is not only that it would cost a great deal of money, and a great deal of time and effort, but also that there seems at the present moment to be no great deterioration in the standard of long-distance heavy road haulage driving; indeed, the standard seems to be very good indeed. At the moment, I cannot say that the evidence points to a need for its reinstatement, though we will bear it in mind if the need should arise. If the standard of driving of drivers of heavy road vehicles deteriorates we will certainly think about it again, but, as I say,

643
at the moment the evidence does not point towards a need.
My Lords, I am afraid that the time at my disposal does not enable me to answer more than a tithe of the questions that noble Lords have asked. I have answered, I think, the most important ones that have been put to me, and I will do my level best to have correct answers given to all the questions which I have been unable to answer. The trouble with this Bill is that it is easier to deal with it on the Committee stage, when one is considering individual points, rather than on Second Reading, when there is no main theme running through it. My noble friend Lord Fortescue tells me that the Committee stage will be on Tuesday, February 15, and that is sufficiently far ahead to enable most of us to think again on the matters that have been raised this afternoon. But I hope that this Bill, when it is considered in Committee and on Third Reading, will be considered in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government's road plan, as briefly outlined by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
I hope it will be realised that this Bill is an experimental Bill; that we must go slowly with it and take it step by step, whilst both users of the road and the police learn to understand its provisions, and, in so doing, remain on good terms with each other. In my opinion, it would be absolutely disastrous if the relationship between the police and road users were to deteriorate through the harsh administration of any provision in this Bill. That is why we should go slowly with it. There is, surely, one question we should ask ourselves—namely, will this Bill make the roads safer for all users, not just for the various classes of road user? We have heard this afternoon (I hope I may say this without offence) rather predominantly about the motorist's point of view. I am interested as a motorist and as a pedestrian, but more so as a pedestrian. We must think of all road users. It is perfectly easy to take this Bill in one hand, to go through every clause and, if you have the wish, to make nonsense of every clause by referring to any ridiculous situation which might conceivably arise. You can do that particularly easily with such a Bill. But a Bill like this, which deals with everyday problems, has surely to
644
be administered with common sense. That is what the police will do. That is what I am quite certain the people for whose benefit the Bill is intended, namely, the road users, will also do.
My Lords, my noble friend Lora Selkirk, in introducing this Bill, said that there are no political implications in it. Let me add that there is very little political advantage to be gained from introducing it; but I sincerely hope that there is a great advantage to be derived by, and to accrue to, the users of the roads, and to all classes of Her Majesty's liege subjects for whose benefit this Bill is introduced. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BLYTH GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [H.L.],
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.],
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.],
CHINESE ENGINEERING AND MINING COMPANY BILL [H.L.],
CORN EXCHANGE BILL [H.L.],
DEWSBURY MOOR CREMATORIUM BILL [H.L.],
ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.],
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L],
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.],
MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.],
NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL [H.L.],
RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.],
SAINT STEPHEN COLEMAN STREET BILL [H.L.],
SEVENOAKS AND TONBRIDGE WATER BILL [H.L.],
SWANSEA CORPORATION (FAIRWOOD COMMON) BILL [H.L.],
UNIVERSITY OF HULL BILL [H.L.],
Presented, and read 1a.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before seven o'clock.