Sitting of 3 March 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. speaker in the Chair]

PETITION (OLD-AGE PENSIONS)
Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of 6,388 of Her Majesty's loyal subjects in and around the City of Bristol, including and on behalf of old-age pensioners. The grievance contained in the Petition is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in that they have made no adequate provision for alleviating the distress suffered by the old-age pensioners, and that, on the other hand, they have given taxation reliefs to those whose needs are demon-strably less.
The Petition concludes:
"Wherefore, your petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government will take an early opportunity of reconsidering their policy so as to grant some aid and benefit to ease the heavy burden which now lies on those who have given a lifetime of service to the community, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NYASALAND

    Disturbances
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will set up a judicial inquiry to investigate and report on the causes of the recent disturbances in Nyasaland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the Questions on this subject from the hon. Members for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 2nd December, 1953.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Under Secretary agree that where discontent becomes articulate and results in violence, as in Nyasaland, the greatest care should be taken in dealing with it and in inculcating an appreciation of British law and order? Was that done here?
    Mr. Foster: Yes. An inquiry was made into the first part of the disturbances, and then it was thought it was clear what the causes and sequence of events were and no further inquiry was ordered. A statement was made by my right hon. Friend in October.
    Mr. Baldwin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, since all is quiet in Nyasaland, that the less we say to stir up trouble from this end the better for that country, and that we should allow it to manage its own affairs?
    Mr. Foster: Yes.

    Land Situation
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the land owned by the Livingstone Bruce Estates British Central Africa Company and others in the Blantyre District of South Nyasaland is being fully utilised, and what unutilised land he is taking over for controlled settlement by Africans.
    Mr. J. Foster: As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend is not altogether satisfied with the land situation in Southern Nyasaland. In answer to the second half of the Question, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member on 17th February.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister please look at this again, because my figures show that something like 30 per cent, of these plantations are not being utilised? Unlike the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), I am not too happy about this situation, because the same business can blow up again if we do not solve this problem of land hunger.
    Mr. Foster: The matter is being tackled now, and my right hon. Friend hopes that it will be possible to secure co-operation with the owners.

  NIGERIA

    Processing of Oil Seeds (Report)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action has been taken on the Gardiner Report on the processing of oilseeds in Nigeria.
    Mr. J. Foster: The Nigerian Government have distributed it to the authorities and organisations concerned for study and comment.
    Mrs. White: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us any idea when we are likely to have a statement of policy on this matter? There is considerable concern over the economic situation in parts of Nigeria.
    Mr. Foster: No, that will be a matter for the Nigerian Government.

    Civil Service (Report)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take upon the findings of the Phillipson-Adebo Report on the Nigerianisation of the Civil Service.
    Mr. J. Foster: This Report has been considered by the Nigerian Government. A statement by the Council of Ministers of their views was published at the beginning of February. As it is rather long, I will place a copy in the Library.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister think that this Report took too long to come out, that six months is too long a period? Is he aware that it would have been of great assistance to the delegates at the August Conference hi London if they could have had copies of this Report which was compiled by two distinguished civil servants, one European and one African?
    Mr. Foster: Of course, the Report is primarily a matter for the Nigerian Government and, as the hon. Gentleman has seen, some statements in the Report have been overtaken by events.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not that platitudinous? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that time is always marching on and that we should always be overtaken by events? Is this not a case of the same old lag, because this Report was held up when the delegates were discussing Lagos at the same August Conference?
    Mr. Foster: The Phillipson-Adebo Report, which is the subject of the Question, assumes a retention of a unitary public service. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Conference went on another tack and recommended four services. The same thing happened, with their recommendations about the non-promotion of Nigerian officers, which is also contrary to what was adopted at the Conference.
    Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether "Nigerianisation" is a word used in the elementary schools of this country?

  TANGANYIKA

    Mau Mau Activities
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many teams are now screening Kikuyu in Tanganyika; and to what extent the Tanganyika Government have taken over responsibility for screening operations and for detaining those found to be Mau Mau supporters.
    Mr. J. Foster: There are no teams screening Kikuyu in Tanganyika at present. Full responsibility for such operations and for detaining Mau Mau supporters rests with the Tanganyika Government.
    Mr. MacPherson: Does that mean that the danger of the penetration of Mau Mau into Tanganyika is either very slight or has disappeared?
    Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent recent police operations in the Northern Province of Tanganyika have been successful in reducing the danger of Mau Mau activity in Tanganyika.
    Mr. J. Foster: The recent police operations in the Northern Province have for the time being extinguished Mau Mau activities there. Small centres of potential Mau Mau infection in the Tanga Province are being broken up by the arrest of all suspects. Although there are a few Kikuyu in other parts of the Territory, no militant organisation is known to exist.

    Constitution (Report) 23.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to implement the sections

    1157
    of the Report of the Special Commission appointed to examine matters arising out of the Report of the Committee on constitutional development in Tanganyika concerned with franchise.
    Mr. J. Foster: None, Sir. The Report was debated in the Tanganyika Legislative Council in October. All members were unanimous in the opinion that the country was not at present ready for the introduction of an electoral system and that progress should not be unduly hurried. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, the Local Government Ordinance adopted a great number of the recommendations in the Report for decentralising Government and authorised the making of (regulations for the institution of elections to local government bodies where this proves practicable.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that all sections of opinion, African, European and Asian, are in favour of ultimately having a common roll for elections? Would he consider either Tanga or Dar-es-Salaam as one constituency with which to begin the common roll system for elections?
    Sir H. Williams: What about Khartoum?
    Mr. Foster: The hon. Member will know that in the Mackenzie Report the Commissioner said that his proposals were tentative and that there was a lack of public appreciation of the problems. For that reason the Legislative Council decided to start with local elections, and that is why regulations for local elections have been framed.

    Inter-Racial Whitley Council
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the success of the Inter-Racial Whitley Council in Kenya, what steps are being taken by the Government of Tanganyika to introduce an inter-racial Whitley Council on the staff side.
    Mr. J. Foster: I am consulting the Governor and will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Labour Conditions
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that there is an adequate system
    1158
    of labour inspection in Tanganyika; and how far the labour inspectors are able to investigate the payment of wages on farms.
    Mr. J. Foster: Yes, Sir. The Tanganyika Labour Department has headquarters staff and a field inspectorate covering all the main areas of employment. Labour Officers and inspectors investigate labour conditions, including the payment of wages, on farms to ensure that the labour laws are observed.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that many of those farmers do not keep books and that there is considerable doubt whether in fact many of them are paying the wages to the workers?
    Mr. Foster: No, Sir.
    Sir R. Acland: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we feel that he has deputised quite well for his right hon. Friend?

    WEST AFRICA (DRY DOCK FACILITIES)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have yet decided to construct in any of the ports of British West Africa a dry or floating dock to take a ship of up to 10,000 tons displacement; and where the dock is to be.
    Mr. J. Foster: No, Sir.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the present floating dock at Lagos is both old and small, and will he consider consulting the four West African Governments with a view to its ultimate replacement?
    Mr. Foster: Yes, but the Government are not aware of any demand from the shipping companies. If my hon. Friend knows of any, I know that my right hon. Friend will very much like to hear about it.

    JAMAICA (TOBACCO INDUSTRY)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has to account for the reduction in the employment of tobacco workers in Jamaica.
    Mr. J. Foster: The reduction in employment in the Jamaican tobacco industry has been due to a reduction in the demand for Jamaican cigars, particularly in this country, with consequent restricted production.
    Mr. Russell: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether the reduction in the demand for Jamaican cigars is in any way due to imports of cigars from Cuba? Has he received any representations from Jamaica on that subject?
    Mr. Foster: Yes, it is due to that partly, because there is a preference on the part of United Kingdom customers for Cuban cigars, and far more Cuban cigars are available. I should like to have notice of the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

    GOLD COAST (CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the fact that the Co-operative Cocoa Marketing Association is a non-profit-making organisation composed entirely of producer members, he will reconsider the decision to refuse representation of the Association on the Gold Coast Cocoa Marketing Board on the ground that the society is a marketing and not a producers' organisation.
    Mr. J. Foster: This is entirely a matter for the Gold Coast Government, which appoints the members of the Board. I am informed that the Co-operative Marketing Association is one of the Board's licensed buying agents and that it is not the policy of the Gold Coast Government for any licensed buying agent to be represented on the Board.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister appreciate that this is not a buying agent in the same sense as a profit-making organisation composed only of buyers, but is a producers' organisation. Would he make representations there to give some encouragement to this Association, which has done good work and can do still better work?
    Mr. Foster: This is a licensed buying agent in the Gold Coast—there is no doubt about that. But I will certainly bring the point made by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the important part that is being played by cooperative organisations in the Gold Coast and elsewhere in Africa, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to discuss this matter with the Gold Coast Government, and also ask him to recognise and encourage these organisations in every way?
    Mr. Foster: I believe that point has been well seized by the Government.
    Mr. Beswick: Has the hon. and learned Government seen the petition presented to the Governor-General, and is it being studied here in London?
    Mr. Foster: No, I should need to have notice of that question.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent it is intended that the Cocoa Purchasing Company Limited of the Gold Coast should fulfil marketing and credit functions now carried out by the Gold Coast Co-operative Marketing Association.
    Mr. J. Foster: The Cocoa Purchasing Company is one of a number of buying agents licensed by the Cocoa Marketing Board. The Gold Coast Government consider that there is room both for this Company and for the Co-operative Marketing Association. There is no intention that the Company should exercise a monopoly.
    Mr. Beswick: The Minister will appreciate that the Company is usurping functions hitherto exercised by the Cooperative Association, so would he at least see that the same encouragement is given to the Co-operative Association as is given to the Cocoa Purchasing Company?
    Mr. Foster: The provisional figures for the last crop show that 19·7 per cent. was handled by the Co-operative Marketing Association and 17·8 per cent, by the Cocoa Purchasing Company.

    SIERRA LEONE (SCRAP IRON EXPORTS)
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reason for the refusal of an export licence to Messrs. A. A. Abokie and Company, who wished to export scrap iron from Sierra Leone.
    Mr. J. Foster: Exports of scrap from Sierra Leone are strictly controlled because there have been serious outbreaks of theft of scrap lately in the territory and also to prevent scrap reaching undesirable destinations. Messrs. Abokie and Co. applied for a licence to export scrap to a number of alternative destinations including Soviet satellite countries.
    Sir R. Acland: Is the Minister aware that when Messrs. Abokie attempted to export scrap at the European price to Western Germany, the local agents of the British Iron and Steel Federation first tried to bully them into accepting a much lower price, and then boasted that they would prevent them getting an export licence? Is not this a scandalous way of exploiting Sierra Leone to get British scrap cheaper than the European price?
    Mr. Foster: My right hon. Friend has no evidence of that, and in any event Her Majesty's Government obviously cannot be responsible for the actions of the agent of the iron and steel industry's purchasing arrangements.
    Sir R. Acland: In view of the facts set out in the letter which I have sent to his right hon. Friend, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that this agent is an undesirable person to have in Sierra Leone?
    Mr. Foster: No, Sir.

  MALAYA

    Local Government
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many towns in Malaya have now elected councils; how many will be added during the present year; to what extent the qualifications for electors and councillors are uniform throughout the area; and if he will set up a special minister to deal with local government matters as suggested in the Bedale Report.
    Mr. J. Foster: Fifteen towns in the Federation have elected municipal or town councils. Five more town councils are definitely to be established in 1954 and four others may be. The qualifications for electors and councillors are decided by the Governments of the States and Settlements and differ slightly from one to another. A Minister was appointed
    1162
    last November—not, of course, by my right hon. Friend but by the High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya —with responsibility for a new portfolio covering local government, housing and town planning.
    Mr. Awbery: Whilst thanking the Minister for the progress already made, can I ask him to press on with the other towns and villages so that they can be incorporated in the scheme, and will he make it clear to the people of Malaya that the ballot is secret?
    Mr. Foster: Yes, and I think the hon. Gentleman can be comforted by the fact that, if the present plans go forward, all the towns with over 10,000 population will have these town councils.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent General Templer has recently studied the question of the prices charged to the consumer by the middlemen in Perak; and what was the nature of his conclusions.
    Mr. J. Foster: General Templer has not been making any special study of this question.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in the B.B.C. news bulletin on 14th February it was definitely stated that during his tour of Perak General Templer made a close examination of food prices, and that he was looking for ways of reducing the profit of the middlemen so that prices might be lowered? Can the Minister tell the House if he is on the side of General Templer or of the bandits in this controversy?
    Mr. Foster: General Templer, of course, always has in mind the reduction of food prices, but he has not—[Interruption]. If hon. Gentlemen will listen to the answer, I am saying that he is not making a particular study of this question, but that he always has it in mind.

    Rubber Industry
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the importance of rubber to the economy of Malaya, what action he is taking to improve the position of the industry.
    Mr. J. Foster: The Federation Government are endeavouring to improve the efficiency of the industry by encouraging replanting with high yielding trees and have instituted control over grading and packing to improve the quality of rubber exported. Extensive research and development work is carried out in this country and in Malaya to improve the technical qualities of natural rubber and develop new uses for it. A comprehensive inquiry into the Malayan rubber industry, covering costs of production and taxation, is also in hand.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that many plantations cannot produce rubber under about 2s. a lb. and that the present price is round about Is. 4½d., may I ask my hon. and learned Friend if he can assure the House that the American Government are doing their utmost to help the producers of natural rubber to get a fair price for their product and so be enabled to pay decent wages to their workers?
    Mr. Foster: As I understand it, at the October meeting of the management committee of the Rubber Study Group various recommendations were made and the U.S. Government took action on two of them but not on the third, which related to an increase in the price of synthetic rubber.
    Mr. Awbery: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman take this up with the Minister of Supply with a view to purchasing rubber now that it is cheap and stockpiling it in this country, so that we may have a stockpile here and help the rubber industry in Malaya?
    Mr. Foster: The hon. Member's suggestion will be noted.

  KENYA

    Parliamentary Delegation (Report)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will place additional copies of Appendix II of the Report on Kenya in the Library.
    Mr. J. Foster: Further copies have now been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Rankin: May I thank the Minister for the speed with which he moved after the Question was put down?
    Mr. Beresford Craddock: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider giving greater general publicity to the facts in Appendix II, so that the people in the country know the real truth of these matters?
    Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend will remember that my right hon. Friend said that he would be prepared to publish Appendix II, to which this Question is directed, if the House so wished.
    Mr. E. Wakefield: Has my hon. and learned Friend considered sending copies of Appendix II to foreign embassies for transmission to their Governments?
    Mr. Foster: I will bring that suggestion to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that a great deal of the material covered by the Appendix will be found in "The Golden Bough"?
    Mr. Nicholson: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that the information contained in this Appendix is essential for anyone desiring to grasp the true nature of the situation in Kenya, and as it is of such a shattering nature that it ought to be disseminated with care, will the Minister send it to newspaper editors as well to everybody else?

    Police Reserve (Irregularities)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many members of the Kenya Police Reserve have been charged with serious irregularities; to what extent these irregularities have arisen out of vengeance for Mau Mau activities against relatives of those charged with irregularities; and what specific instructions to avoid these irregularities are given through officers commanding and training the Police Reserve.
    Mr. J. Foster: The answer to the first part of the Question is 42. There is no evidence that the irregularity in any case was in the nature of a reprisal. Eleven directives have been issued by the Commissioner of Police, in addition to those of the Governor and the Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. Sorensen: May we take it, therefore, that there are now no further irregularities or malpractices to be attributed to the Police Reserve?
    Mr. Foster: I think the answer to the Question is that 42 have been charged. One cannot say as to what may or may not have happened in any place. If there are further irregularities they will be dealt with in the same way, but there have f been none further that I know of which should be the subject of a charge.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, in spite of recent suggestions of irregularities occurring in circumstances of extreme provocation, the Kenya police has always been a body with a very fine record in the best traditions of service?
    Mr. Foster: The answer must be seen in the framework of the fact that there are 10,000 members of the Kenya Police Reserve.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As this is the first Question about Kenya which we have reached, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State if he proposes to make a statement later either to confirm or deny the statement in the mid-day Press that the death sentence on the Mau Mau leader known as "General China" has been suspended and that he has offered to meet the other Mau Mau leaders to try to arrange a peace?
    Mr. Foster: If permission is granted, I propose to make a statement.

    "Kenya Report, 1953"
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a further statement on the document entitled "Kenya Report, 1953"
    Mr. J. Foster: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him by my right hon. Friend on 17th and 24th February, to which I am at present unable to add.

    Passports
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds passports issued to African residents in Kenya are endorsed with the qualification that any application for further endorsement should be referred to the Principal Immigration Officer, Nairobi.
    Mr. J. Foster: My right hon. Friend is consulting the Governor and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that originally I put this Question down to the Foreign Office, as it has responsibility for passports, but that the Foreign Office transferred it to the Colonial Office under the assumption that there would be more information there? Is it really the case that the Colonial Office is unaware of this gross interference with the holding of British passports by British subjects?
    Mr. Foster: Inquiries have been made of the Governor, as these matters are usually within his province.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Health Service Doctors (Seconding)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements there are for seconding doctors from the National Health Service to the service of Colonial Governments; and how many are at present seconded to Nigeria and the Gold Coast, respectively.
    Mr. J. Foster: Hospital authorities have power to second members of their medical staffs in suitable circumstances to overseas and other posts. In addition, National Health Service hospital doctors may take up employment in the Colonial Medical Service for periods up to six years, with continuing participation in National Health Service superannuation. The salaries and general conditions of service of doctors so employed are similar to those for doctors on the permanent establishment. On reversion to employment in this country, a gratuity is payable. One doctor is serving in Nigeria and three doctors in the Gold Coast under these latter arrangements.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in Northern Nigeria there is only one doctor for every 64,000 people, and would he discuss with the Minister of Health what steps could be taken to make seconding better known and more popular?
    Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the trouble is partly due to the recent creation of the posts and partly to reluctance to accept a new idea.

    Government Offices (Air-Conditioning)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the air-conditioning of Government-owned offices and buildings in those Colonies which lie within the tropics.
    Mr. J. Foster: This is a matter for individual Colonial Governments to determine.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is now as cheap to build air-conditioned houses as those of the traditional type, and would he also agree that the efficiency of expatriates increases greatly with such modern scientific help?
    Mr. Foster: I could not express an opinion as to whether the cost is the same. Obviously the cost of converting existing buildings is fairly heavy. My hon. Friend might be interested in "Colonial Building Notes," which sets out the methods of converting buildings to air-conditioning.

  SOMALILAND (STUDENT SCHOLARSHIPS)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has concerning the 25 scholarships for Somaliland students given by the Egyptian Government; and how many British scholarships have been given during the past year.
  Mr. J. Foster: The awards were sponsored by the Somali National League. Of the 19 scholars who have already travelled to Egypt, nine are receiving religious instruction only and the remaining 10 are to receive secondary education. The Somaliland Government have given 13 scholarships during the past year for studies abroad including three in the United Kingdom. A total of 34 students are at present undertaking studies abroad with the assistance of Government or Colonial Development and Welfare funds, eight of whom are in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that these students who go into Egypt become acquainted with the Egyptian atmosphere and interpretation of events, is it not highly desirable that we should supply
  1168
  more scholarships for Somali students to come to this country than we have done heretofore?
  Mr. Foster: I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The difference between grants and scholarships is not perhaps so well defined there, and the hon. Gentleman will note in the answer that 34 students are getting grants and that 13 are getting scholarships. I will, however, bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Sorensen: Do they come to this country? Is it not essential that we should encourage as many as possible to come here?
  Mr. Foster: No, Sir, because many of them go to adjoining Colonial Territories and can benefit from similarity of conditions, though perhaps not such a high standard of education.
  Mr. Alport: With the opening of the Muslim Institute of Education in Mombasa, will my hon. and learned Friend draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to the importance of using that particularly for the education of Somalis from British Somaliland?
  Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir, and I can tell my hon. Friend that of those 34 students some are at Mombasa already.

  SHIPBUILDING (U.S.S.R. ORDERS)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many requests up to date have been made to Britain for permission to allow British shipbuilding yards to build ships for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; how many of such requests have resulted in contracts; with what British shipbuilding yards such contracts have been placed; and what is the kind of ship and value in money involved.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The only contract actually placed up to the present is one with a Lowestoft firm for 20 trawlers, the value of which is approximately £6 million. Apart from this order, no applications from shipbuilders for licences to build ships for the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have been received.
  Mr. Hughes: Is not it a fact that the orders to which the Minister has referred are not comparable to the number of offers that have been made by the Russian authorities? Further, is he aware that Scottish shipbuilding yards badly need those orders, having regard to the poor inflow of orders for next year, and will he do something to stave off the threat of unemployment?
  Mr. Digby: I am aware of the need for orders in some of the smaller yards. I believe that there are one or two other inquiries on foot from this quarter.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that when shipbuilding firms in this country have not been permitted to build ships for Russia over a certain tonnage the orders have been promptly transferred to Europe, where they are fulfilled by our allies?
  Mr. Digby: I am aware that there have been some orders placed in Europe, but the fact remains that an order has to be placed here before the Admiralty is requested to issue a licence. There has to be a firm application, and we have had only one firm application, which I have mentioned.
  Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. Gentleman include requests to build for other countries than Soviet Russia which are behind the Iron Curtain, or does he limit his answer to Soviet Russia alone?
  Mr. Digby: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Question, he will see that that would be outside its scope.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Ceremonial Visits, Welsh Ports
    Mr. Gowerasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of Her Majesty's ships will make ceremonial visits to Welsh ports this year; and if he will give details of such visits already arranged.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): The Home Fleet's summer programme has not yet been settled, but I will let my hon. Friend have the details he asks for as soon as they are available.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking the Minister for that promise, may I ask him
    1170
    to bear in mind that, while in recent years we have appreciated these visits to Barry and other Welsh ports, we should particularly like visits from some of the larger and new types, with their officers and crews.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that what we are interested in are not ceremonial visits but the visits of ships with cargoes, and that Barry is urgently in need of cargo ships rather than circuses.
    Commander Noble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know—it is relevant to the second part of his question—that we now intend to berth some ships of the Reserve Fleet at Barry.
    Mr. Gower: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make such a remark as that made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), which is calculated to reflect badly on the Barry Council and other bodies in Barry who support the point of view I have expressed?
    Mr. Thomas: Further to that point of of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make himself look quite as foolish as the hon. Gentleman opposite?
    Mr. Speaker: Neither of those is a point of order.

    Admiralty Employees, Singapore
    Mr. Awberyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that men residing in the naval base, Singapore, are often fined a day's or even two days' wages for offences committed outside working hours and that lorry drivers are fined at the will of the Admiralty without appearing at a civil court; and if he will take steps to put the civil employees resident at the base under civil law when outside working hours.
    Mr. Digby: Admiralty employees who live in official quarters inside the Naval Base are subject to the civil law at all times. In addition, they are subject to local dockyard orders for the regulation of the base and are liable to be fined up to a maximum of two days' pay for offences against these orders. Motor transport drivers are liable, when on duty, to be fined under local dockyard orders. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no evidence of the need

    1171
    to alter the system I have described, in view of the circumstances at Singapore, where very large numbers of employees live inside the base.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men and their families inside the base find themselves in a difficult position? Does he know that recently one of the men was evicted from his house and that a trade union official saw the camp commodore and told him that it was a case for the civil court, but the commodore said, "I am the law here "; and apparently he is the law inside the base although there are thousands of people living there and not out-side? Will the Minister look into the matter again?
    Mr. Digby: If the hon. Member likes to give me more particulars, I will certainly look at them; but the point is that these families are subject to the civil law and to these regulations which are perfectly clearly laid down.
    Mr. W. J. Edwards: Can the Civil Lord tell us when the regulations came into operation, and whether they have ever received the consideration of the political members of the Department?
    Mr. Digby: They came into force, I understand, some years ago. I do not think that they have been reviewed by the political side of the Department recently.
    Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman review them to see that these people are treated in the same way as people in this country who are employed by the Services?
    Mr. Digby: Certainly I will look al that, but I should very much doubt whether they could be very much altered owing to the special circumstances at Singapore, where 3,500 employees are living inside the Naval base in a way which does not happen elsewhere.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend ascertain whether the regulations were reviewed between 1946 and 1951?
    Mr. Digby: No, Sir, 'they were not.

    Lost Aircraft, Irish Sea (Search)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what efforts were made by naval vessels to locate the Royal Air Force bomber and crew lost over the Irish Sea on 26th January last.
    Commander Noble: On receiving a report of the accident on the international distress frequency, Her Majesty's Ship "Romola" altered course and searched the vicinity of the reported position throughout the night. At first light she was joined by Her Majesty's Ship "Volage," the Trinity House vessel "Argus" and a number of merchant ships as well as aircraft, with "Romola" co-ordinating. During the afternoon Her Majesty's Ship "Perseus," joined in with her helicopters. At dusk the merchant ships were released from the search. Her Majesty's Ships "Perseus," "Romola" and "Volage" together with the Trinity House vessel "Argus," continued the search until 8 a.m. on the following day the 27th January. By then no hope remained of saving life and, by agreement with the Royal Air Force authorities, the sea search was abandoned.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May we have an assurance that no naval craft would have followed the shocking example of the Fleetwood trawler captain whose vessel picked up the body of an airman a few days after the unfortunate accident—
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the inadequate nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter at an early date.

    Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia"
    Mr. Doddsasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make a statement giving technical details of the S.Y. "Britannia" in view of the prestige associated with the building of this yacht.
    Commander Noble: Full details of the yacht have already been made public, but I will send a copy to the hon. Member. The only additional information that I need give is that she has a gross tonnage of 5,769 tons and is driven by four steam turbines geared to two shafts, giving a cruising speed of 21 knots. The performance of the yacht on trials gave complete satisfaction.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that applications by the technical and the national Press to view the vessel have been turned down? Why a/re we not taking every opportunity to

    1173
    tell the world of this engineering triumph and of the skill of British shipbuilders? In these difficult days, is it not necessary to allow the Press to see the vessel? Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the Service should not always be the "Silent Service ".
    Commander Noble: If the hon. Member reads the details that I have given him, which were published very fully in the Press in April last year, I think he will agree that we have given very full details to the world. However, I will certainly go into the point that he raised about visits.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether their Lordships are satisfied with the performance of this vessel in view of the alterations that have taken place.
    Commander Noble: I do not know to what alterations the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Hobson: Turbine gearing.
    Mr. Gough: Purely as a matter of information, will my hon. and gallant Friend say whether this vessel should be referred to as "H.M.S." or as "S.Y.," as printed on the Order Paper.
    Commander Noble: The correct description is "Her Majesty's Yacht."
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that if any prestige value attaches to the construction of the yacht, its ugly appearance detracts from it.
    Commander Noble indicated dissent.

  POST OFFICE

    Telephone and Electricity Lines (Shared Facilities)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Assistant Postmaster-General on how many occasions during the last year he has come to an agreement with the electricity authorities to use the same poles to carry both services; and how many poles carrying both telephone lines and electric mains were erected during the same period.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Four thousand eight hundred and twenty-five occasions, involving 12,972 poles; the answer to the second part of the Question is 453.
    Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that 453 represents adequate progress and that there is not a lack of co-operation between the experts in the two services?
    Mr. Gammans: The first figure refers to poles previously erected, but the second figure refers only to poles which were specially put up for the service.
    Mr. Bowen: Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to bring about further progress in this field, as it seems to provide the only opportunity that some rural areas will have of obtaining this essential service?
    Mr. Gammans: I can give that, assurance. There is very close cooperation between the Post Office and the British Electricity Authority.

    Counter Staff
    Mr. Vaneasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that the Post Office counter staff is generally large enough to ensure the prompt payment of pensions and allowances without the recipients having to form long queues.
    Mr. Gammans: We aim to provide adequate staff for the transaction of counter business but, at some offices, a certain amount of queuing at peak periods is unavoidable. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any case of difficulty he may have in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiry.
    Mr. Vane: Where my hon. Friend receives complaints about inadequate staffing—I am sure he must receive some—is he satisfied that the work is evenly distributed throughout the week and not so arranged that there are peaks on some days and a great deal less work to be done on others?
    Mr. Gammans: It is not possible to make such an arrangement. There are some days in the week, especially Friday and Saturday, when a disproportionate number of old-age pensioners and other pensioners visit post offices.
    Mr. Manuel: When the hon. Gentleman is considering the matter and, possibly, also the question of increasing the number of staff serving at the counters, will he bear in mind that many counters are not large enough to take more staff and that he might have to attend to that matter before increasing staff?
    Mr. Gammons: I am very painfully aware of that fact. The difficulty is that the volume of post office business has increased enormously during recent years.

    Inland Telegrams (Tariff Increases)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will make a report on the present position of the telegram service.
    Mr. Gammans: I will, with permission, make a statement about this after Questions

    Sub-offices, Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations he has made to Dundee Corporation with regard to the provision of permanent shops suitable for use as sub-post offices on the Fintry, Douglas and Angus housing estates.
    Mr. Gammans: In response to an inquiry made in December last, the Dundee Corporation were informed that temporary shop buildings are not generally suitable for use as sub-post offices but that applications for the post of sub-postmaster on each of the estates mentioned would be invited as soon as shopkeepers were able to offer suitable permanent premises.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this very unsatisfactory situation has existed for a long time and that k causes great inconvenience, especially where large numbers of family allowances are concerned? Will he look into the possibility of establishing more permanent consultation machinery between his Department and the local authority with the object of providing sub-post offices more quickly? In the meantime, will he look into the question of providing travelling post offices in connection with such housing schemes?
    Mr. Gammans: I will look into the question of providing a travelling post office, but the responsibility for building permanent shops does not rest primarily on the Post Office.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Sunderland
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many people are on the waiting list for telephones in Sunderland; and how many of these have been waiting for more than 12 months.
    Mr. Gammans: During 1953, 897 telephones were provided in Sunderland and at the end of the year 294 applications were outstanding. Fifty-one of these had been waiting more than 12 months.

    Police Calls, Leeds Area (Boundaries)
    Mr. Pannellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the telephone kiosk situated at the junction of the four cross roads at Moor Top, New Farnley, opposite the Wood Cock Inn, which is within the Leeds boundary, is connected to the Drighlington Exchange; whether he is further aware of the confusion that has arisen to the advantage of thieves by the present arrangement; and whether in these circumstances he will have this telephone connected to the Leeds Exchange for contact with the headquarters of the Leeds Police Force.
    Mr. Gammans: Municipal and telephone boundaries seldom coincide, and arrangements are made locally to obviate difficulties over emergency calls. In the case of the Moor Top kiosk, a 999 call to the police is connected to the Morley Police Station in the West Riding, who pass the information to the Leeds City Police if necessary. This arrangement usually works very well, but if the hon. Member will let me have full details of this incident, I will have it fully investigated.
    Mr. Pannell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I sent him the original letter, or a copy, which I received from the local community centre? Will he give consideration to the argument that it is reasonable that ratepayers within the city of Leeds, even if they live in the rural

    1177
    outskirts, should have access to the police force for which they pay rates? Is he aware that when 999 has been dialled, the demand for the insertion of three pennies has resulted in the escape of burglars on at least one occasion?
    Mr. Gammans: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have been unable to trace the incident to which he refers. Collaboration between the two police forces has worked excellently in the past.

    TELEVISION (BAND III)
    Mr. Royleasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, in view of the Government's inability to undertake to bear the cost of changes of frequency due to the allocation of Band III to competitive television, he will take steps to ensure that the cost, falling on local authority ambulance services, will be borne by firms who gain advantages from competitive television.
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The decision to clear Band III over a period of years, as recommended by the Television Advisory Committee, was taken to provide additional television services, whether such services were to be provided by the B.B.C. or otherwise. The private interests affected were warned at the time their licences were issued that their frequencies might have to be changed.
    Mr. Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the change will cost the Sal-ford Corporation, for example, a great deal of money and will involve local authorities generally in an expenditure of thousands of pounds? Is it not common justice that those who gain by the change should recompense those who suffer? Cannot some of the £750,000 to which the hon. Gentleman referred yesterday be devoted to this purpose?
    Mr. Gammans: None of the frequencies allocated to commercial television is being used by the services to which the hon. Gentleman refers. At the time the licences were issued it was made perfectly clear to the licensees that they might have to be moved from their frequencies. We intend to make the removal a fairly slow
    1178
    business in order not to cause more inconvenience than is absolutely necessary.
    Captain Orr: Was not Band III allocated for broadcasting purposes internationally in 1947? Is it not also true that the various services which are involved ought never to have been put into the Band, as a result of which these difficulties have arisen, and that the cost of any change should, therefore, fall on the Post Office, which is responsible for this having happened?
    Mr. Gammans: I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend is not correct in his diagnosis.
    Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the problem again? The fact remains that frequencies are having to be taken from Band III to provide channels for sponsored television. Is it not unfair to place this burden on local authorities and other public services?
    Mr. Gammans: We should be starting a very dangerous precedent if we did what is suggested. When the licences were issued it was made clear beyond all doubt to the licensees that in certain circumstances they might have to be removed from the Band.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Navigation School, Bishops Court (Closure)
    Captain Orrasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he intends that flying duties shall be discontinued at Bishops Court, County Down; what estimate he has made of the effect upon local employment; and what his plans are for the future of this airfield.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The Air Navigation School at Bishops Court will be closing down in April. The station will then be placed on a care and maintenance basis, though the possibility of using it for another purpose later on will be kept in mind. We shall still need a small number of the civilians at present employed there, and it may be possible to offer a few of the remainder employment at other Royal Air Force stations in Northern Ireland.
    Captain Orr: When my hon. Friend is deciding the future of the airfield, will

    1179
    he bear in mind the very grave unemployment situation which exists in that part of the world?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. We have taken that very much into consideration, but we must also take into consideration the fact that at Bishops Court there are only temporary buildings and no married quarters and that it is badly situated geographically for navigation training.
    Captain Orr: Has my hon. Friend received any communications from the Government of Northern Ireland on this subject?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, and my noble Friend has replied.

    Broadcasting (Frequencies)
    Captain Orrasked the Under secretary of State for Air which aero nautical services are at present operating in the frequencies corresponding to channels 10, 11, 12 and 13 of television Band III, respectively; and what programme he has for vacating these frequencies.
    Mr. Ward: We do not disclose details of our frequencies.
    Captain Orrasked the Under secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the wide publicity which has been given to the air-sea rescue device, "Sarah," he will state what frequency this device operates upon so as to en courage its use by civil and military users at home and abroad.
    Mr. Ward: The frequency has not yet been finally decided.

    Personal Case
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. CHAPMAN: To ask the Undersecretary of State for Air, why, in a case about which details have been sent to him, a man who has completed his National Service in the Royal Army Service Corps and has done Reserve training in the Army, has now been called for Reserve training with the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Teeling: On a point of order. Question No. 45 concerns a constituent of mine. I understand that the hon.
    1180
    Member who is asking the Question and has not bothered to turn up today is living in my division, and that the constituent has been asked by my Labour opponent not to approach me on this Question. May I ask whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air will be allowed to answer this Question?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member who put the Question down is not here. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) should raise the matter with the hon. Gentleman whose name is on the Paper.
    Mr. Teeling: Is it not the case that this Question will be answered in writing afterwards? This is a point which ought to be raised, because the matter is of extreme urgency for my constituent.
    Mr. Speaker: A Question can only be asked by the hon. Member whose name is on the Paper.

    Regulars
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of Regulars who extended their service during each of the years 1949 to 1953, inclusive.
    Mr. Ward: The figures are: 1949, 2,658; 1950, 4,859; 1951, 9,641; 1952, 6,086; and 1953, 7,519.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of Regular recruits for each of the years 1948, 1949, 1951, 1952 and 1953, excluding three-year engagements.
    Mr. Ward: As the reply is in the form of a table with notes, I will, with permission, circulate it in the official report.
    Following is the reply:

    NUMBERS OF REGULAR RECRUITS AND RE-ENTRANTS TO THE ROYAL AIR FORCE, 1948–53

    1948

    1949

    1950

    1951

    1952

    1953

    13,612

    12,102

    11,272

    21,928

    17,695

    16,727

    NOTES:

    (1)The figures for 1948 and 1949 include a number of airmen who took on three-year regular engagements under the 1946 Bounty Scheme. It is not possible to distinguish these from airmen who took on longer engagements under the Bounty Scheme.

    (2)The figures for 1950–53 exclude three-year engagements

    Cook Assistants (Duties)
    Miss Baconasked the Undersecretary of State for Air the duties of a cook assistant in the Royal Air Force; and what special training is needed for this work.
    Mr. Ward: A cook assistant helps qualified cooks in kitchens and messes, normally on work directly concerned with the preparation of food, such as the cleaning of vegetables. No special training is required.
    Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 17th February I asked why an airman, a constituent of mine, had not been granted compassionate leave or compassionate posting and had, in fact, been sent abroad as one of only four out of 165 of his unit being sent abroad? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that in his reply he said:
    "A.C.2 Senior was one of the only four cook assistants in his entry and all of them were needed overseas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c, 217.
    Could he say why somebody else could not have been sent to peel the potatoes?
    Mr. Ward: This airman was, as I said, selected for cook assistant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The reason why somebody else could not have been sent overseas instead was that his compassionate grounds were not sufficiently strong. The whole system of compassionate posting and discharge only works and is only possible so long as we stick rigidly to the rules.

    LONDON AIRPORT (DETAINED ALIEN)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why it was necessary to have a guard for Dr. oestereich who was detained at London Airport when seeking to attend the conference organised by the National Committee of Teachers for Peace Conference; and how many guards were supplied by his Department each hour for the hourly charge of 8s.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox -Boyd): Whenever an alien is refused leave to land and is detained under the Aliens Order pending his removal from the United Kingdom, an escort is provided
    1182
    to ensure both the safe custody and the welfare of the passenger. A single escort throughout the detention period was in this case provided by the airline and not by my Department.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that one guard at 8s. an hour is a pretty high payment?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: These figures have been agreed between the various operating companies. It is a long story. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman does not carry out his undertaking to raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.
    Mr. Dodds: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice once again that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  ROADS

    Terminus Place
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that virtually no traffic uses Terminus Place, S.W.I, travelling from East to West; that it is now mainly used for costermongers' barrows; and as traffic from West to East is prohibited and thus adds nearly one-quarter of a mile to vehicles travelling from Victoria Station to Victoria Street, if he will now consider making a one-way street in the opposite direction.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): No, Sir. The present arrangement is supported by the police, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and our own engineers, who consider that it has improved the traffic conditions at this point and that to reverse the one-way direction would have the opposite effect.
    Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend ask the three eminent authorities to spend half an hour one day discussing the matter with local barrow boys and "coppers," who know much more about it than his expert advisers?
    Mr. Molson: If my hon. Friend's suggestion were carried out, it would mean that traffic moving out of Terminus Place would cut across the heavy stream of: buses coming into Victoria Station, on; the one hand, and two streams of traffic passing out, on the other.
    Mr. Fienburgh: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in tidying up this problem he will do nothing to force out of business many of these costermongers, some of whom are my constituents? Is he aware that they are a vital and lively part of the London scene and that many of them have old-fashioned private enterprises? If he does anything to impair their business, will he promise that proper compensation will be paid to them on the lines favoured by Government supporters?
    Mr. Molson: There is no intention of interfering with these enterprising costermongers, but when I paid a visit after lunch this afternoon I found only two of them there.

    Pedestrians
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in the interests of road safety, he will arrange to give greater publicity to the need for pedestrians to use footpaths where they are available, and thus to avoid walking on the roads as much as possible.
    Mr. Molson: Advice on this is contained in the current Highway Code and will be repeated in the new one. When the new code is issued, I will see what can be done to give this point special publicity.
    Sir W. Smithers: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I say that from my experience time after time people will walk on the road and not face the oncoming traffic when there is a footpath? If my hon. Friend could only impress it upon people, it might reduce accidents.
    Mr. Molson: We will do so. The matter of facing oncoming traffic will be referred to in the new Highway Code.
    Mr. Popplewell: When does the hon. Gentleman hope to be able to issue the new Highway Code?
    Mr. Molson: Within the next few months.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman be on his guard against following the bureaucratic tendencies of his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?
    Mr. Nicholson: Do the remarks of my hon. Friend bear the interpretation that nobody will be allowed to walk without reading the Highway Code?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir, but it is hoped that pedestrians, like other users of the highway, will read the Highway Code.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is holding up this new Highway Code? We have been promised it during the last 12 months, and now we learn that we are not to have it for some months.
    Mr. Molson: The drafting has been completed, and we hope to begin the arrangements for printing it hi the very near future. We intend that it shall be a thoroughly good production when it is published.

    Accidents (Learner-drivers)
    Mr. G. Darlingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many learner-drivers, driving vehicles bearing L plates, were involved in road accidents last year; what was the proportion of such accidents to total road accidents; and how many of them were fatal accidents.
    Mr. Molson: I regret that this information is not available for past years, but I have arranged to obtain it in future.

    Driving Tests
    Mr. G. Darlingasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many persons took a driving test last year; and how many failed.
    Mr. Molson: 642,376 tests were conducted in the 12 months ended 2nd January, 1954, and of these 273,916 resulted in failure.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that driving tests are rapidly becoming not so much tests of safe driving as of ability to answer a small number of standardised questions and to do certain driving tricks? Will the hon. Gentleman now review the tests in order to ensure that preparation for them by the motoring schools is rather less mechanical and automatic than it now is and is more conducive to safe driving.
    Mr. Molson: If the hon. Gentleman can send me any evidence in support of what

    1185
    he says—[HON MEMBERS:" Oh "]—I shall certainly be willing to look into the matter.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Would the hon. Gentleman seriously consider this matter to determine whether the cost of imposing a driving test really results in people who are competent to drive being allowed on the roads and the holding back of people who are not competent to drive? Will he satisfy himself that psychological prerequisites of driving, namely, temperamental tests, are possible, or whether we are spending a lot of money on officials in connection with driving tests that do not produce a good result?
    Mr. Molson: After the introduction of driving tests in 1934 there was a very substantial reduction in the number of road accidents. I have already been asked by my hon. Friend to look at some of the complaints which we have received with regard to driving tests. I repeat the invitation, which I gave in all seriousness to the hon. Gentleman, and to anyone else, to let me have any cases where they feel that driving tests have not been satisfactorily conducted.

    BRITISH SHIPPING (U.S. SECURITY REGULATIONS)
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what representations he has received from the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping concerning United States interference with our legitimate shipping interests in the Far East.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the United States' measures affecting British ships, about which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 1st March. As is usual on matters affecting the interests of British shipping, there has been full consultation between the Chamber of Shipping and my Department.
    Mr. Thomas: Was not the Minister informed that the Chamber of Shipping were to issue such a disturbing statement before the Foreign Secretary spoke?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have almost daily touch, and no question of formal representation arises. With regard to this
    1186
    whole issue, I share the view of my right hon. Friend, and I only hope that all international problems will be equally satisfactorily resolved.

KHARTOUM (DISTURBANCES)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement on the regrettable disturbances which took place in Khartoum on 1st March.
The House will have seen the newspaper reports of these events, and I have no further details to add. I regret to say that in the course of the rioting total casualties amounted to some 30 persons killed and about 100 injured. This includes casualties among the police, which were 10 killed, including the British Commandant of Police in Khartoum and his Sudanese Second-in-Command, and 66 injured. I am sure the whole House will join with me in expressing deep regret at this loss of life, and sympathy with the relatives.
As the House will have seen, the Governor-General has declared a state of emergency and has announced that the opening of Parliament will be postponed until 10th March. I must make it plain that this state of emergency was made under the Defence of the Sudan Ordinance and not under the Self-Government Statute. The Council of Ministers therefore remains responsible for law and order and public security and the orders giving effect to the Governor-General's declaration have been made by him on the advice of the Council. Several thousands of the demonstrators have, I am informed, now left Khartoum and the situation is quiet.
I do not propose, nor is it my duty, to pass judgment on these events. Sir, no one would wish to condone violence. But the fact remains that a large measure of responsibility must rest upon those who have in the recent past sought to raise the emotional temperature in the Sudan. We have repeatedly emphasised that the Sudanese people should be allowed to work out their political development free from all outside interference, and we have scrupulously observed this principle. It will, I am sure, be the

1187
sincere hope of the whole House that these tragic events will have brought this lesson home to all concerned.
Mr. Bellenger: Can the Foreign Secretary say why the elections themselves should have passed off without any incident—certainly not an incident of this nature—whilst the opening of Parliament, which put the seal on the democratic liberation of the Sudan, should have been attended by these unfortunate circumstances?
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt knows that not only did the elections pass off without incident, but that there have been meetings of Parliament previously which also passed off entirely without incident. I do not think I can add anything to my answer, but I think the House can measure for itself where I think the responsibility lies.
Captain Waterhouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement dealing with propaganda in recent months will be received with gratitude in this country? May I ask him if he has noticed that, within a few hours of this commandant being killed in the performance of his duty, General Neguib made a most unseemly and untruthful broadcast? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any good purpose would be served by making a protest about that? Does the Foreign Secretary know whether any of the broadcasting centres in the Sudan were used in this connection, and if so, if that is in order?
Mr. Eden: I have seen the newspaper report to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers. It is, of course, obviously absurd to suggest that either Her Majesty's Government or any British administrators in the Sudan had any responsibility for these events, where the officers were carrying out their duty impartially in defence of General Neguib and others.
So far as broadcasts are concerned, we are not going to join in any competitive attempt to raise temperatures hi the Sudan. But what we are doing regularly through the B.B.C. is to give the fullest and, I think, an objective account of what the true facts of the situation are. May I just add, as this has been raised, that the reports I have received from Cairo about the critical situation between the
1188
Governor-General and the Prime Minister of the Sudan are, I am informed in a message from Khartoum, if I may use the words, "a complete fabrication "?
Mr. E. Wakefield: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? First, would he agree that the dangers of the situation in the Sudan would be greatly eased if some kind of understanding or accommodation could be arrived at between the leaders of the Khatmia and the Ansari sects, and would he use his influence to promote such understanding? Secondly, could the Foreign Secretary confirm quite explicitly that the Governor-General, in declaring a state of emergency acted in concert with the Council of Ministers and after consulting the Prime Minister?
Mr. Eden: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, it is our desire—and I am sure that of the whole House—to do all that we can to promote the unity of the Sudan. It is for that purpose we have been working, and we are very sorry we have not had cooperation from other quarters to bring that about in the sense that we might have had it.
In regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, as I made it quite plain, all the orders which the Governor-General has issued since his declaration were issued in consultation with the Council. I think it is quite clear, therefore, that all those steps following on the declaration of emergency—-which was on the Governor-General's own responsibility —have been taken in conjunction with the Council.
Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will seriously consider the wisdom of proceeding with negotiations over the Egyptian situation— [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: That is quite a different matter.
Mr. H. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman take it that we are in general agreement with the statement which he has made, and that we would like to express our very sincere sympathies with those bereaved in the loss of their relations and friends in this unfortunate experience?
Mr. Eden: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. There have been

1189
generations of Britishers who have done their very best to bring about a situation in the Sudan where there could be reasonable hopes of self-Government in accordance with the traditions we all cherish. It is a deep disappointment to us all that those events should have occurred. I hope that despite that we Shall all do our best to help Sudan along the road she wishes to, and which we have wished she should, travel.

INLAND TELEGRAMS (TARIFF INCREASES)
Mr. Gammans: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like, in answer to Question No. 36, to make a statement about the inland telegram service.
As the House is aware from the Eleventh Report from the Select Committee on Estimates in the last Session, the financial position of the inland telegram has been getting steadily worse since the war. It has, in fact, lost money ever since 1872; but we have now reached the stage where an inland telegram brings in an average revenue of little over 2s. against a cost of 5s., which means an average loss of nearly 3s. on each message. The total loss this year will be about £4½ million.
The Government have reluctantly decided that it would not be right for the users of other Post Office services to go on subsidising telegrams to this extent. We have now nearly reached the limit of internal economies; in fact, the engineering plant costs, on an average, on one telegram are now less than 6d. out of the total cost of 5s. A reduction in tariffs would only increase the loss.
It is, therefore, proposed to introduce legislation to provide for the following increases in tariff: The charge for an ordinary inland telegram will be increased from Is. 6d. for 12 words and l½d. a word thereafter, to 3s. for 12 words and 3d. per word thereafter. The greetings telegram will be continued at the new tariff, but the supplementary charge will remain at 6d.
For Press telegrams, which have now been largely replaced by private telegraph wires, and now only amount to £30,000 per year, the charge is 1s. 3d. for each page; this will be raised to 3s., the same
1190
charge as for ordinary telegrams, and copies from 3d. a page to Is. a message, also as for ordinary telegrams.
An analysis of telegraph traffic shows that nearly 50 per cent, of telegrams are business messages, two-fifths of the balance are greetings telegrams, and an overwhelming percentage of the rest are social and domestic. Less than 3 per cent, of the messages sent are of a life and death character. To put it another way, on an average each family sends one telegram a year, and less than one life and death telegram every 12 years.
I am, however, glad to inform the House that a cheaper overnight service will be introduced at the present rate of Is. 6d. for 12 words and l½d. for each additional word. Telegrams, other than greetings telegrams, will be accepted at any time up to 10 p.m. for delivery early next morning, normally by the first post.
We estimate that, when these changes are-fully effective, they will reduce the deficit on inland telegrams to about £2 million a year. Even so, the inland telegram will still be subsidised by the users of other Post Office services to the extent of about a quarter of its cost.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that what he has conveyed to the House this afternoon will be regarded with very great dismay. I am afraid that he is attracting to the Post Office an unpopularity which it does not deserve. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the telegraph service has always made a deficit, and has been carried by the generality of the services. He now proposes, does he not, to reduce the deficit to the lowest point since 1920—to 73x00A3;2 million—by charging people who send life and death messages five times the amount that he charges the Press lords for similar services.
Is the hon. Gentleman not also aware that his analysis of one life and death telegram over 12 years is utter nonsense? He has brought into account the 5 million people with other means of communication—the telephone users. If he reduces his figures by including only those people without other means of communication, it is plain that, unfortunately, these occurrences take place much more frequently. This proposal is quite unjustified. It is a bad handling of Post Office finances, and we shall resist the hon. Gentleman's attempt to put it through the House.
Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that we are reducing the deficit to the lowest point for 20 years. The average deficit for inland telegrams during the years between the wars was £1 million. It has now reached £4½ million, and unless we increase the charges to the people who use the telephone, or make additional charges for postal services, we are faced with the decision that this service must break even to a far greater extent than it has done in the past.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Member aware that the size of this increase will do what some of his hon. Friends want to do—kill this service and have no regard for those without other means of communication?
Mr. Gammans: We are not disregarding these people at all. The traffic has been going down every month, and we are faced with the position that Post Office finances, at this moment, cannot stand the continual loss.
Mr. Peter Freeman: On a point of Order. As Question No. 36 is my Question, is it not usual to allow the asker of a Question to put the first supplementary? May I ask the hon. Gentleman a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: In due time.
Mr. Fell: As the Post Office has managed to make a loss for 82 years on this service, will my hon. Friend consider consulting the Government to see whether private enterprise might take on the job?
Mr. Freeman: Is the hon. Member aware that his statement will come as a very great shock to the whole community, and that this further addition to the daily announcements we have had about the increased cost of living will be resented by everybody except the Government? In view of the fact that many telegrams are sent by telephone, is it not possible for the hon. Member to say that in such cases there shall be no further increase, since no delivery charge is required?
Mr. Gammans: There are other charges. The cost of delivering a telegram by telephone is not all that much less than for delivering it in the ordinary way.
Mr. Attlee: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the general principle of the postal service, which has been not to consider each service or area as making a profit? If we worked on those business lines there would be no telephones in Scotland. Is it not a fact that the Londoner pays a great deal for the service to the rest of the country, because London is a paying proposition and the country is not? The hon. Gentleman is introducing a principle which is quite alien to the Post Office tradition which has been established for very many years.
Mr. Gammans: I do not think I am. When the deficit on the telegraph service has reached the enormous sum of £4½million a year, something has to be done about it, unpopular though it may be to do it, unless we are to charge users of other Post Office services even more.
Mr. Attlee: Surely exactly the same would apply, if the hon. Gentleman chose to work it out, in remote parts of the country. He would find that he was spending millions of pounds on them. That is carried by the rest of the community. That is a Post Office principle, and a very sound Socialist principle, too.
Mr. Gammans: I agree, but the point is that the deficit has reached £4½ million and we have to do something about it. I must warn the House that the estimated Post Office surplus for next year is the lowest for 30 years.
Mr. Erroll: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Post Office Advisory Council was consulted before this step was taken? If it was, did it agree with the step?
Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, to both questions.
Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order. I understand that it is quite contrary to Post Office practice to divulge the attitude and views of the Advisory Council. I am informed from the minutes, of which I have a copy, that it did not agree to this proposal.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is to be the subject of legislation at a later time when we can debate all these issues in plenty of time. At present, there is no Question before the House.
Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. As a large number of members of the staff are also likely to be involved ill this matter, Mr. Speaker, do you not think it would be fair to allow a supplementary question to be put in connection with that issue?
Mr. Speaker: There are many interests involved here, and if I were to feel bound to allow every interest to be voiced at Question time we should never get on. All the interests of the staff and other interests can be voiced more appropriately, with more time and without holding up the business of the House, when the Bill is before the House.
Mr. Gammans: Perhaps I may reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). The statement which he has made is not correct.
Mr. Ross: On a point of order.
Mr. Ness Edwards: I put a point of order to you a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, about the disclosure in this House by the Assistant Postmaster-General of the advice of the Post Office Council. He answered "Yes" to two questions put to him. My information is that that statement was made to the Advisory Council but that it was not asked to give a decision on the specific proposal.
Mr. Gammans: That is quite different from what the right hon. Member said earlier. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What the right hon. Gentleman then said was that the Advisory Council did not agree to this step. That is not correct.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The Council was not asked to agree. It was asked to receive a report and it was not asked to agree with the proposal which was put forward. That is not what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll).
Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not clear that the Assistant Postmaster-General distinctly gave the impression to the House that the Advisory Council had concurred In the Government's decision? Why does he shuffle about like this when it is now quite clear from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) says, and from what the Assistant Postmaster-General himself says, that the Advisory Council was not
1194
asked to give a clear "Yes" or "No" to the question and has not given a clear "Yes" or "No" to it? Why does he shuffle about on this matter?
Mr. Gammans: There is no question of shuffling about. I do not know why the right hon. Member for Caerphilly has knowledge of what happens with the Advisory Council, but the question was put to the Advisory Council as to whether or not it agreed with this step, and the answer was "Yes.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must ask hon. Members to resume their seats. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) had a point of order first.
Mr. Ross: As a member of the Post Office Advisory Council, but one who, unfortunately, because of Estimates Committee duties, was not at the last meeting, I want to know what protection members of the Post Office Advisory Council have from statements which are made by the Assistant Postmaster-General. Never in my knowledge of the workings of that Council have we been asked to agree to anything which has been put forward by the Postmaster-General.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to ask your permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to give the House an opportunity to discuss the situation which is now manifesting itself from the report of the Assistant Postmaster-General and the rash decision of the Government on a matter of great social importance.
Mr. Speaker: I could not accept such a Motion. It does not comply with any of the conditions of Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to my point of order. In view of what has been said, may I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether it is not the case that the Advisory Council makes no decisions at all but merely receives reports? The Postmaster-General can hear what it has to say, but it is not entitled to take, and never has taken,

1195
decisions on Government policy. That is a matter entirely for the Postmaster-General, not for the Council.
Mr. Gammans: As its name implies, the Advisory Council is advisory. This question was put to the Advisory Council and the Council agreed that it was a necessary step.
Hon. Members: Which question?
Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order.
Mr. Hobson: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Members not to attempt to prolong the debate under the guise of points of order. It is a misuse of the procedure.
Mr. Hobson: In view of the importance of the statement which has been made, may I respectfully submit that it is totally impossible to elicit the necessary information by way of questions, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: I think it is. I think we shall get on better when we come to the legislation.
Mr. Thomas: On a point of order. In his statement the Minister mentioned official documents in support of, and justification for, the statement he has announced. Would it be in order to instruct or request the Minister to place such relevant documents in the Library, so that they may be inspected by hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: I have heard no document mentioned.

KENYA (SITUATION)
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): With the permission of the House, Sir, I should like to make a statement on the situation in Kenya.
The following announcement was made by the Government of Kenya this morning.
As a result of the interrogation of "General China," it appeared that there was a fairly widespread feeling among the terrorists that further armed insurrection would bring nothing but hardship to the Kikuyu people and that there was little
1196
to be gained by continuing the struggle. It was decided that if this appreciation was correct it afforded an opportunity of hastening the end of the emergency which should not be missed.
On Sunday, 14th February, "China" was moved to a closely guarded building in Nyeri. From there, largely by means of personal letters from "China," touch has been established with Mau Mau leaders in the forest and the Reserves. There has also been personal contact between "China" and the individual leaders.
Special Branch representatives have always been present at these meetings. "China's" movements in the Reserves have been by armoured car and under police guard. The result of such contacts cannot be clear for some time, but should any organised meeting take place, safe-conduct arrangements to all parties will be guaranteed.
Meanwhile, there has been and there will be no relaxation of the impact of the* security forces upon the terrorist organisations. Indeed, during the past three weeks security forces have had some of their most successful operations. These operations will be continued and intensified.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Undersecretary of State confirm a statement which appeared in the midday Press that the death sentence passed some time ago on the leader known as "General China" has been commuted to enable him to carry on these negotiations; and will he assure his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor that the House will support fully this action which they have taken? We fervently hope that as a result of these discussions peace will be restored to Kenya.
Mr. Foster: I believe that the statement about the commutation of sentence is correct, and I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the right hon. Gentleman's observations.
Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the Undersecretary aware that those of us who, a fortnight ago, urged, by letter to the Colonial Secretary, that "General China" should be used in this way welcome very heartily, and congratulate him upon, the statement which has just been made?
Mr. Alport: Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that nothing will be done in this matter which may in any way jeopardise the lives of the loyal Kikuyu men and their families who have stood stubbornly, fairly and courageously by the forces of law and order during the emergency?
Mr. Bowles: The commutation of "General China's" death sentence is a commutation to what?—to life imprisonment, or is he free, and will the commutation remain permanent or will the death sentence be revived?
Mr. Foster: We have to await information from Kenya on these points.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  PENSIONS AND FIXED INCOMES
  Dr. King: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 19th March, I shall call attention to the grave hardships suffered by those living on pensions and other fixed incomes; and move a Resolution.
  POLICE FORCE
  Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 19th March, I shall call attention to the need to make the Police Force a more attractive career and thereby bring it up-to-date and in a position to deal with crime; and move a Resolution.
  MOBILE POLICE
  Mr. Nabarro: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 19th March, I shall draw attention to the habits of the mobile police: and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1954–55 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £898,037,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1955, viz.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES

    CLASS I

    £

    1.

    House of Lord

    40,000

    2.

    House of Commons

    315,000

    3.

    Registration of Electors

    300,000

    4.

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    1,350,000

    5.

    Privy Council Office

    10,000

    6.

    Privy Seal Office

    2,890

    7.

    Charity Commission

    30,000

    8.

    Civil Service Commission

    124,000

    9.

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    185,000

    10.

    Friendly Societies Registry

    24,000

    11.

    Government Actuary

    14,000

    12.

    Government Chemist

    107,000

    13.

    Government Hospitality

    20,000

    14.

    The Mint

    10

    15.

    National Debt Office

    10

    16.

    National Savings Committee

    250,000

    17.

    Public Record Office

    34,000

    18.

    Public Works Loan Commission

    10

    19.

    Royal Commissions, & c.

    70,000

    20.

    Secret Service

    1,700,000

    21.

    Silver

    2,000,000

    22.

    Tithe Redemption Commission

    10

    23.

    Flood and Tempest Distress Relief

    750,000

    24.

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    60,000

    25.

    Scottish Home Department

    455,000

    26.

    Scottish Record Office

    12,000

    CLASS II

    1.

    Foreign Service

    5,100,000

    2.

    Foreign Office Grants and Services

    10,000,000

    3.

    British Council

    600,000

    4.

    United Nations

    1,400,000

    5.

    Commonwealth Relations Office

    630,000

    6.

    Commonwealth Services

    640,000

    7.

    Oversea Settlement

    67,000

    8.

    Colonial Office

    355,000

    9.

    Colonial Services

    13,000,000

    10.

    Overseas Food Corporation

    300,000

    £

    11.

    Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

    5,000,000

    12.

    Development and Welfare (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and South African High Commission Territories)

    160,000

    13.

    Imperial War Graves Commission

    450,000

    CLASS III

    1.

    Home Office

    1,464,000

    2.

    Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

    4,200,000

    3.

    Police, England and Wales

    10,695,000

    4.

    Prisons, England and Wales

    2,600,000

    5.

    Child Care, England and Wales

    2,300,000

    6.

    Fire Services, England and Wales

    1,181,000

    7.

    Carlisle State Management District

    10

    8.

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

    10

    9.

    County Courts

    120,000

    10.

    Legal Aid Fund

    400,000

    11.

    Land Registry

    10

    12.

    Public Trustee

    10

    13.

    Law Charges

    172,000

    14.

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    40,000

    Scotland: —

    15.

    Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)

    408,000

    16.

    Police

    45,000

    17.

    Prisons

    245,000

    18.

    Approved Schools

    87,000

    19.

    Fire Services

    16,000

    20.

    State Management Districts

    10

    21.

    Scottish Land Court

    7,000

    22.

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    72,000

    23.

    Department of the Registers of Scotland

    10

    Ireland: —

    24.

    Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

    19,000

    25.

    Irish Land Purchase Services

    606,000

    CLASS IV

    1.

    Ministry of Education

    80,000,000

    2

    British Museum

    188,000

    3.

    British Museum (Natural History)

    100,000

    4.

    Imperial War Museum

    14,000

    5.

    London Museum

    7,000

    6.

    National Gallery

    38,000

    6A.

    Tate Gallery

    19,000

    7.

    National Maritime Museum

    15,000

    8.

    National Portrait Gallery

    8,000

    9.

    Wallace Collection

    10,000

    10.

    Grants for Science and the Arts

    550,000

    11.

    Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain

    13,350,000

    12.

    Broadcasting

    6,000,000

    Scotland: —

    £

    13.

    Public Education

    13,800,000

    14.

    National Galleries

    11,000

    14A.

    National Museum of Antiques

    5,000

    15.

    National Library

    9,000

    CLASS V

    1.

    Ministry of Housing and Local Government

    3,600,000

    2.

    Housing, England and Wales

    10,000,000

    3.

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

    22,600,000

    4.

    Ministry of Health

    1,383,000

    5.

    National Health Service, England and Wales

    134,170,000

    6.

    Medical Research Council

    800,000

    7.

    Registrar General's Office

    135,000

    8.

    Central Land Board

    150,000

    9.

    War Damage Commission

    350,000

    Scotland: —

    10.

    Department of Health

    1,300,000

    11.

    National Health Service

    15,500,000

    12.

    Housing

    4,850,000

    13.

    Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues

    3,510,000

    14.

    Registrar General's Office

    21,000

    CLASS VI

    1.

    Board of Trade

    1,800,000

    2.

    Services in Development Areas

    1,605,000

    3.

    Financial Assistance in Development Areas

    1,000,000

    4.

    Export Credits

    10

    5.

    Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

    150,000

    6.

    Board of Trade (Strategic Reserves)

    20,000

    7.

    Ministry of Labour and National Service

    6,920,000

    8.

    Ministry of Materials

    247,000

    9.

    Ministry of Materials (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry)

    348,000

    10.

    Ministry of Materials (Strategic Reserves)

    20,000,000

    11.

    Ministry of Supply

    66,000,000

    12.

    Ministry of Supply (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)

    2,000,000

    13.

    Royal Ordnance Factories

    2,800,000

    14.

    Ministry of Supply (Strategic Reserves)

    25,000

    CLASS VII

    1.

    Ministry of Works

    2,338,000

    2.

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    124,000

    3.

    Public Buildings, United Kingdom

    9,327,000

    4.

    Public Buildings Overseas

    680,000

    5.

    Royal Palaces

    169,000

    6.

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    274,000

    7.

    Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments

    228,000

    8.

    Miscellaneous Works Services

    300,000

    9.

    Rates on Government Property

    4,500,000

    £

    10.

    Stationery and Printing

    4,400,000

    11.

    Central Office of Information

    500,000

    12.

    Peterhead Harbour

    15,000

    CLASS VIII

    1.

    Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

    3,800,000

    2.

    Farming Grants and Subsidies

    20,100,000

    3.

    Services to Agriculture

    6,000,000

    4.

    Fishery Grants and Services

    1,050,000

    5.

    Surveys of Great Britain, &c.

    985,000

    6.

    Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

    29,000

    7.

    Agricultural Research Council and Nature Conservancy

    450,000

    8.

    Development Fund

    450,000

    9.

    Forestry Commission

    3,000,000

    10.

    Ministry of Food

    50,000,000

    11.

    Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)

    4,500,000

    Scotland:—

    12.

    Department of Agriculture

    3,115,000

    13.

    Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry

    1,102,000

    CLASS IX

    1.

    Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation

    2,400,000

    2.

    Roads, etc

    13,335,000

    3.

    Transport (Shipping and Special Services)

    1,386,000

    4.

    Civil Aviation

    2,750,000

    5/

    Ministry of Fuel and Power

    1,250,000

    6.

    Ministry of Fuel and Power (Special Services)

    5,000,000

    7.

    Atomic Energy

    20,000,000

    8.

    Department of Scientific and and Industrial Research

    2,090,000

    CLASS X

    1.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    4,100,000

    2.

    Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

    1,650,000

    3.

    War Pensions, etc

    29,000,000

    4.

    National Insurance and Family Allowances

    62,350,000

    5.

    National Assistance Board

    45,600,000

    6.

    Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

    400,000

    Total for Civil Estimates

    794,387,000

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

    1.

    Customs and Excise

    4,400,000

    2.

    Inland Revenue

    11,500,000

    3.

    Post Office

    80,000,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    95,900,000

    Ministry of Defence

    7,750,000

    Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments together with Estimate for the Ministry of Defence

    £898,037,000

    INDUSTRIAL SITUATION
    4.5 p.m.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It is, perhaps, rather a peculiar thing that we should in this Committee be considering today a sum of no less than £900 million, which the Government wish to be allowed to spend, without discusing it in any detail. I must confess that sometimes this procedure of ours has seemed to me to be rather unfortunate.
    I think that there is a case for closer examination in Committee of this House of the details of public expenditure than we usually find time for. After all, this year's figure, the total Estimate in the Vote on Account, is no less than £2,741 million, as against last year's Estimate, on the same basis, of £2,450 million. That is to say, we have, in what is almost entirely civil expenditure, in one year an increase of nearly £300 million.
    I think that hon. Members opposite must find it strange, in view of everything that was said before the General Election about bringing down public expenditure, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be indulging in this wild extravagance. Indeed, if the Prime Minister was sitting on this side of the Committee, I am sure that he would have given of his best by way of adjectival protest against the appalling squandermania which is taking place on the part of the Government. I do not propose to pursue this matter further this afternoon, but I give notice that we shall return to it in great detail in the Budget debate, and suggest to hon. Members opposite that they might pay a little attention to the general level of public expenditure.
    Meanwhile, following custom, we have chosen as the subject for debate something which, I think, the whole Committee will agree is of outstanding importance—that is, the present industrial situation. I must make it plain at once that it is not our intention that the House of Commons should intervene in any way in wage disputes, and it is no part of my purpose to plead from this Box the cause of any particular section or group of workers—not even the cause of Members of Parliament, although I cannot forbear from saying that I should be very surprised if there were any group of workers with a net income, after

    1203
    expenses on an average, of only £250 a year, who had had no increase in pay since 1946. If there were such a group of workers, I have little doubt that, even in this debate, somebody would get up to plead their cause.
    We believe in the system of collective bargaining and that wage rates and conditions should be settled by the trade unions and employers' associations. It is not the job of the Government or of the House of Commons to try to usurp these functions. There are, nevertheless, three ways in which the Government and, therefore, Parliament are concerned.
    In the first place, Parliament has passed a very large number of statutes and regulations which supplement the efforts of the trade unions in matters such as safety and welfare, minimum wages in certain industries and a very large number of other similar matters. Secondly, it is clearly the duty of the Government, through the Ministry of Labour, to do everything in their power to secure the peaceful settlement of disputes, and we all know and appreciate the valuable techniques which have been developed and the experience which has been gained over the past 20 years in handling disputes in industry.
    Thirdly, we take the view that the Government can and must carry a great deal of responsibility for the general economic and social framework within which the problem of relations in industry has to be faced and within which negotiations on wages and conditions take place.
    I do not propose to say anything at all on the first of these functions of government, and, in effect, practically nothing on the second, though it may be that some of my hon. Friends will wish to refer to the question of the relationship between the Ministry of Labour and industry. I propose to spend virtually the whole of my time in dealing with the "third matter—the responsibility of the Government for the general economic and social framework within which this problem is set.
    It is our belief that the present situation in industrial relations shows a marked deterioration and that the prospect is enough to cause serious anxiety. It is our conviction that this change owes a substantial amount to Government
    1204
    policy—to some things that the Government have done and to other things which they have left undone. We believe, further, that before very long unless the Government are prepared to abandon some of those laissez faire principles in which they believe, then in this field they will be running the country and themselves into very serious industrial troubles.
    First, however, may I sketch out in general terms the economic situation as I see it today? I want to do this in a completely objective manner, and I hope that we shall not hear from the opposite benches the rather tiresome and hysterical propaganda that we have from time to time about the progress of this country since the war. The facts are these. Between 1946 and 1951 we had an expansion of industrial production, according to the official index, amounting to some 35 per cent.—that is to say, an increase in industrial production at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum. The rate, of course, was even higher in manufacturing industries.
    Secondly, we had a recovery in exports as a result of which they rose to a level of some 70 per cent, in volume above the pre-war figures. This, combined with severe restrictions on imports, made possible in 1950 such a recovery in our balance of payments as to give us in that year the largest monetary surplus of exports over imports that we have ever had in our history—that is to say, £300 million. Even when one allows, as one should, for the fact that in that year there was some running down of stocks, it remains nevertheless a remarkably creditable figure.
    We were then engulfed, in consequence of the Korean war, by what really was a world inflation. Import prices rose in 1951 by one-third in the course of the year, and although our export prices rose, too, the loss on the terms of trade, on the prices of our exports in relation to our imports, was no less than £500 million in that year according to official figures. In addition, partly because of the international situation and partly because of the very increases in commodity prices which were taking place in world markets, there was a very substantial increase in the amount of stocks in the country. The total increase in the value of the physical amount of stocks and work in progress in that one year was £600 million.

    1205
    In addition, we had a considerable fall in the net invisible exports, and these three things taken together, not surprisingly, led us into a deficit of £400 million. Since then the terms of trade have moved steadily in our favour, and today one can say that as compared with 1951 the gain to us on that account is some £600 million. Furthermore, owing to the fact that there was so much stocking up in 1951, it was not necessary to continue that process. In 1952, there was some fall in stocks, though I suspect that in 1953 that process has again been reversed.
    These two factors—the immense change in the terms of trade and the fact that there is no longer a need to accumulate stocks—have made possible a recovery in our balance of payments position. Despite the fact that in 1952 production fell, and despite the fact that the recovery this year still leaves us with only about 3 per cent, of what it was two years ago, we have now moved back into a modest surplus. I would agree that, so far as it goes, that is not an unsatisfactory position.
    We have had a very favourable wind behind us in these last two years. Nevertheless, I believe that it will be generally agreed—I am summarising this as rapidly as I can—that the surplus, as far as we know, is far too small for our needs— certainly at the rate we achieved in the first six months of this year, a rate of £25 million for six months or £50 million for the year, without taking aid into account; it is too small for building up our reserves, investing overseas and repaying our debts. It may be larger than that, but it does not seem likely that it is going to exceed by any substantial amount, say, £100 million.
    Furthermore, it will be generally agreed that the situation is highly precarious, for these reasons. First of all, the terms of trade are most unlikely to continue moving in our favour unless there happens to be an American recession. We are, therefore, faced with the alternatives either that the terms of trade will move against us, with import prices going up and possible export prices coming down at the same time or there will be a contraction of markets because of the effects of the American recession in the world generally.
    The situation is also precarious because of the revival—to some extent an inevitable revival—of German and Japanese
    1206
    competition. We can agree on these things. We can agree, too, that we need a higher level of exports and a higher rate of fixed investment, because this is essential for future productivity and for strengthening our competitive position as compared with other countries.
    Finally, in this rapid survey I should like to say a word cr two about what 1953 may have contributed to these aims. The figures are not yet all available, but I should like to emphasise that in 1953 the conditions were outstandingly favourable to this country. It is the only year since the war in which the terms of trade have moved in our favour, and we have had rising production at the same time. The latter, of course, was largely due to the fact that we started the year with a certain amount of unemployment from the slack that had been created during 1952.
    But it means that in this year the increment available—the extra resources available for consumption, or defence, or investment or exports—were unusually large and I should put them somewhere around £700 million. It seems quite clear that very little of these extra resources made available have gone towards an increase in the export surplus. I do not know whether the Economic Secretary to the Treasury can tell us anything about that.
    In passing, may I say that I fully understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so diffident about speaking this afternoon. He is, of course, in the closed season. He can plead the excuse that he might say something which would give away Budget secrets, and we should not wish him to do that. There is the further point that he has some reputation in this House for being rather vague at times, and I feel that in these circumstances to^ day he might be even vaguer. I know he will not misunderstand me when I say that we are quite happy with the admirable substitute that he has provided in the Economic Secretary. We expect him to be a great deal less vague and not to be too frightened about giving away Budget secrets.
    I have said that I thought that very little of the gain in 1953 had gone towards a higher export surplus, and, as far as I can see, extremely little has gone to any increase in fixed investment. Therefore, the two major aims of higher exports and

    1207
    higher investment do not seem to have benefited by the situation. It seems probable that about half the gain has gone to higher consumption, and I would guess that a large part of the remainder has gone into replenishing stocks some of which have been run down. If the Economic Secretary can throw further light on this matter we shall be grateful to him.
    I do not think it is surprising, in these circumstances, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should recently have expressed fairly serious anxieties about the prospect in exports. I do not wish to repeat what he said, but the heading, for instance, in "The Times" report is: "British exports losing ground. Growing German competition. Chancellor's warning." And I note, too, with some interest his remark that much of the progress in 1953 had been due to a few industries, such as refined petroleum, aircraft, and arms and ammunition, which did not face German competition.
    I cannot fail to point out that this improvement, for instance, in refined petroleum, is the direct result of the great programme of oil refineries carried out under the Labour Government. As for aircraft, that, again, is something which was closely fostered and encouraged by the previous Government, as I have no doubt it is by the present Government. As for the arms and ammunition, I imagine that is associated to a large extent with offshore purchases which may or may not continue.
    It is against this background that we have to look at the wage situation in industry, and I venture to say that we have been facing in this last winter, and in a sense still face, the most disturbed situation which has arisen since the war. It is not necessary for me to remind the Committee that shortly before Christmas we were within an extraordinarily narrow margin of a national railway strike. It is hardly necessary to point out that the engineering dispute, which, unfortunately, has lingered on for a year, still remains unsettled, that it has provoked at any rate one 24-hour token strike, and that the threat of a ban on overtime and output bonuses still remains.
    There is a strike of electricians taking place and there is the fact that at a recent hearing the general secretary of the Post
    1208
    Office Workers' Union felt obliged to withdraw from the tribunal because of the statement—a rather unfortunate one— made by the tribunal that there was no case. There have been recent leaders in "The Times" pointing to the danger that all this means for our negotiating and arbitration machinery.
    We can all agree that industrial stoppages on a large scale, if they take place, are bound to have the gravest effect on our capacity to solve our economic problems, and if we agree that we are in a precarious condition, the danger is obvious enough. There may not be so much agreement on the effect of wage increases which, in a sense, are clearly an alternative in certain cases to industrial trouble. For instance, some people would ask whether higher export prices were necessarily a bad thing. I do not doubt that there are occasions—there certainly have been since the war—when higher prices for our exports were an advantage.
    The question also will be put, must there be higher prices? Is it not possible to have higher wages without any increases in prices? I shall return to some of these issues a little later, but I gather from the statements of the Chancellor, and from other things that have been said, that the Government are seriously worried not only about the industrial situation, but also about the danger that rising costs in industry may sooner or later price us out of export markets.
    It is right that we should ask what are the causes of this situation. I say straight away that it is in no sense a case of the trade union leaders stirring up workers for political or other ends. Nobody could have behaved with a greater sense of responsibility than the trade union leaders in the difficult situation in which they find themselves.
    Is it, then, the cost-of-living position? I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his friends will say emphatically that it is not. I do not doubt that they will point to the recent movements of wage rates and prices. I think it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Labour who answered a Question the other day in which he gave the relative increase in wage rates and the interim index of retail prices from October, 1951, when the Government came into power, to the present day, and also from June, 1947, to October, 1951.

    1209
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that from June, 1947, to October, 1951, wage rates had risen by 22 per cent, and prices by 29 per cent., and that since October, 1951, wage rates had risen by 13 per cent, and prices by 9 per cent. At first sight that sounds as though it was an answer to the question, but I must ask the Committee to look a little closer at these figures and at the situation generally.
    As I do not doubt that the Question was put down for propaganda purposes, it is necessary to explain what is wrong with it. In the first place, those figures depend on the month selected. If, instead of October, November, 1951, had been taken there would have been the following figures. Wage rates rose from June, 1947, to November, 1951, by 26 per cent, and prices still by 29 per cent., but from November, 1951, wage rates rose not by 13 per cent, but by just under 10 per cent.—only a fraction greater than the rise in retail prices of 9 per cent. So I think we should be clear that the figures produced by the Minister rest simply on that one month. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are correct."] Of course they are still correct as they stand, but it is a question whether the Government wanted to give a fair picture of the position in the last five years.
    Mr. William Shepherd: It also shows that during the term of office of the Conservative Government wages have more than kept pace with prices, but that in the term of office of the right hon. Gentleman it was not so.
    Mr. Gaitskell: That, of course, was what the original answer was meant to convey. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] But if the month of November had been taken it would have thrown a different light on the figures. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is still true."] Wait a minute. It would have shown that the rate at which wages and prices have moved since November, 1951, is practically the same. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense.".
    Now I come to one or two other points of greater importance in looking at this matter of wages and prices. First, it is obvious that while the wage rates of some workers may have moved in this way, others may have lagged behind. We must always bear that in mind. Secondly, food prices have gone up more,
    1210
    as we know. Their increase since November, 1951, is about 14 per cent. We all know that the index is an average and that we must accept it. I am not criticising that. It is an average of the way in which people at different levels of wages spend their money. We know quite well that the poorer workers must spend proportionately more of their incomes on food.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The index is valid.
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is valid for the whole of industry, but I am saying that it does not and cannot exactly reflect the position of the poorer workers.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is a fair measuring rod?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is a fair average. 1 have said that, but what I am saying is that in these circumstances it does not correctly reflect the change in the real income of the lowest paid workers, and it happens that these are also the workers who, of course, have gained least, if at all, from any tax concessions that may have been granted.
    Mr. Nicholls rose—
    Mr. Gaitskell: I was only going to say—and perhaps this will convince the hon. Gentleman—that the point I am making is made quite admirably in a leading article in "The Times" this morning, and, for what it is worth, I think it is of some importance and goes some way to explain the feelings of the workers on this matter.
    Mr. Nicholls: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. All I want to establish is whether he stands by a statement he made in 1950, when he then said:
    "I am bound to say that despite all the criticism, and looking at it objectively, the index is not likely to be far wrong in its attempt to give us an accurate picture of changes in the trend of retail prices."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 339.]
    Mr. Gaitskell: Of course I stand by it. I was making an entirely different point, which the hon. Gentleman must take into account, that, unfortunately, with rising food prices, we do find that the lower paid workers are adversely affected.
    The further point to which I must draw attention is this. Whether or not

    1211
    the change in prices explains the workers attitude, it cannot possibly be doubted that the rise in prices that has actually occurred—with consequential effects on wages—despite falling import prices, has raised costs here compared with other countries. That may not be particularly relevant to the feelings in industry, but I submit that it is very relevant to our com petitive position. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in these last two years the cost of living has gone up more steeply in this country than, as far as I know, in any other European country, except Greece and perhaps Norway. In Belgium, for instance—.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Could the right hon. Gentleman quote the figures for 1953?
    Mr. Gaitskell: These are the figures for 1953, taken from the E.C.E. Report which came out a few days ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has not read it."] He probably has read it. The cost-of-living index shows, on our figures, a rise of 9 per cent.—that is the figure given by the Minister of Labour—in Belgium, between these two years 1951 and 1953, a rise of 2½ per cent., of 2 per cent, in Denmark, 8 per cent, in France, 6 per cent, in Italy, and no change in Western Germany and Holland., I think that shows clearly that we have been getting somewhat out of line with other European countries, and there is no doubt whatever that the rise in food prices resulting from the cuts in subsidies has been a major cause of the greater increase here.
    I now turn to another matter which must also be taken into account, and that is the fact that in this period we have had a very striking change in import prices. Between 1947 and 1951, we were continually facing the difficulty of rising world prices against us. The Trades Union Congress and the trade unions were aware of that, and equally aware of the difficulties that arose, particularly in 1951. Indeed as the recent statement by Mr. Tanner makes plain—it is published in the report of the inquiry by the Ministry of Labour—the unions, of course, take into account the circumstances of the country in presenting wage claims.
    1212
    In the last two years, far from any further increase in import prices, there has been a fall of 20 per cent.
    Mr. Maudling: In food prices?
    Mr. Gaitskell: In all import prices, and it is very natural that in those circumstances, and with the country in a much easier position than it was, the unions should adopt a rather different attitude from what they did earlier. It would indeed be an astonishing thing if, in these circumstances, the relationship between wages and prices had not improved somewhat compared with the earlier situation.
    I come now to another matter which I personally believe has a good deal of bearing on the situation in industry, and that is the increases in dividends which we discussed not long ago, and to which I must now come back. I want, first of all, to get the facts straight. I take the Government's argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer both here and in a recent speech. His argument is that although there was an. increase of 10 per cent, in dividends net of tax in 1953 as a whole as compared with 1952 as a whole, that, of course, is not a fair picture of the true increase because of the reduction in taxation. Therefore, we have to take the figure of gross dividends before tax is deducted in order to get a fair picture. I accept that argument.
    The increase of gross dividends in that period is 6 per cent. The increase in wage rates during the same period is 4½ per cent. But, once again, we must look more closely at the details, and, in particular, I suggest that we must look more closely at the trend of wages and dividends in the last 12 months.
    If we take the four quarters of 1953, we find that in the first quarter there was a rise in wage rates of 5 per cent, compared with the corresponding period in 1952. I will take the corresponding period in each case. There was a rise of 5 per cent, in gross dividends. In other words, they were moving together. In the second quarter, wages went up 4 per cent, compared with the previous year, and dividends by 6 per cent. In the third quarter wages again went up 4 per cent, compared with the previous year, and dividends by 7 per cent. In the fourth quarter, the last full quarter that

    1213
    we have, the rise in wage rates was only 3 per cent, compared with the last quarter in 1952, whereas the rise in dividends was 9 per cent., an increase three times as big.
    Finally, if we take the January figure for dividends as given by the "Financial Times," again on the basis of gross dividends—there is no question of tax entering into this—the increase compared with January last year is no less than 15 per cent. I realise that the sample on which that figure is based is a small one, but I have no reason to believe that it is wrong in any way. If the Economic Secretary can throw any light on it, we shall, of course, be glad to have his information.
    I am not surprised that in the light of these figures the "Financial Times," commenting on the take-over bids debate, should say:
    "Mr. Butler was perhaps a little disingenuous in concentrating on the rise in dividends last year as a whole, rather than on the trend which was shown from quarter to quarter. But since he is evidently satisfied with the situation, few will be found to take him up so nicely.
    One person, at any rate, is prepared "to take him up so nicely. "I think it is an extremely important factor in throwing light on the present situation, and I must say that the trend I have described corresponds very closely with one's own impression.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Will the Chancellor allow me—
    Mr. Ian Mikardo: The next Chancellor.
    Mr. Osborne: To keep the two things in proper perspective, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he ought also to make it quite clear that if the total dividend increase in 1953 had been distributed to the wage earners, it would not have amounted to more than 5½d per worker?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am quite familiar with that argument, and, of course, I do not dispute the fact that the global amounts involved are very different, but, with great respect, I do not think that that is an excuse for an increase in dividends on the scale I have suggested.
    It is worth noting that while dividends in 1953 were rising in the way I have indicated, profits were falling. There was, in fact, a rise in dividends for the year of 6 per cent., and a fall in profits
    1214
    of 8 per cent. In January this year profits began to rise again. I mention this only because I feel that it is extremely probable that the rise in profits, which will probably continue, will provoke substantial further increases in dividends.
    The Chancellor's latest argument in defence of these dividend increases is that as a percentage of capital employed there is no increase and, indeed, even a fall. I cannot accept the relevance of that argument. I said at the time that I thought it was a dangerous argument. I meant dangerous to the cause of moderation in wage demands and I still think that it is dangerous. Suppose a firm invests £100,000 and makes, after tax, gross earnings of £30,000 of which we will say £10,000 are paid out in dividends at 10 per cent, and £20,000 are ploughed back into the business. Whether it is in the form of liquid reserves or reinvestment does not matter to the argument.
    This takes place during a period of wage restraint. The workers have been told that we need higher saving and investment, that we must not increase prices and that if they were to have higher wages at the expense of company reserves that would reduce saving and investment, which would be bad for the country. So they accept it and moderation has been the rule in wage demands.
    But this goes on, we will say, for five years. After five years, the capital of the company is worth £200,000 because £20,000 each year has been put back in a business, and on the Chancellor's argument the dividend may now go up to £20,000 a year. What sort of sacrifices, in those circumstances, have the shareholders made? How is one to present that kind of argument to workers when one asks them to be moderate in their wage demands and the shareholders have doubled their capital and doubled their dividend.
    Two other arguments are put forward in defence of the rising trend of dividends. It is said that they have gone up much less than wages and salaries compared with pre-war and that the balance must be redressed. The facts are true, of course. Dividends have not gone up as much as wages and salaries compared with 1938 but, as the previous argument makes perfectly plain, reserves have gone

    1215
    up. In fact, since 1946 company reserves have doubled and that additional capital is in existence, and it is really quite impossible for the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to use both those arguments. Moreover, I cannot from our side of the Committee accept the calm argument that the 1938 basis of division of the production of industry between earned and unearned income is something sacred and must never be altered.
    I notice that in a recent speech at Glasgow the Chancellor said that the average shareholder is a small saver. Really that is very difficult to understand. It is true, of course, that the average share holding is not very big, but that is an entirely different thing from saying that the average shareholder is a small saver. The figures are well known. Ordinary shares are held by about 1,250,000 people. Whether one says that that is something like 3 per cent, of the total population or 5 per cent, of the adult population does not matter. The point is that that is a small proportion indeed.
    If there is any doubt in this matter I ask hon. Members to look at the figures of Estate Duty published by the Inland Revenue. They are very interesting. For instance, in 1951–52, which is the latest period for which I have figures, there were 76,000 estates of £2,000 or more. At that time about 600,000 people died. Assuming that as many as half of them were young and not people who would ordinarily qualify to have any property that still leaves a very small proportion paying any duty at all.
    If one takes out of the 76,000 all those who left more than £25,000 they amount to about 7 per cent, of the total. They in fact left nearly half the total value which was passed on. When it is remembered that a vast majority of people never come within the range of Estate Duty because the Labour Government took it off on all estates up to £2,000, and one realises that 7 per cent, of those who paid duty left half the property, how can anyone suggest that these are small savers? It is too ridiculous.
    It is said that there is a shortage of capital and that it is desirable that dividends should be increased to stimulate
    1216
    the supply. I cannot accept that argument. I will not go into the matter in detail now, but I should like to quote from the "Manchester Guardian Survey of Industry," published two days ago. It contained a very interesting analysis of questions asked in industry about a number of different things, including this very matter.
    This is what the article stated:
    "Finance is at present no serious problem.
    In other words, shortage of capital is not the problem.
    "This is the almost universal experience in all industrial areas.
    Then again:
    "A final point. We asked the firms whose capital outlay is declining whether shortage of finance was a motive. Not a single firm replied, 'Yes.'".
    That bears out to the hilt what we have always said—that the fears of hon. Members opposite, when they were on this side of the Committee, about the shortage of capital were greatly exaggerated.
    It is not my purpose to argue the case for wage increases, but I should like to conclude with some general reflections on this very vital problem.
    Sir Walter Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman say at what level the result of continued thrift becomes wrong in his eyes?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am not prepared to answer that because it depends on all sorts of things, such as what alternative capital supplies are available.
    Wage increases may be associated with many different consequences. There may be a rise in productivity and a wage increase itself may even cause that. Undoubtedly, there are many people in America who hold a very strong view that higher wages stimulate productivity. I was there in the summer and found myself in discussion with a man who, politically speaking, was very far to the Right of me. He held that 'view very vehemently. "What you want is higher wages," he said. I am not saying that that is not one possibility. There is something in it and, of course, if one can get a rise in productivity that offsets a rise in wages in terms of costs.
    Secondly, one may get a fall in import prices, which also neutralises a rise in wages. That has largely happened in the last few years. And if raw materials fall

    1217
    in price, as cotton did by 20 per cent., it makes an enormous difference. Thirdly, one may also have a fall in dividends as a result of a rise in wages. That is a simple transfer from the dividend holders to the workers and no change in price is involved. Fourthly, there may be a rise in wages because of a decline in company reserves, which means less saving and possibly less investment. Fifthly and finally, one may have a rise in prices. There may possibly be other possibilities, but those are the five most obvious ones.
    The last two give rise to anxiety. We should be happy if productivity increased, we should not worry if the terms of trade improved, and I should not worry if the rise in wages was at the expense of dividends. But we worry if it is at the expense of reserves or has at its consequence an increase in price. I should like to say a word or two about the latter. There is, of course, a sectional gain to the particular group of workers involved for the time being. But, in time, as one group of workers after another secures a rise in wages—assuming that prices go up—a great deal of that gain is eliminated. I do not want to say, and it would be a mistake to try to say, that every gain disappears, that at the end of it all the workers are not better off.
    The fact is that even with such a wage price inflation some transfer does occur from fixed incomes in favour of variable incomes. Nevertheless, I would never support and have never supported the policy which, I believe, would lead to that result. It may cause trouble before long over exports and the balance of payments and, if continued for any time and not going on elsewhere, it would be almost certain to do that. The instability of prices at home which follows such an inflation is, in my view, a serious social evil. I do not think there can be any doubt about it. I said this to the Trades Union Congress in 1951 and still firmly believe it.
    As to company reserves, I must again say that it is no use asking the workers for wage restraint if capital accumulates in the hands of shareholders because of their very act of restraint. In other words, it is no good saying to the workers, "Keep down wages, it will all go to reserve; we will not take it in dividends" if, later, the shareholders are to get all the benefit. But, I must say at once that we do need
    1218
    the saving. In my view, the country cannot afford a reduction in reserves and corporate saving. A solution must be found to this difficult problem. It is not in any way surprising that the report of the courts of inquiry—which is a very interesting document and much credit is due to the persons concerned— devoted a great deal of space to this very problem of the relationship of wages to reserves. I still believe that the solution can only be found by some system whereby the workers are given a fair share of the reserves accumulated thanks to their moderation.
    This is a very real and vital problem. I know, of course, that one can claim it can be solved if we give up full employment and that if it weakened the bargaining power of the unions sufficiently there would be no problem to deal with. For our part we will have nothing to do with any such solution and I hope that we shall hear from the Government that they will rule that out.
    In conditions of full employment, however, it must be recognised that it is possible for a group of workers, if they are so minded, to hold the country to ransom so as to secure an improvement for themselves. The fact that they have not done so is a very great tribute to the patriotism and good sense of the union leaders and the workers. But that would not have happened unless they had the feeling that it was not only they who had to exercise restraint.
    If we are to replace this conception of restraint and moderation on all sides by a free for all philosophy—by the philosophy which says, "Well, the shareholders are entitled to manage the business and take out as much as they like; that is up to them "—we shall not get the same response as we have had in the past on the trade union side, and we cannot expect it. If we were lucky in terms of trade and productivity for a time we might get by, but the serious feature of the situation is that, despite those very favourable external circumstances in 1953, we have yet run into the verge of serious industrial trouble.
    I am convinced that in the long run some kind of understanding on all this is needed. The proposal of the court of inquiry is an interesting one. The proposal is at the end of the report, where they suggest that an authoritative and impartial body should be appointed to

    1219
    consider these problems and the complex, sometimes conflicting, economic arguments which surround them. I am quite sure that such a body could only be set up by both sides of industry. It is no use the Government imposing something on them, because they will not accept it I am also quite clear that it would need some patience and thorough discussions with both sides before anything could come of it. I shall be glad to hear from the Economic Secretary or the Minister of Labour what are the reactions of the Government to that. I am not clear whether a specific inquiry or whether a permanent body of some kind to give information about the implications of wage increase, and so on, is envisaged.
    I want to make a further point on this. We sometimes hear the whole problem discussed as though it were a matter of a squabble and a dispute, ultimately, between different groups of workers only. There is one aspect of the problem which corresponds to that, but—make no mistake—underlying this there is a great social problem and dispute about the share of earned and unearned income. This dispute is caused largely by the bad and unfair distribution of unearned income. Therefore, if there is to be any such inquiry, or such an impartial body set up, I submit to the Minister that it must cover the dividends and profits issue as well as the wages issue.
    In the last two years the policy of the Government, I am afraid, has been moving more and more towards a free for all economy. By one step at a time, here and there, they have gone further and further back towards the pre-war situation. I believe that the dangers of that have only been masked and held in check by the exceptionally favourable external conditions we have enjoyed. If the Government continue with these policies we shall have a price level out of line with other countries, or industrial trouble, or we shall have unemployment. The fact is that full employment, stable prices and industrial peace are not all to be had in an unequal laissez faire society. That is the dilemma which faces the Government. They can only solve it by abandoning their own philosophy and accepting the orinciples and policy for which the Labour Party stand.
    4.57 p.m.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): I am sure that the Chancellor will be grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) for his understanding remarks about the position of a Chancellor at this moment. My right hon. Friend is going into purdah at present. I think the position of all Chancellors of the Exchequer at this time can rightly be described as being that for a few weeks before the Budget they cannot talk to their friends and for a few weeks after the Budget their friends will not talk to them.
    In the concluding passages of his speech, the right hon. Member dealt with one or two matters which had particularly close reference to industrial relations, and referred to the most interesting and valuable reports of the courts of inquiry to which the Minister of Labour will be making reference when he replies to the debate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend can refer to those matters with far more authority and knowledge than I can claim.
    The right hon. Member dealt with the economic background to the present industrial situation and that, I understand, is the matter which we are primarily discussing this afternoon. I am sure that everyone will agree with him that it would be quite wrong for the Government or the House of Commons to try to intervene in wage negotiations or wage disputes. That is, I think, common ground between us. I think it is equally common ground between us that it is the responsibility of the Government to create the right economic framework for our industrial society. As I understood the speech of the right hon. Member, its burden was that we have failed to do that.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the present Government have failed to create the right economic situation for our industrial society. That is a challenge which I very gladly accept from the right hon. Member. It is one with which I shall try to deal in the course of my remarks this afternoon. I wish to start with one or two comparisons between 1951—the last year of the tenure of office of the right hon. Member—and 1953, to consider one or two salient matters of importance to our industrial society and to see how those matters

    1221
    stood in 1951 and in 1953. That is not an unfair basis on which to judge the performance of the present Government as against the Government of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Take, first, what underlies, as the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit, all our economic problems: our balance of payments, our reserves, and the strength of sterling. In October, 1951, the strength of sterling was at a low ebb. The quotation for transferable sterling was 2·l40 dollars to the pound. The reserves were running out faster than at any time since 1945. The balance of payments was strongly against us. Commodity shunting and transactions of that sort were causing us damage all over the world. That is the situation which the right hon. Gentleman left to us.
    What was the position in 1953? The reserves throughout 1953 have been climbing. The balance of payments is favourable. The official rate of sterling has been knocking up against the upper limit for a year. The transferable rate is 2·75 dollars, not 2·40. Commodity shunting has practically disappeared. The strength of sterling, and the confidence of this country and of the world in sterling, is utterly different from what it was in 1951.
    That is not a minor achievement or a minor contribution to the standard of living of everyone employed in British industry. Let us not forget that. [Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite find these facts disagreeable, but I shall try—
    Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: In stating the basis of his comparison, did not the hon. Gentleman neglect one fundamental item: that is, world prices in 1951 and those in 1953? Was there not a substantial drop in 1953 compared with 1951?
    Mr. Maudling: I propose to deal with that important point in the course of my speech. I should observe, however, that while rising prices bring disadvantages, they also bring advantages. Why is it difficult for us to sell goods in Brazil and Turkey, countries that produce cotton? The reason is that the price of cotton has slumped. If prices fall, the prospects for British exports fall. We must take the rough with the smooth.
    1222
    The trouble is that under the dispensation of hon. Members opposite, we had to take the rough with the rough.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot allow that to pass unchallenged. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that it is a net disadvantage to this country to have more favourable terms of trade?
    Mr. Maudling: It is impossible to make a generalisation in one direction or the other. The right hon. Gentleman, who knows these subjects well, is perfectly aware that a movement of the terms of trade in one direction helps the United Kingdom balance of payments, and in the other direction helps the sterling area balance of payments. What is interesting on the export side is that despite the boom in 1951, and despite the great increase in prices and purchasing power throughout the world, our competitive export position showed a serious drop in 1951.
    Taking the manufactured exports of the main exporting countries in 1950, this country had 26·5 per cent, of that export trade. In 1951, we had 22·7 per cent.; in 1952, 22·3 per cent.; and in 1953 the decline had stopped. Therefore, in 1951, our share of the world trade in manufactured goods was falling rapidly. In 1953, the fall had been stopped. That, surely, is an important fact for the people who make our goods for export.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewell: At what level has our share in the export of manufactured goods stopped, at the 1951 level or at a much lower level?
    Mr. Maudling: Our share of the market has ceased to decline, and in 1953 the volume of our exports increased. I shall come to that presently.
    Let us consider the situation of the industrial sector of the economy—first, production. In 1951, and particularly in the latter half of the year, production, which had been rising strongly—as one would expect after a war—from 1945 onwards, for the first time started to tail off. The curve began to flatten out in the second half of 1951. What is more important is that in 1951, for the first time since the war, there was a definite fall in consumers' expenditure. It was this fall in consumers' expenditure, particularly on clothing, household goods and

    1223
    textiles of all kinds, that had its effect on the level of production in 1952. In 1951, the production curve was levelling off and consumption fell. In 1953, both production and consumption rose to record levels.
    Take the question of wages and prices; the relation between the two can be described as real wages. In 1951, real wages were falling. In 1953, they were rising. I am quite aware of the right hon. Gentleman's interesting point about October and November, 1951. My figures take that into account. They take the calendar years and they give the right hon. Gentleman the credit for the 4 per cent, increase in wages after his Government went out of office, which, I think, is quite fair.
    In 1951, wages rose by 12 points and prices by 14 points, which meant a decline in the level of real wages. In 1952, both wages and prices rose by the same amount. In 1953, wages went up by 4 points and prices by 2 points. The fact is—and on the figures it cannot be disputed—that in 1951, under the right hon. Gentleman's dispensation, real wages— the purchasing power of wages—were falling. In 1952, the purchasing power of wages steadied, and in 1953 it rose. These are facts which ought to be known.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about earnings or wage rates when he gives the comparison of wages and prices?
    Mr. Maudling: I expected that question. That is why I chose wages and not earnings. Had I chosen earnings, I should have had a more favourable figure. I also have read the report of the Court of Inquiry.
    In 1952, the main purpose of the Government's policy was to put right the balance of payments, to restore confidence in the £ sterling, and to eliminate the inflation in the economy. Measures of a restrictive character were obviously needed. We had to tighten up on credit, for example. Those measures, combined with the effects of the fall in consumer purchases, which had started in 1951, and combined with the effects of having to deal with the inventory inflation of 1951, which the right hon. Gentleman still seems to think was a good thing, although I cannot imagine why, had the
    1224
    effect of restricting production in 1952, a phenomenon which was general in most European countries.
    What we did was to change an adverse balance of payments of £410 million in 1951 to a favourable balance of £269 million in 1952. I cannot emphasise too often that that is the most important thing for the workers of this country. If the spinners and weavers of Lancashire cannot get cotton, if the industrial workers in the Midlands cannot get their non-ferrous metals, if we cannot afford to buy them abroad, what is the good of all the right hon. Gentleman's plans, policies and arguments?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to quote misleading figures. He knows perfectly well that the surplus on the balance of payments in 1952, apart from defence aid, was, not £269 million, but £148 million; he will not deny that. Therefore, that makes some difference. Secondly, will the Economic Secretary deny that the improvement in the balance of payments was almost wholly due to the change in the terms of trade in our favour and to the fact that his Government had not to build up stocks, as we did?
    Mr. Maudling: On the first point, the figures which I quoted are quite accurate. On the second point, I have already dealt with the terms of trade but I may do so again later, if I have the opportunity.
    In 1953, we were able to pursue a policy of deliberately expanding industrial activity to the extent that was possible without a recurrence of inflation. That was the whole purpose of the 1953 Budget, which was intended to take up some of this slack in the economy, to restore the levels of production and consumption and to try to do that without a recrudescence of inflation.
    The Budget of 1953 was criticised by some people on the ground that it was too inflationary and was giving too much money away as consuming power. Some people criticised it because it did not give sufficient consuming power. The right hon. Gentleman was rather inclined to say both these things at times, but that is not altogether unusual. What in fact has happened is that the 1953 Budget— and the Budget enshrines the Government's financial and economic policy— has been conspicuously successful, both

    1225
    in its effect on production and in its effect on consumption.
    Let me take the index of production as good evidence of the industrial situation at the present moment. The all-industries index shows that production in 1953 was 5½ per cent, above what it was in the previous year, and 2½ per cent, above 1951; and at the end of 1953 it was going up: it was 7 per cent, or 8 per cent, up, and running at a record level. In January, 1954, this rise continued. The figure for manufacturing industry for the year as a whole is 6½ per cent, up on that of 1952, and in the last quarter was 9 per cent, up on that of 1952. That does no I seem to me much evidence of an industrial situation that has been gravely prejudiced by Government action.
    Apart from production, productivity is at record levels. That does not seem to me to suggest a very dangerous or alarming industrial situation. Take the number of days lost owing to disputes. In 1953, this figure was at a very low level. Half the figure for the year, I think, was attributable to the one-day token strike. Apart from that it was at a very low level.
    Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the one-day token strike. Surely, it was a very significant thing, the first official strike since the war that the unions have ordered? This one ordered people out in the engineering industry. The hon. Gentleman cannot brush it off as a matter of. no importance.
    Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree. It was a most important matter. Of course it was. My point is that it is indicative of how low the number of days lost was that a one-day token strike in the engineering industry should have doubled the figure for the year.
    Now let me take the figure for overtime work. In November last year, the amount of overtime being worked was at its highest level ever. In the Budget debates in 1953 the right hon. Gentleman made some very telling points about the movement of labour in 1952. In 1953 there was a very satisfactory movement of labour. The total labour force in the country increased by 238,000, of whom 234,000 went into manufacturing industry. All these are facts about our industry, and they do not seem to me to indicate
    1226
    that there is any truth in the suggestion that the Government's policy at the moment is undermining or destroying the basis of our industrial society.
    Let us consider consumption in 1953. I should like to give one or two figures that I think are worth knowing because it is important that we should know the facts of what the people consumed, just as we should know the facts of what this country produced. In the first three quarters of 1953 personal consumption was 3½ per cent, up on what it was in 1952and 1 per cent, up on that of 195 L Taking 1953 as a whole, the level of personal consumption, at constant prices— that is, allowing for price changes—was the highest since the war. We have now recovered entirely from the fall in consumption that took place in 1951. Food consumption in particular was 4½ per cent, up on the previous year, and was also at the highest level recorded since the war.
    These consumption figures are true, broadly speaking, of all types of shops, including Co-operative stores. I think it is interesting—and perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will reflect upon this matter—that Co-operative shops have, I understand, achieved a 10 per cent, increase in the past year in the value of their sales of furniture, furnishings, hardware, radio and electrical goods. I do not think that all that has been bought by the "wicked capitalists."
    All these figures surely show that the widespread increase in personal consumption of food, household goods, and generally of things in ordinary daily use, was substantial in 1953, and the figures that I have already given show that in 1953 the value of real wages of people increased, as against the decline in 1951.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Which people?
    Mr. Osborne: The "Daily Herald" said so.
    Mr. Maudling: Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite welcome this increase in consumption? Surely, the whole point of having an economy is to allow people to have consumption.
    A question which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was whether this increase of consumption is in any way bound to lead to a return of inflation. I would say emphatically it is not. Take

    1227
    two salient facts. The cost of living has not increased in the last 11 months. I shall come to this in detail presently. The balance of payments has shown a continually favourable situation.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked two questions about the proportion of increased output going into various uses. I have not the exact figures. They will appear in the Economic Survey which is to be published in due course. However, curiously enough, in 1953 personal consumption was a smaller proportion of the gross national product than in 1951 and 1952. There was a certain increase in stocks; there was a big increase in fixed investment in houses and an increased outlay on defence.
    Mr. Gaitskell: What the hon. Gentleman says seems to be rather contradictory. Does he know what part of the increase in output and available resources in 1953 went to consumption? Does he know the proportion of it? Was it half, for instance?
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid I could not give the exact figures. I do not think the exact figures for last year have been worked out yet. However, the gross national product rose considerably, and consumption rose considerably, but actual consumption was a smaller percentage of the gross national product than it was in 1951 or in 1952. Although consumption rose, other things taken together rose slightly more. However, these are rather statistical questions.
    All this does not deny that there are two factors in the economy to which we must continue to pay very serious attention. Both of them were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The first is the level of investment in industry, and the second is the balance of payments. Let me deal with what has happened to investment in industry in the last few years. In 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer, investment in private industry was rising strongly. In 1952 there was a decline. Why? Because the right hon. Gentleman pursued the policy, in 1951, of abolishing, as from 1952, the initial allowances.
    He did that, he said in his Budget speech in 1951, because.
    1228
    "I suggest to the Committee that it is for us to take action now so as to restrain investment in 1952 and later years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 842.
    That may have been right at the time. There was something to be said for his argument, but, naturally, investment was down in 1952 because people had wanted to get equipment before the initial allowances were abolished. The right hon. Gentleman should not be too modest and under-estimate the effect of his own policies.
    Since the Budget of 1953, which restored in part the initial allowances and made other substantial concessions, we have seen a quickening of activity and a substantial increase in the licensing of new factory buildings, and the fall in the demand for investment by private industry has shown signs of stopping. I agree, as everyone will agree, that there is still great disparity in the amount of capital available for investment in industry, as between our own British industry and our competitors, for example, in the United States; and the promotion of a greater level of industrial investment is obviously a very great problem indeed. I do not think that it will be greatly advanced, however, by some of the right hon. Gentleman's ideas on the subject of the taxation of industry.
    I wish now to consider the balance of payments for 1953. There has been a surplus in 1953—the exact figure is not yet calculated—at a diminished level this year, compared with 1952, but, nevertheless, a substantial and healthy surplus. Imports rose in volume but declined in value, while exports rose over the year in volume by 3 per cent, and in the last quarter of the year were 12 per cent. up. The rise has continued in 1954.
    For the year as a whole, as I said earlier, the decline in our share of the world market in manufacturing goods ceased, and we held our position, but that is not to say that we have not still very considerable difficulties to face, particularly in the most important sector, our exports of capital goods and engineering equipment. Competition, particularly from Germany, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is becoming very fierce indeed. There have been many reports of orders and contracts not coming to British industry because of German and other Continental competition.

    1229
    I think it is quite true to say, as has often been said, that many orders are lost because our order books are full for some time ahead and we cannot give definite dates for deliveries, whereas in Continental countries quicker deliveries can be quoted. But that is becoming less a factor as price competition increases to full force. There are disquieting signs of our being undercut in price by our Continental competitors, and we must face the fact that to a growing extent it is on price, and on price almost alone, that we are going to have to face competition.
    Mr. M Follick: But what about quality?
    Mr. Maudling: As to quality, we have nothing to fear from anybody, but I think we must recognise that in quality there are competitors of ours on the Continent of Europe who can make goods as well as we can. I do not think they can make them better, but they can make them as well.
    I want now to turn to the cost of living, to which the right hon. Gentleman paid some attention. First, I wish to refer to some remarks he made. He talked about experiences in Europe, and I asked him if he was referring to 1953. He was, in fact, referring to the rise from 1952 to 1953, which is a different matter. In 1953 the cost of living in the United Kingdom went up by one point, in Sweden there was no change, in Italy it rose by one point, in Germany it went down two points, in France down by four points, and in America it went up one point. Broadly speaking, we can say that our experience in this country was no different from that of other countries.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I was dealing with the position since 1951.
    Mr. Maudling: For the greater part of 1951 the right hon. Gentleman was responsible and the consequences of his policy continued after him. He talked about a great fall in import prices but he was not talking about food prices, and it is, after all, food which affects the cost of living. Raw materials do not do so to the same extent. The cost-of-living index shows no change compared with 11months ago, and the food element in the index shows no change compared with 14 months ago.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the cost of living index of the Ministry of Labour for February, and if he has is he still persisting in submitting these figures?
    Mr. George Darling: May I ask the hon. Gentleman where is this cost-of-living index to which he refers? There is no cost-of-living index in this country.
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry. I am referring to the Interim Index of Retail Prices prepared by the Ministry of Labour, and I certainly should not participate in a debate of this kind without conferring on the subject with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Darling: We do not believe the figures either.
    Mr. Maudling: That is a point about which I think it is important that the Committee should be quite clear.
    Mr. David J. Pryde: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann)?
    Mr. Maudling: I thought I did answer her, although she may not like the answer.
    Mr. Darling: It is in the Library.
    Mr. Maudling: I think we should be quite clear where we stand on this matter of the cost-of-living index, because this is a serious matter not only to ourselves but also to industrial relations. Hon. Members are very well aware that the Interim Index of Retail Prices is an integral part of many of the wage negotiations and the wage settlements about which we have to think.
    I see that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who is to wind up this debate, said a little time ago:
    "What outrageous nonsense Ministers and their supporters continue to talk about the cost of living. Old-age pensioners and others with small fixed incomes know that it costs more to live.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the cost-of-living index as a fair measure of what is happening to the price of things

    1231
    that are bought by working class households? I hope we will get a clear answer to that question. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South does accept it.
    Mr. Mulley: Is the hon. Gentleman not misleading the House, and have there not been clear indications that the index does not give a true picture of the cost of living of old-age pensioners and others on small incomes. If the hon. Gentleman wants any evidence of that I suggest that he studies the speech which the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury made in 1950 on that very subject.
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. The index level of prices is the same for everyone who buys anything, whoever it is.
    Mr. Mulley rose
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid I cannot give way, for I have done so a great deal and I do not want to detain the Committee too long.
    I hope that the right hon. Member for Belper will tell us whether he accepts the cost-of-living index as a fair indication of the movement of the level of prices. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South did in 1950, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls). Since then the index has been improved in detail by an expert committee, including representatives of the trade unions, the committee having been set up by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South was a member.
    We all know perfectly well that when the facts do not suit our argument there is a great temptation to argue with the referee or try to change the rules. But facts are facts nevertheless, and I would quote from a speech by the right hon. Gentleman as one reason why hon. Members are not very happy about the cost-of-living index when they are on the other side of the Committee. In a debate in November, 1950, he said this:
    "Another reason, I believe, for the general attitude towards the cost of living is the very human and natural tendency to ignore any cases where prices fall and to think only in terms of price increases."
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also quote something from the speeches of his hon. Friends in that debate.
    Mr. Maudling: He also made some pertinent remarks, if I may so describe them, on another aspect of this question when he said:
    "When more things that we all want to-buy come on the market—well, my experience, at any rate, is that my wife presses me for more money to replace things—for instance, clothing, and says we ought to spend a little more money on clothes, and we find the temptation, of course, to spend more ourselves, very much greater; and this creates a feeling —a very natural feeling—of stringency, that money is tighter and that somehow or other the cost of living is going up."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 344–345.
    Without a doubt there are more things to buy today, and under this Government there is a great deal more food to buy. That creates the impression, as the right hon. Gentleman said in 1950, that prices are going up.
    Broadly speaking, the facts are as I have stated them. The index shows that the cost of living is the same as 11 months, ago, and the food element in the index is the same as 14 months ago. If we look at the weighting in that index we find that a larger proportion is now given to food than in the index of expenditure by the consumers as a whole.
    Mrs. Mann: Who told the hon. Member that?
    Mr. Maudling: I happen to have read publications produced by the previous Government.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is that not because of the increase in the price of food? Is not the additional weighting from 359 to 399 compared with August, 1951, introduced into the index because the cost of food has increased? That has given an additional weighting.
    Mr. Maudling: There are many answers to the question of why that increase took place, what was responsible for it, whether it relates solely to food and whether the reason for it is more expensive food. The point that I am dealing with is the accuracy of the index, and I do not think any responsible Member of the Committee on either side questions its accuracy.
    Mr. Popplewell: I am not questioning it.
    Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that.
    I now come to dividends, to which the right hon. Gentleman made some reference. What happened to dividends in 1953? Let us get this matter into perspective. The total amount of increase in dividends in 1953 was £25 million, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) pointed out, would mean something over 5d. a week for each person if divided among all employed persons in the country, and Is. a week if divided among all employed in companies.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough rose
    Mr. Maudling: No, I cannot give way.
    That is a measure of the absolute size of the dividend increase—1s. per week for every person employed by companies and a little over 5d. for everyone employed in the country. Now for the return on capital. I will not repeat the figures which my right hon. Friend gave in a recent debate, which showed that the net return to shareholders on capital has been declining, but I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think that when we are considering the level of dividends the total amount of savings invested is a relevant consideration, as is the total number of people employed and the total size of the wages bill. It is largely a matter of mathematics. Surely when—
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would not the Minister agree—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member must not continue to speak if the Minister does not give way.
    Mr. Thomas: But the Minister has given way—
    Mr. Maudling: I am sorry, I had not given way, and I am conscious that I am taking a long time to make my speech.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of greater investment in industry, and that is absolutely true. But what do profits ploughed back represent but investment in new and better plant, which provides more chances of earning money, more chances of employment,
    1234
    more chances to compete with our competitors. I think sometimes that the right hon. Gentleman suffers from the fallacy of his predecessor, who once talked about people spending their money on more plant instead of chucking it round in bonus shares—
    Mr. Thomas: Would the Minister—
    Mr. Maudling: No, I am sorry. I have given way too much.
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not like net dividends let us take the movement of gross dividends. In 1952, the amount of gross dividends was 6 per cent, up on 1951—
    Mr. Gaitskell: I was referring to 1953.
    Mr. Maudling: Curiously enough it is 6 per cent, as between 1951 and 1952 and 6 per cent, as between 1952 and 1953. In 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman got disturbed about it, the increase was 18 per cent., so that there is no comparison of any kind there whatever. I do not think that on these figures there is any possible ground for suggesting that in 1953 there has been a breakaway in dividend policy. I think it necessary to make that clear. Dividend restraint means what it says—restraint and not freeze. Dividend restraint does not mean dividend freeze any more than wage restraint means wage freeze. We must be clear about that.
    I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite think that all dividends are wrong. That is a point of view, but it is not the point of view on which the prosperity of this country at present is based. Let us take one or two figures as a background to the relative position of shareholders and wage earners in recent years. Between 1938 and 1952, earnings increased by 184 per cent., prices by 122 per cent, and dividends by 40 per cent. In other words, in real terms while the wage earner was 28 per cent, better off, the shareholder was 35 per cent worse off.
    Taking a shareholder and a wage earner who in 1938 were each receiving £100, the shareholder now receives £140, which in pre-war terms is worth £65, and the wage earner £280, which in pre-war terms is worth £128. That is a measure of the comparative shift in the purchasing power of wage earners and dividend receivers. I accept the argument of the

    1235
    right hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong to put back the clock, and no one has suggested that we should adopt such a policy. But I think it right and fair, when we are endeavouring to consider these very important matters in our economy, that these comparative statistics of what has actually happened should be made known, because they are relevant.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: I think that the Minister has missed a fundamental point in the argument which he is building up and the conclusion which he is trying to reach. He is making a comparison between the income of a wage earner and of a shareholder. He seems to miss the point that the fundamental difference in such a comparison is that the wage earner is earning one wage, whereas the shareholders may appear many times in the lists issued in respect of companies and, therefore, be receiving not the income of one shareholder but of many shareholders.
    Mr. Maudling: My statistics have taken account of that, of course—
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Then why did not the hon. Member mention it?
    Mr. Maudling: Frankly, I did not think it necessary to mention it.
    I have been dealing with the development of the whole economy. I have tried to show that our economy is immensely strengthened, that our production has risen, that our consumption has risen and that confidence in sterling has greatly increased. I have endeavoured to deal, by way of statistics, with the criticisms contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of prices and dividends. I wish now to look at the future.
    I think we may look at the future with great confidence. There are uncertainties and difficulties ahead but I think that we can face them with confidence. It is an interesting fact that already the recession of business in the United States has gone as far, and much faster, than in 1949. It is an extraordinary thing that that should have taken place while our reserves have continued to mount and while sterling has remained extremely strong.
    There are, of course, many and complex reasons for this, including the stock
    1236
    position in America, their financial position and the outflow of American dollars, but there are two factors for which we have been responsible and which have contributed greatly to our situation. One is that our economy is now on a sound basis, and the other is that the world has confidence in the financial conduct of our affairs.
    Of course, there is no room for complacency. I am not making predictions about the future course of trade either in the United States or in the world, because it would be rash to do so, although by temperament and conviction I am an optimist. We have grounds for being proud of what we have achieved so far and we must increase our efforts toward more output and greater efficiency.
    We have to face growing competition from Germany and other industrial nations, as well as from America—still our most important competitor. It is of the utmost importance to every employer, every worker and every citizen of this country that production should continue with the maximum efficiency and at the lowest possible cost. Surely that is what we should be concentrating upon. Our problem is how to produce more and do it more efficiently. We should work together to see that costs and prices do not get out of line, instead of doing what right hon. and hon. Members opposite are doing, trying to exacerbate existing grievances and creating grievances where they do not exist. [Interruption.]There are plenty of examples to show that hon. Gentlemen opposite try to create grievances about an increase in the cost of living which are utterly unjustifiable.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: Then why are we getting wage claims?
    Mr. Maudling: Everyone knows that the cost of living is a serious problem, particularly for people with fixed incomes, and we are doing all we can to deal with it. But it does no useful service to anyone to exaggerate matters.
    We have made a degree of progress of which those who live in this island are entitled to be proud. Let us concentrate our efforts on trying to solve the difficulties instead of exacerbating grievances. Let us concentrate our efforts on increasing our production and our efficiency and in meeting the challenge of the years ahead.
    5.39 p.m.
    Mr. Ernest Popplewell: We have had a very remarkable speech from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, though his closing remarks were not worthy of him. His observation that we were attempting to make capital out of a given set of circumstances undermined any good points which he might previously have made. Many of the figures which the hon. Gentleman used were nothing but humbug and were produced to befog the Committee. I shall use another set of figures relating to the same period that was referred to by the Economic Secretary and I think that after hearing them the Committee will arrive at a very different conclusion.
    We are attempting to cover a very wide field in a debate which is long overdue. It is as well that we should take stock of what has happened in the industrial field. Much has so far not been reviewed, and it is important that it should be in regard to the deployment of our manpower. I suggest that we should give serious attention to the manpower position. A careful study of the overall picture of civil employment indicates some most serious dents and bulges in the wrong places.
    The Minister used a set of figures about civil employment to suit his own purpose. He used the figures for 1952 and said that the increase was about 238,000. It is as well to go back a little further. I ask the hon. Gentleman why he did not correlate his figure to 1951 in the same way that he correlated many of his other figures. The increase in the number in civil employment from 1951 to date has been 135,000, which is exactly 100,000 more than the low figure to which we had drifted in 1952.
    Also, if we analyse the types of employment we find a serious position. The increase in the number of males employed in that period was 28,000, and the increase in the number of females employed was 107,000. In industries which are mainly dependent upon male labour there has been a considerable decrease in the number employed. In agriculture there has been a reduction of 92,000 between 1951 and today. In building and contracting, another activity in which male labour is mainly employed, a considerable reduction has taken place. In the
    1238
    non-productive types of employment, such as the distributive trades, there has been a considerable increase of 114,000. This shows the pattern of our civil employment. It shows where we are drifting.
    In the manufacturing industries we find that there has been an increase of about 200,000 since 1951, but if we carefully break down the figures to the respective industries—and I frankly confess that 1 have not been able to do that—I am sure that we shall find that the increase is more on goods for personal consumption at home instead of on goods best calculated to help us in our export difficulties.
    Mr. Robson Brown: We are most interested in these figures. Can the hon. Gentleman quote the source?
    Mr. Popplewell: The source is the Board of Trade Monthly Digest of Statistics for January, 1954. They come mainly from Table 5.
    We must carefully consider how our manpower is employed and whether it is deployed in our best interests. There is one good feature and that is the success of our nationalised industries in this connection. In coal mining manpower has been increased by about 11,000, with a consequent increase in output. On the other hand, there has been a reduction of 47,000 in transport. That is a very good sign. With that reduction in the number employed in transport there has been a considerable reduction in overhead expenses and an increase in efficiency.
    This analysis indicates a disturbing trend which is fraught with danger. We have the right to ask the Government what they are doing about the deployment of manpower. Are they prepared to enter into some arrangement to control manpower, or do they propose to continue the present laissez faire method of allowing people to drift here and there without any consideration of our export needs.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I take it that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Notification of Vacancies Order is still fully operative.
    Mr. Popplewell: I know that, and I know that manpower is drifting where it will.
    Mr. Watkinson: Not at all.
    Mr. Popplewell: For instance, in agriculture there has been a decrease of 92,000 in the labour force and in building contracting there has been a considerable reduction. If we consider the situation in industry generally we find that it gives cause for serious concern. It was no use the Economic Secretary to the Treasury brushing to one side the one-day strike of engineers with a sweep of his hand as if it did not matter. That was an official strike. We must take note of that. The position is most serious.
    The number of days lost through industrial disputes has gone up, since 1951, from 1,694,000 to 2,169,000, an increase of 475,000. But that is not the full story. If we analyse the figures issued by the Ministry of Labour we find that in 1953 we had by far the largest number of days lost through industrial disputes that we have had in the last 20 years, with the possible exception of 1937. Probably there wore more days lost than in any year since 1927.
    Mr. David Jones: That is why the Minister wanted to take out the engineers' strike.
    Mr. Popplewell: Certainly.
    Sir William Darling: They are not lock-outs; they are all strikes.
    Mr. Popplewell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. The figures show that between 1945 and 1950 there were unofficial stoppages which were not recognised by the trade unions, but most of the stoppages in 1953 were recognised by the trade union movement. That indicates the general uneasiness.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said in the House recently that we had returned to hard bargaining in the industrial field. He also made a broadcast speech to that effect. He said that in the past six months over 70 pay claims, affecting over four million workers had been dealt with. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: these stoppages indicate the hard nature of the bargaining to which we are returning.
    Mr. Watkinson: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman completely to misrepresent what I said. I said that more than 70 pay claims—the number is now a great deal larger—had been settled through the normal machinery of negotiation without any recourse to strike or other industrial action whatsoever.
    Mr. Poppiewell: I am tying up what the hon. Gentleman said in the House with what he said in his broadcast. The two things must be correlated.
    Mr. Watkinson: What I have quoted is what I said in my broadcast. I also said in the House, and in my broadcast, that it would not be at all surprising if in the more realistic conditions of the day we returned to a tougher kind of bargaining than we have experienced in the years since the war.
    Mr. Popplewell: I do not dispute that. That is what I have already said. I wanted to show that the stoppages which are taking place indicate the hard nature of the bargaining. The number of days wasted by stoppages during 1953 represents a very unenviable record for the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well boast of the success of his financial policy, and he and the Government can make all the propaganda points they like out of it, but the real position in industry is as I have shown, and it is a very serious one.
    It is interesting to note that there has recently been some "kite flying" by officials in the Ministry of Labour in an attempt to get trade unions voluntarily to accept the findings of courts of inquiry. I advisedly say "kite flying," because I do not think the Minister of Labour would ever think that he would be likely to get trade unions to pledge themselves automatically to accept such findings. Indeed, he would be the last person to do so. This "kite flying," in view of the quarter from which it has come, may create a disturbing feeling and lack of confidence, and it ought not to be pursued very much further.
    It is interesting to note what has occurred in the industrial field recently. The awards of the courts of inquiry have represented an advance of about 3s. 6d. or 4s. a week. It was left to an independent court of inquiry in the engineers' dispute to point out how unrealistic this type of award has been. It was left to the

    1241
    National Union of Railwaymen, an organisation which has had to fight many battles for the trade union movement, to break through the industrial court award of the 3s. 6d. or 4s. type. Since the railwaymen said that they would not accept the award and were prepared to strike, the awards by the courts have approximately doubled. These are very serious trends indeed, which cannot be dismissed by a mere group of airy-fairy figures. It is a practical aspect of industry.
    Industry receives many exhortations to increase productivity. The men in industry are somewhat tired of pep talks and observations by theorists.
    Mr. Osborne: On both sides of industry.
    Mr. Popplewell: Yes, on both sides. There is a determining factor which will play a far more important part than mere "pep" talks. When an increase in productivity takes place, greater financial reward should be given to the actual men who increase the production. It is no use talking about incentives for this and incentives for that, for the men are tired of it. They want practical results.
    The men know that we have a long way to go before we reach maximum production in industry and that we can still go a tremendous distance in that direction, but they are not convinced that management is pulling its full weight. I shall refer to that matter later, because it has a very important bearing on this subject.
    To deal with production itself, there has been an increase of 2½ to 3 per cent, above the 1951 level. That is a welcome change, for there was a steady decrease from 1951 until the latter part of 1953. Nevertheless, this rate of increase is far smaller than that which the Labour Government achieved year after year. While this is a welcome sign, great weaknesses are revealed when we break the figures down.
    Where does the main increase take place according to the figures of the Ministry? The largest proportion of the increase is in housebuilding. We are sorry that the standards have been brought so low, but we are all pleased about every house which goes up. The next largest increase is in vehicles for the roads. When we analyse the rest of the increase in production, where is it? Is it in good
    1242
    capital goods? Is it in good engineering products which will be available for export? No, that is not the answer, and the Economic Secretary knows that it is not the answer. Indeed, we find that there is very little increase in that direction.
    We are all pleased to note that the fall in factory expansion has at last been arrested. Up to 1951 the Labour Government gave every encouragement to factory development.
    Mr. Maudling: In 1951, the Labour Government deliberately introduced a Measure designed to stop that in 1952.
    Mr. Popplewell: We are talking about the building which took place, about the additional area of floor space provided. These facts cannot be denied. A considerable reduction took place, and we are glad to see that that has now been arrested and that some development is taking place, although it is not as great as we should like it to be. There has really been very little increase, and it is shocking that the plant and machinery development in respect of the home market itself has fallen to such a low level. All hon. Members must be alarmed by the fact that, with events as they are, there has not been more capital development of plant and equipment to enable our factories to give us the goods that we must export so that we can survive.
    Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was complaining earlier in the debate that industry was putting too much money to reserve. How does the hon. Gentleman think we can modernise our factories if we do not put some of the money to reserve?
    Mr. Popplewell: If the hon. Member will only be patient, I will deal in my own speech, in my own time, a little later, with the amount of cash that has gone to reserve.
    There has been some increase in the export trade, but no matter how the Minister tries to wrap the figures up we are still 3 per cent, below the level of 1951. We have not yet got back to that position. The metal and engineering trades have shown some improvement, particularly in the last quarter, but the shipments are still below even the 1952

    1243
    low level and are well below 1951. We cannot say, therefore, that the policy of the Chancellor has so far been good for industry. We see what is taking place in the textile, silk, wool and pottery industries. They are well below the 1951 level. There has been a slight increase in engineering exports over the level of 1952, I agree, but that, as the Minister rightly pointed out, is far below the increase in German exports.
    In the Middle East we are losing a tremendous lot of trade for our engineering products to Germany and Japan. One could quote the order that was placed by Yugoslav Invest Imports with Dobson and Barrow's, amounting to £5 million, for artificial fibre plants. Negotions were all completed, and then the Export Credits Guarantee Department Fund would not cover the credit. When the President of the Board of Trade was asked a Question about it he said he had no control over that fund. We therefore lost the £5 million order to Japan. That incident does not make very happy reading.
    Take our exports to O.E.E.C. countries. They showed very little increase in 1953. The general position with O.E.E.C. has worsened considerably. In the first part of 1953 we have a surplus trading. In the second half of that year we had a deficit. Now, in 1954, we are commencing to increase again.
    Mr. Maudling: In the first part of 1953 our exports to the sterling area showed a very great increase.
    Mr. Popplewell: I am talking about our trade with the O.E.E.C. countries.
    Our gold and dollar reserves are increasing today, and everybody is very proud of it, but while the hon. Gentleman makes a good speech on that subject he very carefully refrains from saying what our dollar reserves were in 1951 and what they are today, beyond saying that they were on a slippery slope. In actual fact, when the present Government took office those reserves were very much higher than they are at the present time. If there is a trend, surely we are entitled to know something about it. This only shows the gross mismanagement of the present Government.
    The hon. Member for Louth wanted me to deal with the question of shares
    1244
    and what is taking place in regard to reserves. We recently had a debate on take-over bids, when we pressed the Chancellor very strongly for an investigation into what is taking place in the share market. We gave certain figures, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) gave instances and specific cases on the basis of which they asked for the investigation. Hon. Members who support the Government accepted those instances as part of normal trading relations. It is regrettable that the Chancellor refused to do anything about it.
    Under the Labour Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, we were able to get both sides of industry together and come to an arrangement for what was called a "wage freeze" and for dividend limitation, with a view to achieving some stability in prices. The trade unions could have capitalised on that, had they been so minded, but they were faithful and did not make use of their power to get the advances in wages that they could have obtained.
    What happened on the employers' side? Dividend limitation became irksome by 1951, and when we were in office we had to threaten to take stronger measures. With the advent of the Tory Government the lid came off altogether. Dividend limitation became a mere word. Industry was pressing forward and increasing the rates of dividend. Many industrialists had to meet savage attacks by financiers who wanted to get hold of their companies, and, therefore, the industrialists had to increase the issue of bonus shares and use their reserves for increasing dividend payments to a regrettable degree.
    It comes back to the question which the hon. Gentleman put to me. This is a type of thing which can happen under the free exchange of the Tory Government. Instead of reserves being ploughed back into industry they are kept there as a savings bank. Now that dividend limitation is taken away they are used either for the issuing of bonus shares, in case the financial "sharks" should be after them or for increasing the amount of dividend in order that they might still retain control of their companies.

    1245
    It was very unworthy of the Chancellor, during his speech on take-over bids, to refer to the over-all dividends on shares and investments as being 2·8 for 1953 as against 3·4 for 1949. It would have been honester when giving those figures if he had also given the amount of the bonus shares which had been issued in that time and the amount that had been put to reserves.
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman should not accuse the Chancellor of dishonesty. The plain fact is that the question of bonus shares is utterly irrelevant. The figures which the Chancellor gave were quoted on a basis of normal capital plus reserves. Whether the reserves are capitalised or not makes no difference.
    Mr. Popplewell: Exactly. I am saying that it would have been more honest if the Chancellor had given the facts about bonus shares in the same statement. He did not do so. We have had to split the figures up to see what has been paid and what is being paid out by way of dividend on bonus shares and such like.
    Perhaps I am speaking for much too long. I know that several other hon. Members want to enter into the debate, but I want to refer to another point. I want to be brief, although I could quite well develop the subject to a considerable degree. I want to refer to the Index of Retail Prices, which is known as the cost-of-living index and is accepted as showing the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman and the Government have been making a great deal of capital out of the stabilisation, as they claim, in the cost of living. I will quote a set of figures contained in the last issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
    If we take the cost of living in June, 1947 as 100, by August, 1951, it had gone up to 127. By March, 1953, it had gone up to 140. Since then it has kept steady at that figure, except in two months when it reached 141. Taking the standard of wages over the same period and June, 1947, again as 100, we find that, for all workers the wage in August, 1951, was 126 as against—I repeat the figure—cost of living at 127. The two figures kept in very close relationship.
    After this Government came to power, in the period from August, 1951, to
    1246
    March, 1953, when the cost of living had reached 140, male wages had only increased to 134. Wages were lagging by 6 points. From March, 1953, to the present time male wages have only gone up another two points, so that they are still four points below the cost of living figures.
    This is the background of the industrial situation now facing us. It is causing a lot of the present industrial unrest. It is greatly concerning many people as to what is likely to happen, particularly if this American recession really develops.
    We feel that our industry is not being equipped to meet the difficulties which may lie ahead, that the present expenditure is a false expenditure, and that some of these reserves might be utilised to make us more efficient. We fear that should the world position go against us there will again be a call from industrialists that the only way for us to survive is by cutting still further the standard of living of our people.
    6.14 p.m.
    Mr. Ralph Assheton: It is a good many years since I was at the Ministry of Labour. I do not think I have spoken since in any Ministry of Labour debate, and I do not propose to detain the Committee very long now. Before going further, I do want to say that I think that the Ministry of Labour has been very fortunate under the administration of the present Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. I do not always pay compliments to Ministers, but that is a genuine one.
    I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Labour for more than two years as Parliamentary Secretary to the late Ernest Bevin. I learned a very great deal in that time-—and a great deal that I have not forgotten. One thing was that most employers—like most workers—are very anxious to do the right thing. It is only a small minority on either side who do not.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that that remark applied to the engineering employers?
    Mr. Assheton: I am not going into detail. I am stating the general proposition that by far the greater proportion of employers and workers want to do the right thing and the fair thing.

    1247
    There is an enormous amount of common ground—far more than there are differences. When there are differences, they arise from one of two reasons. Either there is something wrong, or the workers think there is something wrong. If there is something wrong, it must be put right. If it is thought that there is something wrong but there is not, the misunderstanding has to be removed in some way. I believe that there are a great many misunderstandings today.
    I do not take the view of some hon. Members opposite, who say that there is a great deal of industrial unrest. Looking back over the last 30 years, it cannot be said that the present time is a time of great industrial unrest, although there are very considerable grievances, whether justified or not, which have to be carefully considered, and, if found to be justified, attended to.
    One misunderstanding which causes much trouble and difficulty concerns the relationship between wages and dividends. This problem is not fully understood. I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) put the matter slightly out of proportion. I wish to quote only one set of figures, because figures do not help many people when they are trying to work things out. In many cases they puzzle people, and they also tend to be unreliable and difficult to analyse. The figures I shall quote are agreed, and need cause no controversy.
    According to the official figures, the amount of money paid in salaries and wages, in the last full year for which we have particulars, was £8,215 million, and the amount paid in ordinary dividends was £472 million. Hon. Members on different sides of the House may disagree on the question whether the money paid in wages and salaries was too little, or the money paid in dividends was too much—that is a matter for argument—but the proportions ought to be remembered. There were £8,200 million paid out in wages and salaries and £470 million in ordinary dividends, of which a very considerable amount went back in taxation to sustain the social and defence services.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: A considerable amount in both cases.
    Mr. Assheton: Yes
    Mr. Bence: And much more came out of one than out of the other.
    Mr. Assheton: Much more came out of dividends than out of wages.
    Mr. Bence: I do not agree.
    Mr. Assheton: I would say that, in proportion, more came out of dividends, because if hon. Members opposite were right in thinking that the dividends found their way, in large degree, into the pockets of those who had larger incomes, the rate of taxation on those individuals would tend to be higher—but I do not want to argue that point.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, South failed to make clear the true difference between the pre-war days and the present day. For every £1 of ordinary dividends paid out in pre-war days about 30s. or rather less, is being paid out now. That means that the dividend receiver is getting 30s. instead of £1, but that 30s. is worth much less than the £ was worth in pre-war days. In addition, he is paying a higher rate of tax upon it. That also applies to the wage earner, so that his money is not worth what it was either. The wage earner is now getting about three times what he got before the war. I am giving these figures to the Committee so that hon. Members may have a true sense of proportion in this matter.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: Can the right hon. Member relate that argument to the lower-paid worker getting £7 a week? Is he saying that that man is getting three times what he was before the war?
    Mr. Assheton: I should say that most of the lower-paid workers are getting three times what they got before the war. Perhaps the hon. Member will be able to quote his figures, but my experience as a fairly large employer of labour supports the argument which I am advancing.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also talked about unearned income. Hon. Members opposite often refer to unearned income in a rather denigrating way, but unearned income is income from savings. It is a great pity that the Board of Inland Revenue always refer to it as unearned income. It is really the income on savings made either by the

    1249
    man who is receiving it, or, his predecessor, who left it to him. Many misconceptions would be disposed of if we talked about "income on savings" rather than "unearned income," which is rather a prejudicial phrase. If that were done a misunderstanding would be removed. I know that many hon. Members opposite, especially those Members who are trade union leaders, spend a great deal of time in trying to remove the misunderstandings of their constituents.
    Another misunderstanding exists about bonus shares. It is very difficult to understand what they are. Those who do not have a great deal of experience with company balance sheets do not always appreciate what they are. An issue of bonus shares is a capitalisation of reserves. When a bonus share issue is made the directors of the company concerned decide that so many thousands of pounds shall never be distributed to the shareholders as dividends, but shall be placed to capital. Therefore, any arrangement which deters the issue by law of bonus shares is damaging savings; it means leaving more money available for distribution by the directors, and tying up less as permanent capital. That is another misunderstanding which ought to be removed.
    Do not let us assume that we are in a period of great industrial unrest; let us assume, rather, that we are in a period of upsurge of intellectual interest. People are thinking more for themselves than they have ever done before, but many of them are not fully instructed. Many have not had the opportunities for studying so many problems as we hon. Members have. One may enter the Chamber and hear an hon. Member speaking about something of which one is quite ignorant, and go away thinking, "I have learned something. "We have a great deal to learn from each other and, if we continue to do so, understanding will improve and industrial unrest will be avoided.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: We had a cascade of figures from the Front Benches at the beginning of this debate. That cascade has gradually dwindled and, if the Committee does not find any other merit in what I have to say, it will at least find some in the fact that I do not intend to quote a single figure. I shall concentrate on the question of industrial relations between employer and
    1250
    employee, and various matters related to it. I do not wish to appear dogmatic, to exaggerate the present situation, or to overstress any aspect of it. I just want to air some ideas which my party has recently been considering.
    People in other parties, and those with no political attachments, have recently been concerned at some of the problems inherent in our present industrial situation, and have been giving anxious thought to the matter. On both sides of the Committee the feeling has been expressed that these are delicate matters, and that we must be careful how we tread, but the time has now come for us to speak our thoughts as objectively as possible and to hope that satisfactory and acceptable solutions will be found.
    From what has already happened, we can take various assumptions for granted. We want to keep business efficient and competitive; we want to keep down costs and even to reduce them, if possible. Today, our economy is a mixed one, and we have to recognise that rates of return which are reasonable and proper have to be offered to risk capital and, most important of all, we have to consider the methods by which labour obtains the full fruits of its work, and whether they are as good as they should be.
    When considering this we are concerned to keep a continuous state of harmony in industry. It is apparent from what has already been said that there is concern about the results that may ensue from the present rather rigid methods of mass wage negotiations. The continual pressure for wage increases on an industry-wide basis has, until recently, led to no serious trouble, because industry has not found it too difficult to pass on those increased costs to the consumer. There has been no catastrophe, but the difficult questions have been shelved rather than solved.
    Only those who are supporters of central planning and the control of wages have been prepared to formulate the problem of wages in a state of full employment, and to attempt to find a solution. The schemes which they have put forward certainly do not meet with my approval or with that of my party. In fact, I do not believe that they meet with anyone's approval. They have been completely rejected by both employers and trade unions and it seems

    1251
    improbable, to say the least, that any formal scheme for a national wages policy could be operated without regulations and controls which would cut right across the whole tradition of industrial relations in this country.
    Nevertheless, those who oppose a national wages policy are, I suggest, under an obligation to find an answer to a problem which can no longer be ignored. May I put one or two ideas on the matter before the Committee? In considering any Government's attitude towards the problem, there are four closely related objectives to be borne in mind. The first is to safeguard a reasonable standard of living for all employed persons and their dependants. The second is to maintain and, if possible, increase economic production. The third is to avoid inflation. The fourth is to preserve industrial peace and to safeguard the tradition of freedom and self-government in industry.
    If we think hard about this matter, it is clear that none of these objectives will be adequately fulfilled by a continuation of the present practice of granting wage increases by raising the time-rate throughout an industry. This method is unsatisfactory, for reasons which I will give. First, it temporarily increases the purchasing power of the lowest paid workers but it normally benefits all other workers in the industry, as well, and is, therefore, an unnecesarily expensive way of assisting a minority to maintain a reasonable human standard. It ultimately defeats its purpose in so far as it leads to price increases.
    Secondly, a relatively small increase in the basic rate in a high priority industry is unlikely in times of full employment to lead to a significant alteration in the distribution of manpower. Thirdly, there is no reason why wage increases of this type should increase economic production. Fourthly—and this is a matter on which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) dwelt at some length—the more such claims are passed to arbitration, the more serious are the strains placed on the national arbitration machinery.
    Every time an unpopular award is given, the important habit of voluntary acceptance of arbitration decisions is threatened. The present tendencies are
    1252
    leading to a dangerous alteration in the nature of British industrial arbitration which is being tacitly expected to fill the rôle of a national wages board. That matter, too, was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West. The purpose of our arbitration tribunals is essentially the maintenance of industrial peace. The method is informal and each case is judged on its merits.
    Mr. Charles Pannell: Is the hon. Gentleman right in that definition of the purpose of an arbitration tribunal—the maintenance of industrial peace? Is it not the achievement of social justice?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It should be.
    Mr. Holt: I should have thought that essentially arbitration was a question of finding out how we can get the two parties together. If it were a question of social justice, surely different directions would be passed to the arbitration machinery directing it to lean one way or the other.
    Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing the general conciliation duties of the Ministry of Labour with the official arbitration boards. I can assure him, as no doubt he will agree, that their job is merely to examine the facts and, if they are required to do so, to make an award on the facts.
    Mr. Holt: I am sorry if there has been some confusion on this issue, but I think that the main point I made still remains.
    If these tribunals have frequently to give decisions on the minimum wage in a number of large and important industries, they will be forced into assuming a position very like that of a national wages board. There is a danger that in attempting to make the arbitration machinery perform a job for which it was not intended, we may destroy its ability to do its proper work.
    Since the objectives to which I previously referred will not be achieved by the present methods, the methods themselves must be improved. These measures can be divided, on the one hand, into those which are covered by the Government's general economic and social policy, and, on the other hand, those which involve adjustments in the present methods of negotiation and arbitration. The first aspect has been discussed earlier in the debate and I will not deal with it.
    Mr. Mellish: Why not? What does the Liberal Party think on this issue?
    Mr. Holt: I will say, generally, on social and economic policy, that for a long time my party has emphasised the fundamental importance of maintaining and improving the purchasing power of money, thereby removing any case for repeated wage claims on the ground of the depreciation of money.
    In addition, our social policy has stressed the distinction between the low-paid worker and the low-paid family man and has proposed social payments in the form of improved family allowances to guard against hardships in the lower-paid personnel. That is common ground between the parties; the familiar question is, "How much and when?" But that is on the political side of the problem and I want to keep to the industrial side.
    One of the steps which we should now take is to try to shift the emphasis in the way in which industrial negotiations are conducted. To begin with, I suggest that for the purpose of obtaining the highest amount of money which can possibly be paid to any worker for his job, we should encourage negotiations on a company level. This, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) knows, is—
    Mr. Pannell: Heresy.
    Mr. Holt: It is not something which is not done now; in fact, as the hon. Member well knows, it is done now. It is not something radical, revolutionary or new which I am suggesting but merely a development of that which already takes place. Where the unions have the trained staff to deal with these companies on a proper basis, with consultation to find out what they can afford to pay their employees, I suggest that this is an extremely satisfactory method.
    I believe it should be considered and that the House and the Government should encourage that system of negotiation by unions with companies. Undoubtedly, it cannot spread wildly like a prairie fire because the unions will require considerably to increase their expert staff in different sections of industry in order to carry out such negotiations. As a result of these negotiations, those companies which can afford to pay higher wages will pay them.
    Mr. Mellish: That is a bit rough on the workers elsewhere.
    Mr. Holt: Those companies which cannot afford to do so will not be called upon to pay them. I will come later to what happens to the other workers. What will happen is this. There will be differentials between the successful companies who are extending and developing —differentials in wages as between that type of company and the type of company that is going out. I would have thought that, provided there are minimum safeguards, there is nothing that any trade unionist could object to in that.
    Mr. Darling: As the hon. Member probably knows, the unions in the engineering industry do negotiate with firms outside the employers' federation. The body most likely to prevent what he is suggesting coming into operation is the Engineering and Allied Employers' Federation and not the trade unions.
    Mr. Holt: I quite agree. This will require alterations in the constitution of some unions and also in the constitution of some employers' federations.
    Mr. Pannell: Over the next century.
    Mr. Holt: I do not see why we should have to wait all that time. If the House of Commons can create a body of opinion that considers that this is the right direction in which to go, then, clearly, certain progress can be made.
    Mr. Robson Brown: There is one point which I should like the hon. Gentleman to make clear. Is he advocating that fixed standard rates of wages should be abandoned and that we should revert to individual negotiations between employers and employees and individual companies? If that is so, it is the most reactionary suggestion I have ever heard in my life.
    Mr. Holt: Perhaps the hon. Member will listen to the end of my speech, and he will then know whether he thinks that that is what I am saying. It depends on what he means by his words.
    It is not sufficient merely for a trade union official, who is skilled in the job, to negotiate the highest rate of pay he can for the union members in a firm, because the whole time there is the resistance of that firm, particularly from

    1255
    the sales side, to put wages up to the top, even on a company basis. It is a different matter at the end of the year, when the profits have been made.
    At the end of the year when the profits have been made, and if the year has been better than the sales department thought that it might be, a firm is often very willing, if the workers wish to participate more in the firm and so to share some of the profits, for them to have something extra. If these two things are done, I suggest that the level of wages can go up considerably without their affecting the economic solvency, shall we call it, of our business community.
    I now come to the next part of my speech, which may arouse some objections in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I think that the consequence, if one considers the drift of traditional industrial relations, of what I have suggested is that there must still be national wage negotiations to safeguard, what I choose to call, minimum wages. This provides the background of bargaining on a national basis to provide easily for minimum wage rates.
    I have called it, for want of a better name, the national minimum wages adjustment board, to cover all industries, in place of the existing arbitration machinery which can be altered and developed to settle disputes on a company basis, on the method of negotiations which I have mentioned. This board would approve of an industrial award for an increase in the basic rate of wages, but would only approve it if the basic rate were below a reasonable living standard, having regard not only to the existing basic rate but to the average earnings in the industry. I appreciate that this offers many difficulties in the present situation, and I suggest that there may have to be alterations. I am endeavouring in no way to be dogmatic. I am trying to put forward some ideas which, I hope, will be discussed in this debate.
    Mr. Mellish: I think, with respect, that the hon. Member is wrong. Already there are basic minimum wages negotiated freely by the unions and if any individual firm wants to go above those there is nothing to stop it. There is no need for Liberal Party policy to tell us
    1256
    that if firms are willing to pay more the unions would be only too glad to take it.
    Mr. Holt: If the hon. Member reads the document which has just come up, he will see that what is happening is that there is an urge all the time on the part of the firms which say they cannot afford to pay any more to hold back other firms for the sake of unity There is unity and loyalty among the employers' federations just as much as there is among the trade unions.
    I suggest that it is quite unrealistic to discuss wage rates without consideration of average earnings, since average earnings are, obviously, affected by every change in these rates and only a very small proportion of employees may, in fact, be drawing the minimum rate. The decisions of the adjustment board, if of any value at all, must be legally enforceable.
    Mr. Pannell: What about freedom?
    Mr. Holt: This will be objected to perhaps more by the employers than the unions. All other claims for wage increases on grounds of increased productivity or higher profits should be determined by negotiations between unions and companies. So long as any element of compulsory arbitration remains, the Government are sanctioning and even encouraging industry-wide negotiation.
    It seems, therefore, that there is some reason for the Government considering whether they should withdraw the Industrial Disputes Order No. 1376. I should be very glad to have the comments of the Minister on that later. This would encourage the return to the system of voluntary arbitration in cases in which the negotiating procedure between unions and companies did not lead to a settlement.
    I, personally, like the Economic Secretary, am an optimist. That is probably the only thing that I have in common with him. But we have one or two particularly awkward problems to solve, some quite natural prejudices which have been shown in the Committee this afternoon to overcome, before we can move to what is absolutely necessary—a more flexible and resilient industrial system. I am, however, convinced that these problems can be solved. I have endeavoured

    1257
    to offer some suggestions this afternoon from my party of the directions in which we might move to the advantage of all.
    They may be completely wrong and they may seem quite nonsense to some people, but all I say is that if they do anything to stimulate discussion the time may not have been entirely wasted. I am hopeful that if both employers and unions will objectively speak their own thoughts on the difficult matters of wage negotiations, then, with the diplomatic skill of the Minister of Labour, we may be able soon to achieve a considerable improvement in the present methods of wage negotiation.
    6.49 p.m.
    Mr. David J. Pryde: Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), I think it would be far better for all hon. Members if they left the trade unions out of this debate. The trade unions have their own work to do, and if they could do the work of hon. and right hon. Members there would be no need for us to be here in the House of Commons. If we could do the work of the trade unions there would be no need for the trade unions. Let us, therefore, apply ourselves to the debate.
    The debate is on the subject of the industrial situation. Listening to the cascade of figures earlier, one would have thought that it was a debate on high finance, but it is not a debate on high finance only. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer—he was a Chancellor of the Exchequer for a short time this afternoon—on being in fine vein. I once read of a great novelist who described Nietzsche as a mad German philosopher who reasoned himself in circles out of the realm of sanity into space.. I was reminded of that description when I heard the Economic Secretary this afternoon.
    I am going to draw the curtain so that we can see the industrial scene and examine it. When a chemist analyses anything he breaks it down, puts it in the alembic, distils it, and then he knows what is really in it. There has been a great deal of optimism abroad tonight. Let us begin by examining agriculture, because everything springs from the land. All the wealth that we have heard about tonight is made by the workers applying
    1258
    themselves to the machines and the raw materials.
    According to the Digest of Scottish Statistics, from 1948 to 1952 we had a decline of 9,000 workers in Scotland. The reason is very simple. One reason is the tied cottage, because the man who owns the cottage owns the occupier. Then there is lack of transport to rural areas. Next is dragging wages, because the Scottish agricultural worker's wages are always dragging behind those of his English brother. In fishing there is still a marketing shambles in an effort to get rid of the commodity. No wonder we have a shambles, because there are no facilities for our people in the fishing industry to carry on their business in a progressive fashion.
    Today, in Scotland, the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is held in the greatest respect, because the Scottish farmers know that he is the only man who tried to approach the problem of agriculture scientifically. In the Scottish farming industry there is today much concern and apprehension, because the Scottish farmer does not know where the Government's agricultural policy is leading to.
    Then there are the mines. Again, the accent is on manpower. During October, November and December last year there was a decline of approximately 5,000 men in that industry, but in Scotland our total was 700. The real explanation lies in the ravages of private enterprise and the price that the miners have had to pay for the industry. Make no mistake, the miners of this country bought the industry. It is all very well talking glibly of nationalisation, but the fact is that the cost of the industry was placed against the miners' potential earning capacity, and it is too much to carry.
    I suggest that the cost of purchase of the mining industry should be placed against the National Debt, because the mines do not belong to the miner. Every hon. Member would dispute the suggestion that the mines belong to the miners, because that would be syndicalism. We say that the mines belong to the nation. If that is so, the nation should be responsible for them.
    Taking the position in Lanarkshire as one example, it is true to say that here is a man-sized problem by itself. If we

    1259
    were getting justice in Scotland, Lanarkshire would be dealt with as a development area. But nothing like that is happening in Lanarkshire. Men have been transported across to Midlothian and reshipped to the Midlands. Take Fife, which has had to absorb a large number of Lanarkshire's miners. Not one alternative industry has been introduced into the new town of Glenrothes or in Midlothian where we have developed on our own without Government help. The Government have ignored us. The unemployment figures in this area are alarming. That should arouse the interest of the Minister of Labour in alternative industries for Midlothian and Lanarkshire.
    I now want to refer to electricity and gas. In both industries there is a tendency to increase prices. That tendency is illustrated by the fact that the electrical engineers are today fighting for an increase in wages. I listened recently to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour speaking on the wireless. A number of women were present, and they said to me, "Why is he laughing?" He laughed several times during the broadcast. I said, "He is laughing at the thought of being able to convince you people that the prices of food have not risen." They said, "He never went to the store for the messages. Otherwise, he would know how food prices have risen." I wonder at men coming to this House and trying to convince anyone that there has not been an increase in prices.
    The Government now proposes to bludgeon the housewife into a weaker position by imposing upon her a 40 per cent, increase in rent, plus an increase in rates, and in addition she will have to bear her share of the owner's improvements in the patching up of old property.
    As to transport, there is chaos on road, rail and sea, and in the air. The Highland haulage problem still looms large. If some giant could have turned these islands east and west instead of north and south there would be no problem. Simply because Aberdeen is 500 miles north of London we are faced with a great problem of getting fish from the port at Aberdeen down to the southern markets. This Government stands transfixed, like a bird in front of a snake, failing to grasp with the problem. I tell the Government straight that until they return to a
    1260
    co-ordinated nationalised system of transport they will never be able to tackle the problem of transport to our Highland areas.
    The building of the Forth and Tay bridges is still only a dream. The Government will not recognise that these bridges would tend to create a stabilised economy in Scotland. We talk about civil Estimates of £2,000 million, but only £13 million would build the Forth bridge. The Government cannot afford the steel to build that bridge. They require it to turn into armaments, and they are lifting the tramway rails in our big cities to meet the demand for scrap. I am not blaming this Government only, but every other Government is in the same position. Other nations are spending far too much of their national income on things which will destroy life, and not sufficient to support and protect it.
    Reference has been made to the shipbuilding and engineering industries. Shipbuilding is our traditional craft in Scotland. Every Member of this Committee gets periodical information about shipbuilding prospects in the markets of the world. Everyone knows what competition from both Germany and Japan means to our shipbuilding industry. It is not true to say that only the small yards are suffering. As a matter of fact, more small ships are being built than big ships.
    In the engineering industry the employees were never over-paid. In my own constituency, two miles from where I live is one of the finest engineering works in the world, where the engineers work to a ten-thousandth part of an inch. They are engaged in marine engineering. The McTaggart Scott tele-motor is the finest bit of engineering work in the world. The Germans have nothing like it, and no other nation produces anything like it. When I went to work there in 1939 I inquired from the shop steward what was the basic rate for a skilled turner and I was told it was 11¾d. That is how we paid skilled men in Scotland.
    Then there is the question of unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South mentioned the American politician who advocated an increase in purchasing power for the workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, but I am wondering whether he is thinking along

    1261
    these lines, because mention was also made of Members' expenses. If the Economic Secretary will take a hint, he should make representations to the Treasury, because some of the Scottish Members will have to get a "sub" if he does not hurry up.
    I have given sufficient information tonight about the engineering industry to persuade the Government to have another look at it, because I remember the days when the derricks and cranes on the Clyde were idle, and one person in four in the City of Glasgow lived off the rates. I am not going to say any more on that subject, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) will catch your eye, Sir Charles. Someone should deal with the position of the great City of Glasgow, where the bulk of our Scottish population is centred.
    I said that I would deal with the alarming rise in the unemployment figures. I would like to point out how insecure are the people in the central belt of Scotland. Lanarkshire and West Lothian where the people are dependent upon shale mining. The sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads all the time, because it is cheaper to bring oil from Persia and from other parts of the world and refine it in Grangemouth than it is for our people to mine the shale and retort it in West Lothian.
    All the time our people are living under the shadow of that sword. In my own constituency, during the last two or three months, there has been rising unemployment, even though some of the girls travel 20 to 30 miles to work. A small employment exchange has 255 unemployed where, three months ago, there were only 30. We have nearly 1,000 unemployed registered at five small exchanges where, six months ago, we had only 130 so registered.
    I am continually asking that notice should be taken of the fact that if we are to have movement of labour—and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned this—we cannot lift a family from one part of Scotland and dump it in another, even in a new house, without providing certain amenities. There is a social aspect of this problem, and unless this Committee takes cognisance of it, then we shall not get the industrial relationship about which one hon. Member on the other side of the Committee talked so glibly.
    1262
    Our workers in Scotland are good workers. They are not afraid to work, but they like a square deal. They are not getting a square deal at all if the Government are going to rob Peter to pay Paul—if they are to give it one way and take it another. The landlord, for instance, is to get far better treatment than the worker. He is to get 40 per cent, or 8s. in the £ because he failed to do his duty, but if the worker strikes he is anathema.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us that there is some hope for the mining industry in both Fife and the Lothians, and that there is hope of alternative employment there and in Lanarkshire.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. Henry Brooke: For good or ill I am not a Scotsman. I hope the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) will not ask me to follow him into the fields, because the only fields I have in my constituency are on Hampstead Heath, and Hampstead Heath does not produce food, though it furnishes many people with happiness and more with jokes.
    Mr. Pryde: It produced highwaymen.
    Mr. Brooke: Neither would I venture to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), for I want to try to keep my feet on the ground. I could not do that if I sought to rise into the somewhat rarified atmosphere to which he took us in his speech, which left me with one conviction, and one conviction only—that the policy of the Liberal Party does not offer an automatic solution for the problems we are discussing this evening.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said he accepted the principle that the House of Commons should not intervene in industrial negotiations. I hope we can all take that as our starting point. But, if so, we have to place upon ourselves a very special restraint, not only as to the way we speak in the Chamber but when we speak in the country or write in the newspapers. We are facing dangerous and difficult days, through which we may be able to find our way by hard thought and willing effort to happier years and a prosperous future. If we are to do that we must be very careful to avoid lighting a spark

    1263
    which might set off a great explosion, and set back industrial progress in this country for years to come.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a deterioration which he thought he apprehended in industrial relations. There is tension in industry at all times. There is tension also in Parliament, and I ask the Committee to give its mind to these tensions and to what their relations are. We in these democratic countries govern ourselves by the tension that exists and has practical effect between Government and Opposition in Parliament. We speak our minds to one another, knowing that for a time one party is in power and that the time will come when the other party will be in power.
    We seek the truth by the clash of mind and thought and work, but we do it all within the Standing Orders laid down for the House, and within, what is perhaps more important still, the influence of the traditional atmosphere of this place where we debate, which unfailingly has its effect upon every one of us, from whatever part of the country we come, and whatever our background.
    That is the tension of a democratic Parliament. There are also tensions in industry, and in a debate of this kind we should be making an error if we assumed that the primary tension in an industrial State is between employers and employed. The primary tension—that which matters most of all—is between the maker and the buyer, because if, as a country, we live by industry, then we have so to order our affairs that we make what people want to buy at a price which they can afford to pay.
    Though we have some control over those factors within this island, on both sides we know that our industrial future depends on our solving that problem not only in this country, but for export markets as well. That tension between maker and buyer, between producer and consumer, is the healthiest influence that can possibly be brought to bear on industry. It is best of all when the pull on either side is evenly balanced.
    We all know troubles that have grown up through there having been so largely a sellers' market since the war. Now we are passing into the stage of a buyers' market. I submit that if there are difficulties in industrial relationships at the
    1264
    moment, that is not unconnected with this transitional stage in which we find ourselves, and we may more easily find the truth if we look in that direction than if we try to attribute it to the doings or misdoings of Governments or Parliaments.
    That primary tension, of course, is related to the secondary tension, the tension between employer and employed. We used to call them "masters and man." That may be a more human terminology, but I suggest it is better to think, as we normally do nowadays, in terms of employers and trade unionists, because those words seem to me to convey more accurately that both the parties have a responsibility to the industry in which they work, and are not only and exclusively against their opposite number.
    The industry to which they belong is, after all, the livelihood of both. In this country industry is ultimately the livelihood of us all. Employers are in the special position that they have to carry the ultimate responsibility for decisions which lead to the success or failure of the business. I say that, not arguing that it is the employer alone who matters, and not the worker. For the man whom trade union leaders represent, the industry is not only his means of livelihood, but also his way of life itself.
    The fact that the man working in the lower ranges has his industry pressing in upon his life, to a greater extent than those at the top who may have to take the broad decisions, is a fact that we must never forget. Those of us who can visualise some of the drab parts of industrial England, where the Victorian expansion passed a blight over a beautiful land, will, I think, understand even more fully what I mean.
    The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles referred to optimism. I am not going to speak as a gay optimist. I have made it only too clear that in this transitional stage I think we are playing for tremendous stakes, and unless we all weigh our words with the greatest care, as I am seeking to do and as I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) did very markedly and wisely earlier in this debate, all our talk here might easily do harm rather than good to the cause which we all in our different ways are ultimately pursuing, the greater prosperity and

    1265
    happiness of the people in British industry.
    Though I say that I am not a gay optimist, it occurs to me that we may unknowingly be on the threshold of a half-century of greater growth in prosperity than our country has ever known. We look back on the Victorian era as though it were something of the distant past which may never come again. It certainly will not easily come again. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thank goodness."] An hon. Member says "Thank goodness." I was thinking, not of the uglification of England which the Victorian era brought, but of the overall rise in the nation's standard of living which, fortunately, it also brought.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: During a Labour Government.
    Mr. Brooke: It brought that increasing standard of living to all classes of the community. We may legitimately argue whether the increase was fairly apportioned, but no one who knows anything of economic history can deny that the standard of living of all classes was far higher in 1900 than in 1800.
    Mr. Ede: Did the hon. Gentleman ever read Charles Booth's "Life and Labour in London," and the story of the submerged tenth?
    Mr. Brooke: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not ignorant of the background of this city of ours. There was a submerged tenth; there were people who were unemployed and people who could never get regular work, but the right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough in industrial history to know that what I am saying is fundamentally the truth.
    We have to seek the means by which we can make the potential growth of prosperity a reality in the years that lie ahead. We possess the one great advantage that technical invention now brings within the bounds of possibility improvements in the standard of life of which the Victorians never dreamed. We can also spread improvements more rapidly, through the people of the whole world and not merely of this country, than could ever be done before.
    If we can find the right means of achieving that, we shall not only relieve the Chancellor's Budget problem" and the
    1266
    dollar problem of which we hear so much. We shall help to make up the ravages of war, and surely in this debate on the industrial situation we must not lose sight of the extent to which this country has been set back by the destruction of war, and the warping of its industries by war needs. All that we have still to overtake.
    If we find the right answers, we can do more. We can deprive the Communists of the field of poverty in which Communism best thrives, and Communism is an industrial enemy to us as well as a military enemy. We shall not only be accomplishing all these things, but we shall also bring to the trade unions that advance in the standard of living of the average working-class home which, after all, is the prime raison d'étre of trade unionism in the eyes of its ordinary members.
    I have sought not to be controversial in what I have said today, because I do not believe, and I have never believed, that when we debate in this Chamber matters touching negotiations between employers and trade unions we shall gain by seeking to fight their battles in the House of Commons. I would beg all of us that, whatever the outcome of this debate, whatever the lessons that may be learned from it, we should seek to avoid producing a state of affairs which will lead historians of the future to say that the British had prosperity within their reach in 1954, but jettisoned it by quarrelling among themselves.
    7.23 p.m.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) invited us not to begin to light any spark that would lead to industrial trouble. The indictment which we on this side of the Committee make against the Government is that their economic and financial policies are doing precisely that, and we do not think that we should be serving any useful purpose if we avoided saying so.
    The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) said that either there was a grievance or people imagined that there was a grievance. We are trying to discover whether there is one or not.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The engineers have one.
    Mr. Lee: I assure hon. Members that people certainly imagine that they have a grievance. The policies which the Government have embarked upon since the time of the present Chancellor's first Budget have been responsible for breaking down much of the serenity in industry which we witnessed in the years following the war. If we are to put this debate in the right perspective and against the proper background we must look at the conditions which obtained during the administration of the Labour Government. I believe that there is almost unanimous agreement that the efforts of the British people from 1945 to 1951 to restore an economy which was shattered in the war constitutes one of the most remarkable performances in the whole of our history.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury finished his speech with an appeal that we should not say things that would tend to cause trouble. We certainly do not wish to do that. I know that he was not in the House of Commons at the time, but I wish that he would read some of the debates of the 1945 Parliament. I remember touring Canada in 1949 to try to secure an understanding among Canadians of what we were doing, and from Montreal to Vancouver we had to try to live down what the present Prime Minister and members of the Tory Party had said in those days—things that were deliberately designed to stop people placing orders with us, and to prevent the establishment of better trading relations.
    Therefore, when hon. Members opposite talk about not causing trouble they should remember the speeches about "Weary Willies "and "Tired Tims," for those were the sort of things we heard from the Tories in those years. Never has there been a Government in British history so villified and misrepresented as was the Labour Government of those six years. During that period, despite raw material shortages due to dollar starvation, the shortage of factory space, machine tools and other essential industrial components, and whilst millions of men and women were being transferred back from the pursuits of war to those of peace, the greatest and most successful efforts at economic recovery imaginable was being mounted. Those years record a story of ever increasing production figures in our most vital industries.
    1268
    The party opposite tried to make the nation believe that it was merely a coincidence that these things were happening during the period of the Labour Government. I affirm that one of the principal factors that made it possible at all was the sense of fair play which was created by the policies of that Government. There was the redistribution of the national income by the taxation policy which various Chancellors carried out, the food subsidy policy and price controls over goods in short supply. All these things brought about an atmosphere which of itself had much to do not only with the rise in production which was then obtained but with the rise in the right type of production, which enabled us to increase our exports to 70 per cent, above anything achieved in pre-war days.
    Let us look back at the enormous power which rested with the British trade union movement in those days. Those conditions of full employment and the enormous demands of our industries probably gave British trade unionism the strongest position that it could ever have held in the whole of its history. How did it use that power? I suggest that the restraint displayed by it under those conditions was almost unbelievable.
    Trade unionists saw that under our necessarily weakened economic circumstances the immediate demands that they could have made on behalf of their fellow members would have been in conflict with the long-term interests of the nation as a whole. That was an example of statesmanship never seen before from any type of industrial organisation in any democracy in the world. When we look a little further back and remember that very fresh and vivid in their memories was the 1927 Act and the vicious treatment to which they had been subjected not many years before, that becomes an even more magnificent performance.
    During the war period they had agreed to relax their pre-war practices as a purely war-time measure. They never asked—they have never asked to this day —for the restoration of those restrictive practices which were surrendered because of the dilemma in which the nation found itself. We had the dilution agreements which meant that hundreds of thousands of men and women, inexperienced in craftsmanship, were brought into certain industries in order that the nation could survive the ordeal of war. After

    1269
    the war those dilution agreements were never rescinded and they are in operation today.
    There grew up in that period between the Government and trade unions what I have previously described in this House as an unwritten and delicately balanced agreement that, in return for Government policies aimed at keeping the cost of living as low as overseas prices for our food and raw materials would permit, the trade unions would limit their demands to a minimum. During that period we in this House, as a Parliamentary Labour Party, did what we could to assist and back the trade union leaders. My right hon. and hon. Friends focused the attention of millions of workers on the need for increased production as the only way in which Britain could survive as a great nation.
    I do not often quote from my own speeches, but I think I may be permitted to quote what I said in the debate of 11th March, 1947, almost seven years ago. This is the sort of thing we were trying to say:
    "This question of productivity is vital. Now, for the first time in our history, large numbers of our workpeople are being asked to believe that full production will not bring unemployment in times of peace. I suggest that it is necessary that that point should be explained to them. People below 40 years of age have never known full employment in peace time in this country. Therefore, it is necessary that it should be technically explained why unemployment is not at all likely under these conditions. It may be a revolutionary thought, but, nevertheless, it must be hammered home that full production is now the only guarantee of full employment, and that the greatest threat to full employment is under-production.
    Those were the sort of ideas we were trying to put across to the people because of the great crisis in which the country found itself in those days.
    A further reason why production continued to increase was that the Labour Government were in the process of building up what amounted to a very considerable addition to the wage rates by creating "social wages" in the form of the Health Service, against which the party opposite voted on every occasion, an all-embracing National Insurance Act, and the use of food subsidies to cushion the housewife against the ever-rising cost of imported food.
    It was this pattern of Government action which enabled the trade unions to
    1270
    perform the feats to which 1 have referred. We demanded, not sacrifice by one section, but sacrifices by all. In the speech to which I have referred I put it this way:
    "…if we are to get a response from the workers,... they should fully understand that we will demand equal sacrifice—sacrifice on the basis of ability to sacrifice of all sections of the society of this nation, not merely sacrifices from the workers themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1947; Vol. 434. c. 1207–8.
    During that period the vast majority of employers co-operated wonderfully well. A trinity was formed which enabled the nation to come through the most difficult period in the whole of our peace-time history. Whether one compares that performance with other periods of British history or with the performances of any nation in the post-war world, it was completely and utterly outstanding. I am not arguing for a return to the sort of conditions under which a fairly rigid wage restraint policy had to be adopted.
    During 1950–51, whilst the Labour Government were still in power, that policy of a fairly rigid wage restraint began to be abandoned and there was a rise of about 11 per cent, or 12 per cent, in wage rates in that period. I had the honour to serve Sir Stafford Cripps in a very humble capacity at the Treasury at the time I am discussing, and 1 know that he never looked upon that sort of policy as either a permanent or a long-term policy. It was purely an expedient to get over the immediate difficulties in which the nation found itself.
    I wish lo refer to what was said by the Economic Secretary. He was in difficulties because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) had pointed out that practically the only real thing that has happened has been the turn in the 'terms of trade to the advantage of this nation. The Economic Secretary, for whom I have considerable respect, tried his best to worm his way out of that difficulty. He should read the productions of his own Chancellor. In the Economic Survey for 1952, it is stated:
    "The total import Bill for 1951 was over £1,100 million higher than in the previous year. Two-thirds of this rise was due to higher prices resulting mainly from the general scramble for raw materials after the outbreak of fighting in Korea."

    1271
    That was precisely the basis of the argument of my right hon. Friend against which the Economic Secretary argued in vain.
    As I pointed out, we appreciate that there is no question of trying to maintain a rigid system of control merely for the sake of control. We have moved into a freer economy, but our complaint is that In the process of moving into that freer economy the Government have deliberately tipped the scales in favour of the high-income group and against the lowincome group.
    We recall that the Chancellor himself, when introducing the Budget in March, 1952, could have no real knowledge that the favourable turn in the terms of trade would be maintained. What sort of case he would have to answer today if the terms of trade had reverted to the 1951 level almost baffles imagination. The rise in the cost of living, with controls thrown away and with a policy giving advantage to the higher-income group at the cost of the lower-income group, and with the 1951 terms of trade in operation, would have been utterly and completely disastrous.
    Although from time to time many of us on this side of the House tried to warn him of what would happen, the Chancellor showed that he was prepared to go ahead with the policy which under those conditions would have resulted in massive industrial unrest on a scale never seen since 1926. We are shown by the Economic Survey of 1952 how much the terms of trade meant to him and, as it is, he stands indicted as a Minister whose policies have resulted in large increases in the cost of living during a period when, by every logical test one could apply, we should have had very large reductions. That is an issue which has never yet been answered from the Dispatch Box.
    Reference has been made to countries in which there has already been a diminution in the cost of living. When we look at the advantages we have had from this turn in overseas prices it is preposterous that we should be arguing whether there is a 1 per cent, or a 2 per cent, change in the retail index when in fact we should be entitled to a very considerable reduction in the cost of living.
    1272
    During the period when we were in power we were engaged in the task of creating a peace-time economy in a nation which had been mangled in war. We were creating an orderly sane structure in which large-scale capital investment could play its part in producing modern industries whose output would benefit every section of the community.
    To ask for restraint while that process is undertaken is very different to demanding it while the Government deliberately pull down a planned economy in favour of one section of the community. That was the policy on which we were trying to embark. In contrast, the present Government have, as their deliberate policy, sought to create the conditions under which the pre-war pattern of wealth distribution can take place. This point, I believe, is at the heart of the industrial trouble which we are tonight discussing. The Government have abandoned those controls which are necessary for an orderly advance to increased industrial efficiency; they have reduced the food subsidies, turned a blind eye to increased dividend distribution, reduced the value of the National Health Service, raised the cost of school meals, and shortly we are to have further subsidy cuts and increased rents.
    The Government have reduced the Profits Tax on distributed dividends from 50 to 22½ per cent, and on undistributed profits from 10 to 2½ per cent. They have withdrawn the Excess Profits Levy and have put nothing in its place. When I asked the Chancellor a few weeks ago whether he intended in any way to control that proportion of profits which were previously subject to the levy, he replied, "No.
    The Government have withdrawn the Excess Profits Levy from January this year. A corresponding amount of income will now be added to profits and dividends which can be paid, while the reduction of Income Tax by 6d. in the £ has mostly benefited the same class of people. In other words, our charge is that the Government are quite deliberately setting out to destroy as much as they can of that social wage which we created when we created the Welfare State.
    The Economic Secretary told us in his speech that in November, 1953, overtime was at its highest level ever. It is a pity that the Chancellor did not know this on

    1273
    11th February. Perhaps, however, he has been a little enlightened, because the court of inquiry into the engineering dispute has told the right hon. Gentleman and others who are interested that they must not play the three-card trick on earnings but must talk about wages. The Economic Secretary took the cue this afternoon.
    When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in the House on 11th February, however, he was giving the impression, by calculating the increases in earnings in comparison with 1938, that there was a positive increase in wages. He said:
    "I want to mention a comparison with wages…The following figures which I am now going to give compare changes in average earnings, which are based on Ministry of Labour statistics, with the movements of the total ordinary gross dividends, which are based on figures given in the National Income Blue Book and the Consumer Price Index." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 1454.
    The court of inquiry has blown that argument sky high. We know perfectly well that the trade unions are prepared to argue wages; they do not object to being told how much overtime is worked or how much bonus has been earned. But let it be remembered that when bonus is earned, it is earned because of increased production; and when overtime is worked, it is done in the interests of increased production. Merely to use these components in order to say that earnings have risen to a certain height is to use the three-card trick, and we on this side of the Committee are not having anything to do with it.
    All this means that the Government have quite deliberately set out to pull down the Welfare State which they were pledged to maintain. I suggest that to inject a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer into a Treasury which has great responsibilities for financing the Welfare State is the modern equivalent of putting a bull into a china shop. Without being particularly well endowed with the gift of prophecy, one can forecast that the reactions of both types of animal would be roughly the same.
    In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) quoted statistics from the "Financial Times" that in the first 10 months of 1953, ordinary shareholders received, after deduction of tax, 9 per cent, more than in the corresponding
    1274
    period of 1952. The figure has continued to rise, and I understand that it is now in the region of 10 or 11 per cent. Mr. Harold Wincott, in the "Financial Times" during October, 1953, told us:
    "Month after month the picture has beer? the same. Profits down—dividends up absolutely. Dividends as a percentage of profits available, up very substantially. This is my silent revolution."
    Mr. Wincott has no right to claim credit for the revolution, for it belongs to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    It is completely impossible for trade union leaders, watching these policies develop, to convince their members that the central theme of Government policy is concern for the national interests. It is ridiculous to try to make men and women in industry believe that. While this is going on, while we are asked to maintain restraint in industry, employers are screaming about inability to compete in foreign markets and are charging workers who ask for a wage advance with creating the conditions which would bring unemployment.
    I turn now to a political argument. The basic dilemma of Toryism is caused by the fact that the economic and industrial conditions under which the Tories ruled pre-war Britain no longer obtain. Their beloved law of supply and demand in relation to manpower depended on an excess of workers over the demand for them. That position changed only during a war, but in 1951 the party opposite inherited an economy in which productive levels were higher than ever before, and the world situation was such that the only condition of survival was to increase production still more. In other words, it was quite impossible for the Tory Party to recreate the pattern of pre-war days, with 2 million unemployed as a bargaining counter for regulating wage rates. Their dilemma is that until that pattern can again be produced, industrial power will continue to reside in the trade union movement.
    We have had in the last two years the most complete paradox that Britain has ever known. We have had a Tory Government in political power and the trade unions in industrial power. It is anybody's guess how long this could go on. The fact is that because of our weakened economic position, industrial Toryism dare not openly attack the wage rates which had been built up under the Labour Government. Therefore, the Tories

    1275
    have attempted instead to pull down the social wage.
    Now that, I suspect, certain elements within big business are attempting to redress this balance of power—in other words, are trying to get back to the position in which they could control the industrial situation—a new element is infused into the situation. In the last few months, when there was real danger of industrial trouble in the engineering industry, none of us who watched these things closely was surprised that the engineering employers' attitude was hardening daily. An hour before they were due to meet the Minister of Labour, they put out a statement that they had not the slightest intention of conceding a halfpenny. This means, I suggest, that we have come to the stage which may well be the end of the road in the paradox of which I have spoken.
    This is the position as some of the big employers' federations see it: "Here we are in the third year of Tory power. The trade unions can still demand wage advances. Something has gone wrong in the state of Toryism. "They believe that while there is yet a Tory Government in power, they had better initiate a showdown in order to get the trade unions into their pre-war position.
    In this atmosphere the only thing which has postponed—I say "postponed" advisedly—that battle taking place has been the fact that there were three nationalised industries, each of whom has conceded a wage advance. In other words, they have said, "We believe there is justice in your case," and they have proceeded to give wage advances which, I submit, completely knocked the feet from under the engineering employers in their attempt to get a show-down with the unions.
    We know, of course, that in the old days—and I see some of my hon. Friends are present who could talk for quite a long time on this subject—the spearhead of industrial Toryism was the private mineowner. His job was to beat the miner to his knees in strikes, while the industry of the nation, which was merely at half-cock, used the coal stocks available. Today that cannot happen. If the miner stops work for a week British industry stops, and that has weakened the position of economic Toryism.
    1276
    I suggest that we are in a very delicate situation. Merely because it now appears that many of the strikes which were threatening a while ago will not take place do not let us believe that the basic reason why they arose has been cured. There have been a few shillings added to the wage packets in some industries, but the basic problem—if I am right— is still the industrial fear which exists between the employers and the trade unions.
    This, I think, is an issue upon which Parliament can help. We can argue for hours about a retail index which may or may not be right. We can argue about 1 per cent, and 2 per cent, on the cost of living, but the fact is that, because of the policies that this Government have pursued, there is now a sterile, arid outlook on both sides of industrial negotiations. Both sides are looking back, the employers hopefully and the trade unions fearfully, instead of going forward to a new age and a new set of conditions in which there could be co-operation, in which, may be, the obsolete wage structure of the 19th century could be got rid of right away and we could find ourselves entering into a new era.
    That is the sort of atmosphere which we tried to create, and in those days progressive thought in the trade union movement was moving faster than ever before in our history. The indictment against this Government must be that they have broken down that state of affairs completely and we now have the two-side theory once again. There is distrust and a feeling that we may return to the days of 2 million unemployed and a 50s. a week wage packet. A small Island of 50 million people such as this cannot survive under those conditions in the 20th century. If anyone can tell me now to what situation industrial negotiations will have advanced in 20 years' time I will tell him whether Britain will survive as a great nation.
    I believe profoundly that this issue is far bigger and wider than merely a question of a few shillings added here and there to wage packets in certain industries. It is a question of whether the greatest effort towards economic survival that the world has ever seen will result in success or in tragedy. I believe that because of the contradictions of Tory philosophy in an industrial nation such

    1277
    as ours it is a tragedy that we should have a Tory Government in power in Britain today. There is only one solution and that is to get rid of this Government as soon as possible.
    7.54 p.m.
    Sir Walter Fletcher: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) very far in his argument, except to say that he, like myself, represents an industrial constituency, and has done so for the same period as I have. Representing Bury and Radcliffe, which is an area of mixed industries, I claim the right to speak with just as much knowledge and understanding and feeling for the working men of that area as he does.
    I differ very widely indeed from the hon. Member's analysis of the situation as it is today. I believe that there is a totally different spirit in industry from that which existed in 1945. 1 have kept in constant touch with my constituency. I was there for three days last week seeing a great many people—not only of my own party but of his as well; for they come to see me, to inquire after my health, being kind-hearted fellows and good friends. I would say that the rather wicked analysis made by the hon. Member, furthering the division between employer and employed, is a complete misrepresentation.
    What preoccupies both sides of industry at present is something quite different. There has been, on both sides, an enormous advance in their line of thought. People are no longer completely preoccupied with the pay packet. Though they are still, and rightly, concerned about its size, they also have a deeper understanding of industrial problems. They have been educated by their Members from both parties, who have travelled during the Parliamentary Recesses, so that today there is a better understanding of the dangers which now stand before industry than there has been for a long time.
    In contrast to what the hon. Member for Newton has said, I wish to pay a tribute to both sides of industry. There have often been approaches on questions of major policy in the hope of finding new ground between both sides, rather than that we should go back to the réchauffé which we have had in so many debates, of the old arguments which
    1278
    are no longer valid. Industry is manned by younger men to a greater extent than before and they are thinking on new and much more enlightened lines.
    It does no service to either side of industry to make the sort of speech indulged in by the hon. Member for Newton and which—as is known to every hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency—is not borne out by a careful study of what is being done. As I listened to the catalogue of scarlet sins which we are supposed to have committed in the last two years, and which were enumerated by the hon. Member, it was difficult for me to believe in the results of the recent by-elections. Like the Jackdaw of Rheims, at the end of the curse,
    "Nobody seem'd one penny the worse."
    During the short time that I propose to speak, I wish to deal with another subject. Every speaker has touched, but only just—
    Mr. Tom Brown: Will the hon. Member—
    Sir W. Fletcher: No, I cannot give way. Speeches this evening have been inordinately long, and I wish to set an example by making a shorter one.
    I wish to say something which I think may be of value to hon. Members opposite. There is one question which occupies the minds of those in trade and industry, the employers and consumers of the country. It has been touched upon in speeches, but never expanded sufficiently. It is the possibility of East-West trade, which was slightly canonised by the Prime Minister in a recent speech.
    As one who has traded with Russia constantly and persistently for 28 years, and for fully as long with China, I think I can make a contribution to the debate by describing to the Committee some of the difficulties that we shall encounter; perhaps I might sound a note of warning by saying that we should not be overoptimistic in thinking that when, as we hope, the doors are reopened we shall reap a rich harvest in that area. I have this specialised knowledge from the type of business in which I work and I have always felt it to be a national service to put it at the disposal of whatever Government was in power.
    I may say that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power,

    1279
    when, first of all, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was Secretary for Overseas Trade, and then the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), I discussed with both of them—they were only too glad to do so—some of the difficulties they were likely to encounter when they went to Russia as our trade representatives. It is most important to understand what the situation was and what it is, and what we shall be up against. It will be of service to industry to explain.
    First, let me pay a very great tribute— which is unusual from this side—to Russia and the Russian Government. Their record of integrity in payment of their obligations is certainly quite unassailable. I do not think anybody can bring forward an instance where they have not carried out to the letter their financial obligations.
    They have done so very often at enormous sacrifice to their own people. I have heard of somebody who was once told, when he was in doubt as to a payment being made, "The Russians will payment with the blood of farmers." That did not mean the payment of a couple of million gallons of farmers' blood into one of the London banks, which might have caused considerable embarrassment: it meant a grave sacrifice on their part in order that their financial integrity should be maintained.
    Therefore, in dealing with Russia in future one must remember that they hold this integrity very precious indeed, and are extremely unlikely to undertake any conceivable contract which they are unable to carry out. That, in itself, is a very good thing; but it is also a very limiting factor. We were told today that there is a change-over, and I think it is true, in the economy in Russia. During the period of change it is obvious that certain difficulties on imports will be apparent.
    We also have to face the fact that where, before, Russia was a very large importer of Far Eastern raw materials— tin and rubber, for example—she has now open to her, through her ally, China, quite a considerable quantity of these materials which she does not have to buy outside the area in which she works. She also has the Eastern Zone of Germany which is a big producer of synthetic rubber,
    1280
    among other things. Therefore, her needs in this direction are no longer the same.
    There is another factor which must be borne in mind. It can be compared with what happened during the war with Germany. If we cast our minds back, how many of us remember being told that Professor So-and-so or Mr. So-and-so, in the Cabinet Secretariat, knew that the war would have to stop "on 17th July next" because the Germans would not have any oil, or any of this, that, or the other? It never turned out like that. Why? It was because Germany accumulated a large number of satellites which she conquered one after the other and used their economies and sacrificed the people of those countries to bolster up her war both by importing labour and by using the machinery available to her.
    Russia is following the same pattern. She has available now a whole series of satellites. These satellites, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania, are being very largely used in the same way as they were under the German economy to make unnecessary her need for imports outside the area in which her currency is good, or in which she has barter agreements. I am all in favour of seeing what trade can be done with Russia. I went to Moscow in 1933 and negotiated with the Russian Government then, so I am not one of the latest converts who has rushed there recently. I maintained good relationships of trade with Russia from 1926 onwards.
    I say, however, that it would be the greatest possible mistake and miscalculation, which might lead us into grave difficulties, if we believed that there is waiting, when trade with Russia is freed to a greater extent than it is now, a sort of E1 Dorado. We shall be up against certain other considerable difficulties. One is the question of quality. It is most important that industry should understand this. There is not in Russia, as there is in other countries, any machinery of an independent trade organisation of any sort which can arbitrate on questions of quality. There is only the Russian Government, in various forms.
    Therefore, there is the curious position that if any dispute is to be adjudicated upon in Russia the Russian representative is judge, prosecutor and

    1281
    jury. That has led to considerable difficulties. At one time, the line was taken by Russia that, "As the United States are a great nation and we are an equally great nation…" which, let us say, is not in dispute for the moment "…we must have the same terms as those under which you sell goods to the United States." The United States possesses those who are able to sample, to judge and to adjudicate as independent third parties on questions of quality. That position does not exist in Russia. That has been, and will be, a great stumbling block.
    Let me be open and frank about it. Quite a number of people, especially in the Far East, sought, at one time, to take undue advantage of what they thought might be a bad and unenlightened buyer. They were soon disillusioned. Let me again make it plain that Russia is now an experienced buyer who knows full well what she is doing. There is no easy money, no easy trade, to be earned.
    Eastern Germany is not entirely separated from Western Germany. There is still that flow across the frontier which means that hard competition with Western Germany, which is not always fair competition, as I have emphasised before now, will make itself felt to a very great extent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be getting restive, thinking that I am speaking on a subject not germane to the issue, but it is, and it will make itself felt.
    I first brought up this matter seven years ago, when it was a cloud no bigger than a man's hand on the horizon. It is now a storm cloud of such magnitude, both in the case of Germany and Japan, as to give grave disquiet and anxiety to those who really consider it on the basis of what it is and have noticed the great changes that have taken place. Russia will not take on any future commitments which she cannot fulfil during the difficult period of readjustment which she is going through. Russia will be demanding and hard in her terms. Any buyer in the world today is entitled to be hard and demanding, and a buyer with a good record of payment, in some ways better than our own because she has never gone back on her contracts, as we did with Canada over newsprint, is entitled to take the line which she may take.
    1282
    Through her policies, which I do not say I agree with at all, she has made available to herself synthetics and sources of supply which were not available before. Therefore, let us be quite openeyed about this and not believe that a rush either of officials or of private businessmen to Russia will have a great and immediate effect. It is well worth trying. I am all in favour of it, and I am preaching what I have practised; but do not let us build too high hopes.
    I turn to the Far East and China. Here the pattern has altered very greatly. As all these private enterprise businessmen who went there recently know, trade is being conducted on quite a different basis. I speak as one who has some knowledge of China, having been in charge of certain activities there during the war. China suffered the awful effects of an inflation. It was a curious inflation. All the professors of economics were puzzled because it was an inflation inside a vacuum, which they had never previously seen, but its final effect was very much the same as any other inflation.
    The Government there has made up its mind about one thing. It is obvious from what has been reported by those who have returned that China will not again allow her economics to be run on the basis of the possibility of another wave of inflation. China may not be able to fend it off, because she is a country which is not naturally very rich and cannot naturally be industrialised very rapidly, any more than her agriculture can very quickly be improved. It is a slow, gradual process.
    What is happening at the moment is obvious. Although no actual booking out in the form of barter in any one contract or another is taking place, someone behind the scenes is keeping the score on a blackboard. They may find, for instance, that they are now producing a surplus of grass used for cigarette paper, liquid eggs or bristles. Incidentally, China has been hurt by the advent of nylon bristles during the period of vacuum. Someone is chalking up on the blackboard the pluses and minuses and not allowing the purchases to exceed the exports to any great extent. That is likely to continue.
    Therefore, even when, as many of us hope, there is more freedom on trade in that area—that may be one of the good

    1283
    results of the forthcoming Geneva conference—there must not be an enormous wave of optimism about it giving our industry that extra little fillip on the export side which it so badly needs.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: A lot depends on ourselves.
    Sir W. Fletcher: A good deal depends on ourselves. I am all for trying it in every possible way. I do not wish to discourage anybody. I have been a living example of this. I must be the first person in the House of Commons to have carried out that policy for many years.
    I must, however, sound a note of warning, because it is realistic to do so. While this is going on, the competition from both Japan and Germany is increasing enormously. I have no doubt that the rate of increase of that competition, for a number of reasons, is likely to be felt more severely than the rate of increase on the plus side that we can expect from trade with Russia and China. We must go all out. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that we must make every effort and that to a great extent it depends on ourselves.
    However, we shall be up against difficulties which I know full well and which the hon. Member appreciates, difficulties of a different approach, different ideas about prices and qualities, and a lack of understanding about how some of the world machinery works. We must go all out for it, and I feel that the business men of this country have set a good example. The Government have done well in backing them up, and the previous Government also did well.
    Nevertheless, let us at least not live in a fool's paradise. Let us realise that these two enormous areas, which in the end are capable of taking very great quantities of goods, even though they themselves are passing into a stage of secondary industry and will manufacture for themselves, will be a big plus in the world's economy but are not going to be so within a measurable distance of time.
    While every effort should be made when we are trying to cultivate the health of industry over the next few years when both workers and employers are getting together and discussing these things, as I know they are in my own constituency,
    1284
    let us not think on lines other than the realistic ones that I have attempted to put before the Committee.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer a question? In the earlier part of his speech he said that better feeling prevailed in industry today. Will he tell the Committee, if that is so, why our engineers have been negotiating wage rates for nine months and have not yet been able to reach a settlement?
    Sir W. Fletcher: That is a complete non sequitur The hon. Gentleman has taken only one instance. I have general engineering people in my constituency. However, I stick to the considered opinion which I expressed earlier, that there is a better understanding in industry and a desire in every industry in the country to come together to find points of common interest rather than common difference.
    The Minister of Labour is entitled to credit for fostering it. The trade unions are entitled to enormous credit not only for what they have done in this respect, but also for ensuring that matters which were previously not understood are now understood. The employers can also be proud of their rôle. I beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to say or do anything to spoil the better understanding, the better-educated understanding, which everyone is trying to foster.
    8.16 p.m.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) will understand if I do not follow him very far in what he has been saying. What he has told us has in no way been a realistic contribution to the debate. His commercial excursions to China and Russia were certainly of some interest, and I have no doubt that in their time they were matters of great personal advantage to him. I could not help feeling that we had a little of the inescapable Tory bias when he referred to his trade with Russia.
    I hold no brief for Russia, but when an hon. Member begins to extol the integrity of Russia by illustrating it in the way the hon. Member did, indicating that Russia would pay, even if it had to be done with the blood of its farmers, I think that is really going too far. It merely shows how coloured the minds of

    1285
    hon. Members opposite become in these matters.
    It has been noticeable during the debate how absolutely self-righteous and artificial the speeches of hon. Members opposite have been. The Economic Secretary peddled prosperity for all he was worth. Apparently, according to him, the conditions in the country at the present moment are better than they have ever been. Apparently, too, the satisfaction and happiness of the workers about their conditions and wages is more wonderful than has ever been known in the history of the country. That is sheer nonsense. The truth is that the most realistic speech today from the Front Benches was that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who really got down to the marrow of the matter on both the economic and the industrial sides. A very powerful contribution has also just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee).
    I should like to deal with the question of the conciliation machinery. I do not think that anyone who desires to look at the situation impartially and objectively will deny that the country is very much disturbed on one aspect of the industrial situation. It cannot be argued that there is not industrial unrest and unsettlement. There is more industrial resentment and restiveness' today than there has been at any time since 1926. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour shakes his head, but that does not shake my point. The unsettlement is due entirely to the Government's policy, by which they have reduced the living standards of large sections of the people.
    The cost of living has gone up and is going up, while there are increased profits, dividends, bonuses and bonus shares. In some cases these increases have been absolutely spectacular. We have the Government's policy also of increasing rents, getting rid of controls and unleashing a zest for exploiting the public in all directions. The resentment to which I have referred is shown not by mere sulking and grumbling. It has crystallised into action. I want the Minister of Labour to realise this, because it will damage all sections of interests in the country.
    I am sure that the Minister, because of the reasonable attitude that he always
    1286
    takes in these matters, will recognise that recent action on wage claims have been a blow at the negotiation and arbitration machinery. The securing of awards by threat of strike action must eventually bring the system of negotiation and arbitration into discredit. Unfortunately, no other course has recently been available, yet if there is a return to industrial war both sides of the country will suffer. The question arises whether the loss to the trade unions by fighting would be heavier if they did not fight.
    The recent engineers' case is a very disturbing one indeed. It raises in a concrete form the question of the efficacy of the negotiating machinery. Settlement by arbitration in industrial disputes is, under present conditions, heading for disaster. We need only take the recent example of the Post Office workers. It is a most terrible thing that one side, with an arbitration in progress, should withdraw from the Civil Service arbitration tribunal.
    Sir Frederick Messer: Justifiably.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Yes, justifiably, but look at what it means in damage to the arbitration machinery. There is, as a result, a growing disinclination among workers in the country to go to arbitration at all.
    The extraordinary thing is that under these conditions we should have had the Ince proposals. Certainly every sensible and responsible person agrees that trade disputes should be settled by negotiation and arbitration. Strikes and lock-outs in the end do nothing but harm. Negotiation closes the breach between the two sides whereas strikes merely widens it; at the same time there is very much room for improvement in the machinery of both arbitration and negotiation. I should like the Minister to note, because I am sure he must appreciate it, that the whole system of conciliatory machinery needs examination, not only to secure justice but to ensure that justice should be seen to be done. What is causing a lot of trouble among the men in the country is that they do not feel that they are getting justice in these proceedings, and it is very bad that it should be so.
    Another aspect of the matter that ought to be considered is that the present machinery is far too slow. That not only causes hardship but leads to very great

    1287
    discontent. Moreover, the tests that are applied by the arbitration tribunals are often much too narrow. It must be remembered that the system of negotiation and arbitration is voluntary, and as such it has worked very well for years; but no voluntary system can survive if there is a want of confidence in it on either side. Negotiation through conciliation machinery for settling a trade dispute is to everyone's advantage, but it demands as its driving force reciprocal good will and trust, and these are being lost at the present moment.
    Negotiation is a supreme task of both Government and industry, and it has been steadily replacing the strike, but that is now changing, owing to the cost of living going up, profits going up disproportionately, rents going up and the exploitation of the public going up—
    Mr. Osborne: And the price of coal going up—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Everything that the Tory Government touches does the same. Even our telegrams are going up.
    Mr. H. Nicholls rose—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, I shall not give way.
    While everything has gone up, the housewife's means of feeding her family have gone down. Today, in order to earn a living wage a man has to work overtime. The position is getting so bad that railwaymen, engineers and electricians have recently had no option whatever but to have recourse to the strike weapon. That is something new, an unfortunate trend in our industrial situation under the present Government. During the Labour Government there was not even a hint of it. Now the storms are gathering thick and fast. I noticed recently that one of the banks issued a diagram of wages and dividends, but diagrams are absolutely useless. What the men want is not diagrams but wages sufficient to support themselves and their family. Certainly business and investors should have a fair return, but to enrich them at the expense of workers and salary earners is asking for trouble—and getting it. What an exhibition of hyper-optimism we had from the Economic Secretary this afternoon—
    Mr. Osbome: A very fine speech.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I never came across a more successful case of peddling pseudo-prosperity than was contained in that speech.
    It is time that the Government recognised that the workers are no longer willing to be economic ciphers or industrial pawns, and that they do not intend to beat the bush in order that other people can catch the birds. The sooner the Government realise that the better. There will be no peace in industry—and I am sure that the Minister recognises this— if a fair reward to the worker is withheld. And it has been withheld.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: For nine months.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It has been withheld by one of our main industries.
    What I say is not merely based on the complaints of a trade union or on political propaganda, but on the impartial finding of a tribunal presided over by a Lord Justice of Appeal. There is no doubt that our main industry has stubbornly and unjustly refused a wage claim when justice required that it should be allowed. I am referring to the engineers' case. Everything there was taken into consideration by the tribunal—costs, wages, overtime, the effect on the export trade —they were all considered, and in the face of them all it was held that the industry could afford the increase. [An HON. MEMBER: "An increase."] But the employers rejected the entire claim as outrageous. In those circumstances it is no wonder that we have resentment and unrest in industry.
    The blunt truth ought to be stated, which is that certain employers have deliberately tried to evade their liability to pay their workers a just wage. It is notable that the claim was made over six months ago, although it has not at all been acceded to. In the meantime, the cost of living has been going up and up. In all the circumstances, the men have shown a most praiseworthy restraint.
    It is no use the Government trying to burke this, because they cannot escape their responsibility. Their term of office has coincided with a serious increase in the prices of essential food. They have undermined the food subsidies and have removed or weakened controls and safeguards which would hold down the cost of living. The result has been this attack on the standard of wage and salary

    1289
    earners, those with fixed incomes and pensions, and on most other people's budgets.
    If the Government want peace in industry there are one or two things that I would recommend.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it in accordance with the conventions of this House that an hon. Member should repeatedly misquote cost-of-living figures which have been accepted on both sides.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: If the Government wants peace in industry they must do several things. They must get wage negotiations placed on a fairer basis of wage rates, and not have overtime included. There is not the slightest doubt —and it cannot be repeated too often— that at present a considerable body of men are unable to earn a living wage unless they work overtime. That means that they have to work a longer week for the same money that they should 'be getting for a shorter week.
    Secondly, wages should not fall below the general wage levels of the country. There must be national equity in this matter. Instead of spending all this money on weapons of destruction the Government should save just a little to modernise machinery and methods in industry. There should also be more consultation with, and participation by, the workers. It should be made possible for men working in industry to take an intelligent interest in their work and— what is most important—to take part in management. I am rather surprised to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works laughing at this. I should have thought that he would have viewed this matter with great seriousness, because it is part of the responsibility of his office. There are far too many backroom boys in industry. Far too much experimentation is going on, and all sorts of designs are being considered which never materialise. The men in the factories are waiting to see something produced, but it is not being produced, and instead of getting work they are getting sacked.
    The Minister should ensure that there is continuity and security of work. So often a contract is given to a factory, and when that contract finishes the men
    1290
    are thrown out of work. That is a dreadful state of affairs and is one of the facets of the industrial situation which the Minister must keep in mind if he wants industrial peace. The Government must, also see that the workers and salary earners receive a fair share of the results of their work. We should not have a situation in which dividends are being increased and, at the same time, men are being sacked. That is absolutely unjustifiable.
    The Minister should advise some of his colleagues—especially those on the back benches—and the Tory Press, to stop boasting about so much work being done when we are constantly getting at the same time the anti-climax of men being sacked. It is no use the Government thinking that they can hide or gloss the facts by its leaders, supporters and its Press peddling this pseudo-prosperity at a time when so many serious problems in industry are arising which are keeping prosperity back. We urgently need a change of industrial and economic policy, and, above all, a change of Government.
    8.39 p.m.
    Mr. R. Brooman-White: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will forgive me if, at this stage in the debate, I do not follow the arguments which he raised on industrial arbitration. I want to refer back to the speech of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), who dealt with specifically Scottish problems, and to put that in perspective as seen by hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
    My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said that the main subject before us was the economic framework from: which we approached the difficulties, ahead. Certain parts of that framework are peculiar to Scotland, and I ask for the forbearance of hon. Members from other areas if I refer specifically to those, portions. The only generalisation which I will make is one which is common ground to both sides of the Committee: that we are now facing the long-term realities of economic existence in the-post-war era. We had a period when. we were going along with American aid. We then had a postponement of the present trade competition by the inflationary effect of the Korean war. In the immediate future we shall face the real,

    1291
    unqualified long-term competitive circumstances.
    In his speech, the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles gave the impression that Scotland was to enter that period virtually unprepared. That is not the case. I want to mention certain problems, and perhaps I may sub-divide them into two. I will speak, first, briefly of the Highlands and then of the mainly industrial belt.
    In the Highlands, two sensational longterm developments have been announced in recent weeks. The first was the development work on the use of peat for industrial fuel which, if the prognostications are correct, may give the equivalent in resources of 500 million tons of coal and may mean the employment of 20,000 people for a period of perhaps up to 100 years. That can transform the industrial life of a great tract of territory.
    Even more important, in my opinion, is the recent announcement of the establishment of an atomic development station in the extreme north. Scottish prosperity and Scottish economies of the post 1914–1918 period suffered from our dependence on the industries which we developed in the 19th century. That is well recognised. By and large, Scotland fell behind in the development of the industries of the first half of the 20th century. For example, for all our skill in the engineering industries, we never produced a satisfactory motor car. Nor did we get a fair proportion of the type of light industries which went to Slough, Birmingham and other areas. As a result, much of the attention of successive Governments was directed towards artificial measures, such as trading estates, to try to redress the balance in the interests of the northern half of these islands.
    There is every reason to hope that the establishment of an atomic station at this early period in this new development will mean that in the years to come Scotland will have a real foundation in the industries of the future. We have all talked about the need for boffin-based industries, with their scientists and technicians, where men with the industrial skill of the old trades, and perhaps, in particular, the young men whose parents had those older skills, can, if they wish, make a rôle for Scotland and themselves in the newest
    1292
    industries with the greatest future. There are other questions of Highland development with which I will not detain the Committee at the moment—problems which are more special and more local. There are, for instance, the questions of small industries in the glens to maintain there the population needed for proper prosperity and agriculture, and to prevent the drift from those areas. Also, such questions as those which relate to Buckie, Peterhead and the north-east coast.
    The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, however, also referred to the transport problem, which is a wider problem. It has been much discussed in the House by Highland Members and I do not want to cover ground which has been covered before. Whether further special aid and preferential freight terms should be given for regional development and whether that should be through the Transport Commission or the National Exchequer is still a matter to be considered.
    There is, however, a point on which emphasis should be placed both in this House and as widely and publicly as possible. It is that even while these broader matters are under discussion, there are possibilities for groups of producers to come forward, as groups, where they have an extensive range of products and volume of products to market, and to ask the Transport Commission for special terms and consideration. I hope that in the Highlands and other remote areas of Scotland everybody is thinking about this, and I hope we are not losing any opportunities of making piecemeal improvements on that basis to overcome, at least in part, this great transport problem which is so seriously prejudicing the development of the remoter areas.
    To bring the transport problem closer to the industrial belt, I would remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles also referred to the recent announcement about the Clyde Tunnel. Whatever differences of opinion there are on either side of the Committee about the proper organisation of the transport industry, I think there will at least be agreement that the most uneconomic way of using transport is to get it occupied and then keep it standing stationary. One can go down the quaysides of the Clyde and other sheds in that great industrial area, and see rows of

    1293
    lorries standing nose to tail with their exhausts blowing away thousands of pounds in waste hours of valuable time.
    This is a physical handicap to our industrial development and export trade. We all hope that there will be no avoidable delay in administrative arrangements, either locally in the North or centrally in London or hold up in the necessary supplies to get this job on the Tunnel started as soon as possible. There is also the question of the Forth Bridge. That awaits the report of Sir Bruce White's Committee. It is unfortunate that the bridge, like Tutankhamen's Tomb, seems to have a damaging, though happily less lethal, effect on those who start to investigate it. They all fall ill. However, I believe that the eminent men concerned are recovering, and we hope before long to have a favourable result from their investigations.
    Another aspect of industrial development and of transport has been the recent announcement, which will have an effect on Scotland's industrial future, of aid for the development of the Twin Pioneer aircraft, at Prestwick. I am in no way qualified to discuss the technical advantages or otherwise of these aircraft, but I am told they may be particularly suitable to play a part in solving the transport problems of our islands and remoter areas.
    The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) mentioned, when the announcement was made, that it might indeed provide a basis for starting a real Scottish aircraft industry. It is satisfactory to learn that this work is going on in addition to the great headway being made by the Rolls Royce factories. I think, also, that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will share the hope that there will be no diminution in the work of aircraft repair and maintenance at present being done in Renfrew. That also gives an opportunity for young engineers and young technicians from the old trades of the industrial belt to turn their hands to the newer trades, without going south to do it.
    I will not take up the time of the Committee by referring to the old heavy industries and the Scottish position in steel, coal and ship building because there has been no great change.
    Mrs. Mann: What?
    Mr. Brooman-White: There has been no great change in the situation since our last industrial debate on Scottish affairs, but I will deal with this briefly if the hon. Lady so wishes. The next big event, so far as Government action is concerned, which will affect our position in these industries will come with the announcement of our attitude and future policy towards the European Coal and Steel Pool. That is now under consideration. Both from the point of view of our industrial development, and also of general progress in Western Europe, I very much hope myself that close and effective association will be established between our industries and the Schuman Plan countries.
    There is one final point concerning general industrial distribution which I should like to mention. In his opening remarks, the Economic Secretary referred lo the supply of capital for industry, and on 6th November the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the debate on the Address, pointed out the very satisfactory progress which has been made since the last Budget in granting licences for new industrial building in the country as a whole.
    The figures which he gave for the six months following the Budget, compared with the six months of the previous year, showed an increase from £58 million to £85 million, which amounts to an increase of 47 per cent. On 17th November I asked a Question to get the figures as they related to Scotland. In Scotland, the increase was only from £5,160,000 to £5,280,000, or an increase of about one per cent., compared with the 50 per cent, increase for the country as a whole. The figures in themselves are profoundly disturbing. There may be some special explanation, but I ask the Government to consider their implication and particularly to what extent, if any, the availability of finance may have some bearing on this disparity.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in his opening speech, quoted the "Manchester Guardian" as saying that finance was not a deterrent in present circumstances. The "Clydesdale Bank Review" for last year said this:
    "The conclusion seems inescapable that more capital is needed for British industry as

    1295
    whole, and as a rider to that conclusion may be added the probability that the need is even more urgent in Scotland than in England.
    If that is so, if that is the reason for the disparity between new industrial development in the South and current industrial development in the North, I very much hope that urgent consideration will be given to any action to make it good. I realise the difficulty of any overall directive, but could not something be done, for example, in the I.C.F.C., in granting more favourable terms of credit to those industries which, in the view of the Board of Trade and of the Government, should be encouraged to play their part in the development of the Scottish position.
    On the general position taken by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, I think that if he or any other person in Scotland considers the position of the country as a whole, though there are many problems outstanding, and, indeed, there always will be, nevertheless, with the possibilities of improvement in transport, with the peat utilisation scheme, with the improvement in the aeronautics industry, and, in particular, with the new atomic station in Caithness, I think it is fair to claim that by the action undertaken under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a foundation has been laid for future Scottish development which may be not only of benefit to us in years to come, but of benefit to generations to come in the years ahead.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: In the short time at my disposal, I wish to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) about the heavy industries of Scotland. In this case, the Scottish position is an indication of the United Kingdom position, and I am not very surprised that the hon. Member shirked that aspect.
    The position in Scotland reflects the position of our exports. Our export industries have gone down since 1950, and rose sharply in the second half of last year, chiefly in textiles; but we are dragging behind in engineering, heavy machinery and shipbuilding. The employment exchange in my constituency write to me:
    1296
    "As you will observe the recession in iron and steel re-rolling continues and is mainly responsible for the heavy number registered as temporarily suspended.
    A short-time working arrangement also affects…Stewart and Lloyds, Ltd., Sun Foundry….
    This trend in Coatbridge is typical of the general trend, and hon. Members opposite have not a clue, let alone a cure for it.
    It was very pleasant to observe the self-confidence of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Youth is always self-confident. I hope he will forgive me for something which he reminded me of, "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as you are of everything." I must draw to his notice that his cost-of-living index figures just do not square with the facts. It is said that we on this side of the Committee accept those figures. They are correct, and yet they can be hopeless when used to prove a point. Let me give an example. On page 64 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette of February the cost-of-living figures are shown as 100 on 15th January, 1952. There is an increase in bread, flour, biscuits and cakes to 118, and in meat, bacon, ham and fish to 110. Milk, cheese and eggs remain at 100—in other words they have been stabilised as from 1st January, 1952—but it is a group average.
    If this group was considered as three items eggs would be below 100, and cheese and milk above it. Then there is a grouping of tea and sugar, which stands at 130. We do not dispute that, but it would be wrong to say that tea was 130 or sugar was 130. They are lumped together. I shall now deal with clothing. I want to get this point across, in the few moments that I have left. I recently asked the President of the Board of Trade if he was aware that men's suits, outer clothing, and sports jackets showed an increase in price averaging from 6 to 10 per cent. I had thrown at me that the cost-of-living figure for the whole range of the clothing group showed a fall.
    If a man wears a suit that costs 18 guineas or upwards the cost of clothing is reduced. But if a man is one of the lower-paid groups and wears a six-guinea or an eight-guinea suit, the cost of living has not only increased but the Utility standards have gone. The sports jacket does not wear so well, neither do the trousers nor anything else. The same

    1297
    applies to all sorts of knitting wool and children's garments. They are lumped with higher-priced items in the same group.
    We all know that fur coats, mink coats, otter fur coats and expensive jewellery are down in price owing to the reduction in Purchase Tax. But there is no doubt that since the sweeping away of the Utility standard of lower-priced garments which are bought by the lower wage groups there has not only been an increase in price but a reduction in the quality.
    Mr. Osborne rose—
    Mrs. Mann: I am sorry, I cannot give way because I have only a minute left.
    I want to say in that minute that it is no use appealing for wage restraint whilst the Government impose new burdens. The plea from the days of the late Sir Stafford Cripps right down to the present Chancellor has been that we must produce a bigger cake.
    Mr. Osborne: Yes.
    Mrs. Mann: I am glad to have the approval of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). It would appear that last year we did produce a bigger cake, but that certain members of the community got a far bigger slice of it in the Budget, and are continuing to get far too big a slice of it, than others. All that the lower paid wage earners are asking is that their standards shall be maintained and not reduced. They are the men of Dunkirk, the men who showed the great spirit of Dunkirk.
    Mr. Osborne: Both sides have those men.
    Mrs. Mann: I am talking of those whose living standards are being attacked. They also showed the spirit of Dunkirk. They are expected to be lions abroad and lambs at home when their living standards are attacked. But they are not going to stand by and see those standards lowered. I think it is good to have a bigger cake, but it is only right that it should be more equally divided.
    9.1 p.m.
    Mr. George Brown: Every Government seem to have in their ranks one Minister who tends to be the chap who leans over backwards to avoid identification with any particular section, and,
    1298
    therefore, for the purposes of that Government, keeps himself as far out of politics as he possibly can. In this Government that Minister appears to be the Minister of Labour. In choosing this subject for de-bate we are not particularly seeking to disturb him in what, no doubt, he feels to be a somewhat comfortable position.
    We neither want to bring into dispute in this House either the operations of the Ministry of Labour or its consultative machinery and mechanism for consulting industry, nor try to shift to the Floor of the House those ordinary industrial conciliatory processes that ought to go on outside. But no matter how non-political a Minister may seek to be or how properly he may seek to do his job, he is indeed a political Minister and a Member of a political Government. In fact, the present Minister of Labour will operate inside the pattern which the policies— particularly the economic policies—of his more politically alive colleagues will make for him.
    The purpose of this debate has been to bring to the front the fact that this Government are pursuing a series of financial and economic policies which are making it extremely difficult for the Minister of Labour himself, for his Department and for both sides of industry to perform their conciliation job and to dp it reasonably well, and, as far as possible with satisfaction all round.
    Anybody who heard the Economic Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon must have felt, as I did, that he had got the place mixed up. I have no doubt that, because the High Barnet Conservative women's meeting probably takes place on a Wednesday afternoon, the hon. Gentleman thought, as he was speaking at about the middle of the afternoon, that that was where he was. In point of fact, the speech that he made would no doubt have gone down extremely well there. They would have been as pleased with it there as the hon. Gentleman was here, and it would have been all to the good on a chilly afternoon in Barnet.
    The hon. Gentleman's speech was extraordinarily optimistic. It conceded no possible query or problem in our economic position or prospect. It left me almost staggered. I do not think that any hon. Member opposite recognised the state of affairs that he was describing. If

    1299
    one dismisses from one's mind not only the situation that existed just after the (Korean fighting began and the world inflation at that time, but what has happened since to prices outside, and also the situation today, when the world inflation has passed and there is an altogether different trend in world prices, then, assuming that Britain has operated in a vacuum, one can convince oneself that there has been nothing but absolute improvement in our affairs and that the Government are entitled to take all the credit.
    That is a really juvenile way of arguing. What happened in this country in 1951 and what has happened since must be seen against the world climate. The Economic Secretary failed to remember that when we were in office we were tempering to our people what was going on outside, and were on the whole managing to get a better record inside in terms of prices and other things than existed outside. What this Government have achieved is to have a slightly worse record inside the country than is the record outside.
    Therefore, although there had to be an improvement in the situation of a country so vulnerable as ours in relation to what was happening outside, if that improvement is in inverse ratio to the improvement in the world situation then relatively we in this country are now doing worse than we were doing before. That was the net effect of what the Economic Secretary told us. Even in the picture which the hon. Gentleman presented to us there was a good deal of the background of the industrial scene which must be extremely worrying.
    Last year we had a productive recovery. We reached a level a little above that of 1951 and achieved an improvement of about 2 per cent, over that year. But that achievement last year heightened and set put in clear type the downward drop which the Government allowed the country to take in 1952. At that time, we were first feeling the effects of the high Bank rate policy and the dash for economic freedom and the dismantling of the existing mechanism before the party opposite knew what to put in its place.
    Now what has been done belatedly is to get back to or just above the 1951
    1300
    level. It is no use the Economic Secretary or any other Minister saying very loudly that these are new record levels. We ought to be improving our position every year. Every year that we fail to improve on our production means that we not only fail to establish a new record but that we fail to go forward at all.
    The Economic Secretary no doubt reads the "Daily Telegraph." This morning that newspaper reprinted the comment of the Economic Commission for Europe on the production results of last year. It is quite interesting. It said:
    "Whilst the situation of Britain did little more than reach the level reached in 1951, Western Germany and the Netherlands greatly surpassed it.
    It went on to deal in detail with Western Germany, and issued the warning that the probability was that the export demand in Sweden and the United Kingdom would not recover.
    It was that situation that I should have expected the Economic Secretary to have noted, and it was the complete failure to comment on it that surprised me. It is the fact that this Government are getting into a state of mind in which they look at our affairs through rose-tinted spectacles. That fact is worrying many people outside. This is not divorced from the industrial situation. In terms of uncertainty, unrest, occasional strikes and so on, this is all part of it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said rightly that there are deep memories about what productivity, rationalism and all those words which go with the '30s meant to so many people. If it gets into their minds that the views of Ministers are so rosy-hued that they are not even aware of the difficulties which exist in the present situation, there will be a tendency for a lot of people with long memories to want to go carefully and try to protect themselves against the wind which they think is coming. From that point of view the speech could hardly have been worse.
    Another point which I do not think the hon. Gentleman appreciated is that if in fact things are so good and there is not a single cloud in the sky, what moral does he think the workers of, for example, New Southgate, will draw from that? If things are so good does he think that they will draw the moral that they had better be careful and practice restraint, or that they will draw a different moral?
    Mr. Maudling: I did take care to stress the very great danger of German and other competition with our engineering goods. The right hon. Member should remember that.
    Mr. Brown: I really should, because the hon. Gentleman made the speech and I happened to listen to it. I am well aware that a speech is easier to listen to when one is not also making it. When the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD he will find that the reference to German competition was certainly thrown in, but towards the end of the speech, as the sort of thing one throws in, and not as a major or heavily-underlined part of his speech. I am certain that the whole tenor of his speech, if repeated outside, would have exactly the opposite effect on any worker. The worker would draw the moral that things are so good that he need not bother and that there ought to be a little of this good state of affairs for him.
    There are other comments which one could make, and other matters of which one would expect the hon. Gentleman to take account. Some hon. Members said that all we have had in the last two years is the collecting of rewards of the change in the terms of trade. I was greatly amused when the Economic Secretary seemed to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) that a favourable balance of trade is no longer to be desired in Britain because it brings too many other problems with it.
    We have had an improvement in the changed terms of trade, but those terms are not going as well as they were. I do not want to enter the battle of statistical quotations, but I have extracted some statistics and find that, whereas in the terms of trade moved in our favour to about the extent of 10 per cent, and in 1953 by about the extent of 5 per cent., in fact in the last eight months of the move was only 2 per cent. Even that is beginning to change again in a way which ought to make us a little hesitant about being so sure that every thing is going ahead so well.
    The rise in volume of 9 per cent, in imports in 1953 as against the rise in exports of only 3 per cent, reinforces the fact that the change which we have hitherto enjoyed in the terms of trade does not look permanent. In the light
    1302
    of what has been done under this change it would take a very small change indeed to make a great difference to our situation. Since all the food-producing countries in the world are already engaged in cutting down food acreages to avoid the risks of lower prices arising from the change in the terms of trade, we may find a change in the terms of trade the other way much more quickly than the hon. Gentleman seemed to thin.
    If one looks at the production drive, if one goes behind the global increase of 5½ per cent, to see where it was achieved, it is difficult to persuade oneself that it is of lasting value and an improvement in the condition of our country. The people in industry ought to know this, and the Minister should be telling them instead of telling them all this rosy-hued stuff. We achieved a large rise in consumer goods, a rise in vehicles—largely passenger vehicles for the home market —and a rise in building. But factory and agricultural building has fallen to something like half, so that all the increase we achieved was not an economic improvement at all. That is what worries me.
    Everyone can interpret figures for himself—that is clear from this debate—but so far as I can see, investment in plant and machinery appears to be down, or at any rate, there is no improvement. Although it is a shame to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of his bailiwick—but after all he has to answer for the Government—I would ask the Minister of Labour what was the position in 1953 so far as investment in the manufacturing industries was concerned? I do not want the global figure, but the investment in manufacturing industries. My impression is that it was down, but I should like to know if I am correct.
    Although for a couple of years we have had a degree of luck—we have had a change in the terms of trade in our favour, as we were bound to—there has been no real effort by this Government to use that situation to create a better economic spring-board for this country. In fact, we may move out of that improved position long before the Government have got round to making any long-term and lasting use of it. That is the frightening aspect.
    With the possibility of an American recession—or whatever is the modern

    1303
    word for that old-fashioned state of affairs—with the stiffening of competition from Germany and Japan, and presumably from the United States if anything happened there, the presentation of the correct picture becomes all the more important. The dismantling of controls in which the Government have been engaged—the alleged freeing of the economy—takes on a much more sinister look, and becomes a much more serious matter if groups of the population set out to take advantage of it.
    As I said previously, unless the workers and the operatives in industry understand what is the position, and are clear about it; unless they understand what the Government propose to do about it, an element of fear will be introduced, and a piece of machinery which can only work well when that fear is absent will not function properly.
    Stability in industrial relations; responsibility in the exercising of such powers which one may possess for the time being; restraint in the demands which are made; the raising of the level of productivity in order to carry all the other things we seek to achieve—all that must be based upon the feeling that the economic policy of the country is such as will make the best use of the situation. Unless there is that feeling, the fear, so graphically expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton will defeat us all the time, because people will try to protect themselves.
    My first conclusion, despite all that we have heard, is that the economic situation is nothing like so good as it has been painted; that we are far from making any real effort to use even the temporary advantage afforded to us, and that we are not presenting the facts to the workers as we should.
    The second point is one which has occupied quite a lot of the debate. It is the question of what, inside that situation, the Government have been doing with what was available to distribute? This, too, has a considerable effect upon the way in which industrial relationships work. All my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate have said that in fact the Government have been bringing about the redistribution of wealth in the opposite direction from that in which we were operating from 1945 to 1951. They
    1304
    have been redistributing back to those who were rather more well-to-do what we had been trying to swing across the other way in our policy of providing fair shares.
    The taxation policy in successive Budgets has been designed to bring about a shift by way of tax reliefs to those rather better off—because the more better off the greater the tax relief—at the expense of subsidies being taken away from those who buy more of the necessary goods, and who, on the whole, tend to have smaller incomes.
    At the same time there has been deliberate encouragement or acceptance of the policy of ending dividend restraint. There have been some remarkable speeches today about the payment of dividends. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could prove their case that the paying of these extra dividends really matters so little, then once again they will have made it extremely difficult for any responsible trade union leader to convince his men that wage restraint matters. We have been told that 10s. or £1 is the sort of weekly rise that there has been in dividends this year. The sort of figure one gets seems to turn on which year one takes. If a non-worker is to have a rise of that sort as part of unearned income, what do the Government expect a worker to argue should be his share in the circumstances.
    If the Government want to have restraint in our personal income demands, they must begin in the field of unearned income. The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who is not here at the moment, explained to us that dividends are not a form of unearned income and that in fact they are a form of interest upon savings. If that was put to one of my friends outside, he would turn to me and say, "Who earns it, because the chap who draws it does not earn it; and who saved it in the first place, because very often the fellow who gets the dividend did not save it; it might have been saved by his grandfather or somebody else?" When unearned incomes are rising substantially, the other people are bound to take a dim view of that state of affairs.
    I shall not quote all the figures again. The "Financial Times" published samples, not only toward the end of last year but in January this year, giving the

    1305
    figures of the companies reporting. I think that in January 122 companies reported higher profits and all reported very much higher dividends paid out. Even where the profits were not high dividends went up. They increased by 5 per cent, in the first quarter of 1953 and continued to increase until they reached 9 per cent, in the last quarter and 15 per cent, in the first month of this year.
    There is apparently to be a free economy; that is, certainly free so far as the possessors of the title to unearned income is concerned. There has been an ending of restraint there, and the Government propose to do nothing about it. That is really the worrying thing; not that it has happened but that the Government propose to do nothing about it. It happened once under the Labour Government, too, but then my right hon. Friend stepped in and said that unless voluntary restraint and responsibility came back he would do something about it. We got that voluntary restraint back, but the present Government apparently propose to do nothing about it except to justify it. I must say that that seems to be a most unhelpful soil for the Minister of Labour to work in. It is most unhelpful soil for the negotiators on both sides of industry in the work that they are trying to do. When we remember that capital is being increased at the same time, with consequent additional paying out of dividends, the whole thing becomes worse than ever.
    Let hon. Members look at the monthly rate of bonus issues. We are told that a bonus issue is merely a way of bringing the nominal capital into line with the capital actually employed, but it has rather more effect than that. I have looked at some of them, and I have a strong feeling that the companies which issue bonuses turn out to be the companies which go on to pay out increased dividends. If we examine what has been going on, we find that it has been a way of putting more money into the pockets of shareholders.
    As my right hon. Friend pointed out, even on the argument that this is merely bringing the nominal capital into line with the real capital in the business, it means that the shareholders who went without—if that is the argument—in the period of restraint are now entitled to double their holding in the company and
    1306
    receive dividends on the doubled holding. But the workers who went without during the period of restraint cannot now collect the new wage increase and the one which they ought to have had in the past. They are unable to cash in on their restraint, and that is their sacrifice on behalf of the country.
    We are bound to press the Government and the Minister to say something about this. If the Government are serious in their view about responsibility, restraint and industrial peace, they ought to say something on this subject tonight. I had proposed to quote Mr. Wincott, writing in the "Financial Times" about the "silent revolution" which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton. If articles like that are going round, it must be expected that some of our people will read them and draw their own conclusions from them.
    I now turn to the question of the cost of living. It is nonsense, of course, to seek to prove too much from any figure. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite had been present earlier today, they would know more clearly what I am talking about. This afternoon we had the Economic Secretary dancing about with the index, saying gleefully to me, "Do you accept it or not?" wanting a straightforward "Yes" or "No" answer. One cannot answer in that way if one wants to discuss the matter. I beg the hon. Gentleman to treat the matter in a rather more grown-up way. It cannot be disposed of merely on one figure.
    Let us be quite clear about the index. 1 regard the present cost-of-living index as a very much better shot at getting an adequate measure of weighting than anything we have previously had. There is no change of opinion about that. As a shot at getting a measuring stick, it is better than anything we have previously had, but it is no more than a shot; it is still no more than an average. It cannot be any more than an average. It cannot do other than hide the problems of many people who are affected by it.
    For proof of that, we have only to look at the statement made by Mr. Campbell at the Railway Staff Tribunal. He took as an example the money of a platelayer, and indicated the amount that the man should be spending on food according to the weighting. The example applied to a family of three. One could see what

    1307
    could not be bought at all with that money within the weighting limits. It is clear that the index breaks down as an average when applied to such a case as that, and there must be many other examples.
    That is what I meant the other day when I said, in a speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that it is outrageous nonsense to continue saying that, because the index does not move, or does not move enough, there are not many people who find the cost of living going up very heavily against them. I still say it is nonsense.
    In point of fact, the cost of food has been rising steeply and continuously. One has only to read the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in this House on 21st October, 1953, in which he instanced meat, milk, bacon, butter, cheese, margarine, lard, cooking fats, sugar and tea, and gave figures of substantial rises for the whole lot of them. Really, hon. Members cannot go on, in the face of that— [Interruption.] The point is that it is what people spend their money on which makes them feel the cost of living. If the money runs out, like that of the platelayer whom Mr. Campbell quoted, before reaching the end of the weighting, many of the other things are those we go without; but those are the necessities without which one should not go, and most people do not go without them.
    Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned the price of eggs, bacon and vegetables.
    Mr. Brown: I mentioned bacon in my list. Eggs have certainly gone down, but I gave the last answer which I had. I am not cooking it up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All right; if hon. Members like to think I am, well and good. Unless hon. Gentlemen opposite understand that there is something wrong about their reasoning they will not understand what is going on outside this House. It may be that I am wrong and that I am overstating the case, but the truth must lie somewhere between hon. Gentlemen who support the Government and me. Folk outside are feeling this, while hon. Gentlemen are resisting something about which they are not able to convince other people.
    1308
    What has happened is that the economic situation is not being gripped; a section of the community has been allowed to get away with a rise in personal living standards while a large number of the workers have not had tax reliefs to offset the higher costs but have had to pay the higher costs. They are feeling the pinch of this, and all the answer they are getting is this playing around with the average index, which only serves to make them very much more angry.
    We really must have an answer on some of these matters. The Minister of Labour owes it to the capacity in which he acts outside the House to give the answer. The trade unions have for the most part played a very responsible and statesmanlike part, both when we had the power and since, but in order to maintain the position of responsibility and of consideration for the national interest they have to feel that the Government have the same outlook. They will not be able easily to feel that unless we get some answer from the Minister. If we are to have Government supporters propagating the view that somehow or other the public good will emerge as a by-product of selfish personal well being and well doing, then they are on a very weak wicket indeed.
    On the basis of what we have heard so far we believe that the Government are showing very little understanding of what is happening, and where they have grasped what is happening they are showing very little concern about it. We do not contend that the situation is worse than it is. We say that there are dangerous elements in the situation which are causing difficulties outside and that it is time we had a clear answer on this subject from the Minister of Labour, as the senior Minister here today.
    9.34 p.m.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I am grateful for one thing that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Helper (Mr. G. Brown) who preceded me, and that is for his refraining from making any attack upon the Ministry in which I serve and upon the attempts that we are making within our sphere to bring peace into industry. He spoke of not wishing to disturb me in what I

    1309
    understood him to describe as my "comfortable position.
    I have my eye on the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I do not think we shall disagree that whatever may be said for and against a Minister of Labour it cannot be described as a comfortable position. I am happy to think that on a good many of the issues which have been debated here today I can rely upon what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to as someone who is not so dead politically as I have become—my younger and more self-confident colleague, the Economic Secretary.
    I am glad of that for this reason; that had it been possible I would gladly have been excused from speaking on this occasion—
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: We have our preferences.
    Sir W. Monckton: Mine is for reticence.
    There is, of course, a temptation on an occasion like this to take part, as one used to do in another sphere in controversy—political, economic or what have you. But I am at this moment personally engaged—as some hon. Members on both sides know—in a number of difficult and important negotiations, and I am very anxious, in addressing the Committee tonight, not to say anything which will diminish my chances of helping towards settlement in those cases.
    I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would be a little embarrassing if I were to say much on some of the controversial matters of economic policy—and I will at once tell the Committee why. I shall have occasion a little later to say something about the reports which have been received from the courts of inquiry which I set up in respect of the engineering and shipbuilding industries. Naturally, what those reports have given rise to is not over yet. In them are involved just the sort of issues—hon. Members who have read the reports will know this—which have been debated here tonight, about dividends, about earnings, about wages and about the wider economic problems to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—and to some extent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper —have devoted their speeches.
    1310
    I cannot easily speak, for instance, of the economic impact on industrial relations without trenching on a number of those issues, but I only want to say this. There is one which was referred to affecting the E.T.U. There is another affecting the engineering and shipbuilding unions, and then there is a matter to which one hon. Member drew attention where the Post Office workers had withdrawn a claim. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that that very matter is necessarily before me at the moment. I cannot say anything about it to the Committee except that I will do my best.
    But there is one about which I want to say a word—and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) referred to it in his speech. That is the railway dispute, which, happily, did not end in a strike. Those who look at all that happened there will, I think, bear me out most fully in saying that what we can hope for, as a result of the settlement, is just that sort of cooperation in getting that greater efficiency and productivity on the railways which we should be aiming at in all the discussions and negotiations which we have.
    Much as I should like to excuse myself wholly from taking part in this debate I can hardly do so. I am not so elegant, I think, as to say that if we have a debate on industrial relations—although I think much more has been said about economic planning—if the Minister of Labour did not take part it would be like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark—or so vain, I hope, as to say like Hamlet without Ophelia, but one cannot have Hamlet without at least the sententious Polonius.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Or the gravedigger.
    Sir W. Monckton: Or the gravedigger. Why not—having regard to the "dead" politicians among whom I have been placed.
    At least there are two words from Polonius which I hope hon. Members will think not inapposite to what I have to say tonight:
    "Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice; Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment."
    The right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a very wise guide for a Minister

    1311
    of Labour to bear in mind even, on an occasion like this.
    I hope that none of us will exaggerate the difficulties of the industrial position or of industrial relations. My honest belief is that there is no foundation for any impression of a catastrophic worsening in industrial relations.
    One hon. Member drew attention to the figures of days lost through strikes during 1953, and criticised something which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary said. We do not have to go back as far as 1937 to find a year when as many days were lost as in 1953; we shall find more in 1944, 1945 and 1947. But if we take what one hon. Member wanted to take —the last 20 years—we shall find that the average, taken over those 20 years is not so much less than the number of days lost in 1953.
    Another hon. Member drew attention to the fact that of the 2,169,000 days lost in 1953; almost half were referable to what happened on 2nd December, when there was a one-day stoppage in the engineering and shipbuilding industries. Nobody in my place would minimise the importance of that stoppage, but it is fair to say—and I know that this fact is present in the minds of many trade union leaders, as well as in mine—that if it had not been for that one day we should have had a better result in 1953 than we have had for many years past. We should have to go back to 1941, or probably even 1934, to find comparable figures. I cannot leave out of account the one-day stoppage, but when we are judging the importance of difficulties in industrial relations it is fair to say that, apart from that one-day stoppage, which did not take us far above the ordinary figures, we should have been ever so much better off. I know that leaders of trade unions and employers would have been as glad as I if that could have been achieved.
    Mr. Popplewell: My object in quoting those figures was to point out what was taking place in industry. There have been one-day stoppages through the ages —particularly in big industries like mine —and those figures have always been taken into account. The Minister must not minimise this one-day stoppage. I was trying to present the overall picture.
    Sir W. Monckton: I was not seeking to challenge that. I was saying that if we look at the year as a whole we find that the situation was not so much worse than in other years, and that the fact that this year was worse was attributable to this one-day stoppage. I only want to avoid the difficulties being exaggerated.
    If we look at the figures of men who were not at work because of stoppages— apart from the figure for this one-day stoppage, which was large, because this is a great industry—we find that only 240,000 workers were involved in stoppages, due to disputes, in 1953. Whatever we may say about that one-day stoppage, it is not a bad result. It is an insignificant proportion of the total number of persons employed. I am sure that it is everyone's desire not to exaggerate the difficulties of industrial relations; I know that every hon. Member is with me on that. But there is no room for complacency.
    I want to say a few words which I hope will not be unconstructive. There is room, of course, for improvement in our industrial relations, but I do not think it will be done by a flash of brilliant illumination, or any further legislation. What we must set ourselves to do is the more mundane and humdrum job —which is the British way of doing it— of trying to build on the foundations which have been laid before by the leaders of trade unions and employers over the last 100 years.
    It is right that the House and the public should take a very close and anxious interest in the course of industrial relations. It must now be clear to all of us that our competitive power in the markets of the world, and our survival as a nation, must largely depend upon the relationship between employers and trade unions over the whole field of British industry. It is the Government's duty to keep that consideration constantly before all parties in industry and before the public in general. But it is only fair that I should say, as hon. Members opposite have said today, that those who lead the employers' associations and those who lead the trade unions are fully conscious of their national responsibility in this respect.
    I should like to pay my tribute, after some experience now, to the statesmanship with which, in the midst of difficult and, as some hon. Members said, tough

    1313
    negotiations, they have been willing to recognise the national need to continue good relations in industry and so lead to uninterrupted output and increased efficiency. This has led us to a solution of very many disputes and I believe that in it lies our hope for the future.
    If, through improved relations, we can get output and efficiency increased, then all of us can rejoice, can we not, to see higher earnings. My only anxiety is this. I honestly want to be sure that higher earnings are matched by increased output and increased efficiency, because if they are not—and I am speaking here for many trade unionists as well as for myself—and if prices soar, then there is a real risk of heavy unemployment, and that is the last thing I want to see.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, South said he would like an assurance that full employment was the policy of the Government. I gladly give him it. I should hate to belong to a Government, in which I had responsibility for industrial relations, which had not that among the objects of its policy.
    I want to say something about policy and about what I should like to see done. What I believe in is self-government in industry and voluntary negotiations. I have already paid two visits to the International Labour Organisation and I can assure the Committee that we have a leading position in that organisation. At the same time, many trade unionists and Ministers of Labour from other countries have paid visits to us here. Two things which they pick out, whether it is in Geneva or here, as important, characteristic and worth watching in our industrial system, are, first, the personal relations of our leaders in the industrial field and, secondly, our negotiating machinery.
    That negotiating machinery has been built up over the past 100 years. Two things have developed side by side—the system of collective agreements on wages and conditions of employment and the establishment of joint machinery for dealing with disputes. What I want to see is the further improvement, solidly attained, of this collective bargaining system. The more questions that are settled by negotiation the better for all of us and when, after every effort has failed to bring about peace by negotiation, then
    1314
    the area of dispute may yet well be narrowed and that narrowed area can be submitted to voluntary arbitration and disposed of in that way. The more often that happens in such cases the better.
    The aim, then, is plain enough. It is to develop collective bargaining so that as far as possible all wages and conditions are settled by voluntary negotiations and as far as possible all disputes are settled by voluntary constitutional machinery. The thing is, how to do it. The first thing I would suggest to the Committee and all those who are interested in this matter is that the basis of the collective bargaining system is organisation on both sides —well organised employers and well organised workers. Where that does not exist we have to have wages councils, which are statutory, but the whole movement ought to be towards replacing them by joint industrial councils. That is one illustration. The better the organisation the more effective will the agreements be.
    I do not want to be misunderstood about arbitration. I should like to see introduced into the constitutional machinery for settling disputes, though I do not seek to impose it, some form of voluntary arbitration whore it does not exist now. I cannot help thinking that where the parties, as in this country, have been brought up under a system of negotiation established over the years, there is not much validity in the argument that people will not negotiate properly if their eyes are upon arbitration at the end of the road. I do not think so.
    I think that there is a sense of responsibility on both sides and a desire to settle their own affairs. Indeed, some people with experience on both sides of industry say that in the nature of things they are better placed to settle their own difficulties than any outside agency. In that case they will not enter into arbitration, and that is all the better because it creates a sense of responsibility.
    Mr. Walter Monslow: Do I understand that that is a repudiation of the speech of Sir Godfrey Ince, at Birmingham, in which he was at least adhering to the principle of compulsory arbitration?
    Sir W. Monckton: I do not want to be diverted, except to say that anyone who reads what Sir Godfrey Ince said in that speech will see that he did not talk

    1315
    about compulsory arbitration at all. Nothing was further from his thoughts. He was saying and I am saying now that we want to see wherever possible introduced into the machinery provision voluntarily agreed upon for voluntary arbitration. I am not seeking to impose it, nor was he.
    I have no thought or desire to interfere with the fundamental right to strike. I have no thought of compulsory arbitration, but I think, nevertheless, that all of us would want to ensure for the prosperity of everybody in industry as well as for the public as a whole that everything possible is done to avoid unnecessary stoppages. That means that we have in every case to have a genuine and honest attempt to settle disputes through the negotiating machinery of industry, and that ought to be completely exhausted before resort to other means is ever considered.
    It does mean this, too, I hope, and I throw out this suggestion, that each industry ought to look at its negotiating machinery to see whether, in the light of its own experience and that of other industries and that which we have gathered over the years in the Ministry of Labour, anything can be done to improve that machinery, not with the object of abandoning the right to strike but of making it unnecessary to have resort to it. Improved machinery can do a great deal for that purpose.
    I want to say a word or two now about the engineering and shipbuilding courts of inquiry reports which have been mentioned by hon. Members. I must walk warily here, because I am in discussion with the interested parties. I should like to thank the distinguished members composing these courts for the great patience with which they have addressed themselves to their task. I can only hope that this will do something to enhance the respect for the principle of arbitration and to encourage the use of machinery of that kind where it is available.
    I should like to say, too, that I have already taken action and I have started discussion on the most urgent question with the parties interested, and that is the existing wages' claim. I shall invite the attention of the parties to the other important matters in the reports, such as
    1316
    wages structure, negotiating machinery, and so forth.
    Finally, there is a matter to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South referred, that the courts of inquiry made suggestions at the end of their reports about what they described as the complex economic arguments surrounding the wider problems involved in wage disputes. Clearly, in anything of this kind, there are involved important issues which will require mature consideration, and consideration after consultation with the interests mainly concerned.
    I should not like to spend time now in discussing what precisely was in the mind of the courts in that last paragraph, but I would say this. I have already written to the T.U.C., the British Employers' Federation and the nationalised industries inviting them to discuss the matter with me informally in the first instance.
    I finish by saying a word or two about what I conceive to be the part of the Ministry of Labour and of the Minister in trying to meet any difficulties that have arisen in industrial relations. In the last resort, the part which the Ministry plays, though at times very important, is not the major part. We are largely trying— I follow in the footsteps of my predecessors in doing so—to help industry to help itself in these matters, to develop its own self-government in determining wages and conditions and in settling disputes.
    This principle of self-government is one which I follow and was followed by my predecessors. We do not intervene until the machinery of the industry itself has been fully used and no settlement arrived at. Even if we are asked by either side or both sides to intervene earlier, we do not do so because we want to preserve the importance of negotiating machinery. That is the only way that constitutional machinery can be preserved and the only way in which we can make it known that, finally, the responsibility for settling these matters is the responsibility of the industry itself.
    When we do intervene, when the constitutional machinery has been used and there is still no settlement, our efforts are to obtain a settlement, if possible, by conciliation, to assist the parties to reach an agreement and, if we cannot find that, to persuade them to settle their differences

    1317
    by arbitration. We do not seek to impose a decision. We do not seek even to say what the decision ought to be, but we try to understand the best of the arguments on both sides, to narrow down the area of dispute and, it may be, to show signposts to possibilities of agreement.
    There is no more that I can say now in the time that is allotted to me, but I hope that the Committee will feel that in this realm of industrial relations we are doing our best to achieve peace and justice, without which none of us will
    prosper but with which we can all have prosperity to share.
    Mr. G. Brown: Despite the attractively modest bearing of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and without casting any reflection on his Department, we feel that our main questions have not been answered. I therefore beg to move,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £898,036,000, be granted for the said services.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 272.

    Division No. 46.]

    AYES

    [9.58 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Finch, H. J.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Adams, Richard

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Logan, D. G

    Albu, A. H.

    Follick, M.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Foot, M. M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    McLeavy, F.

    Bartley, P.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Gaitskell, Rt Hon. H. T. N.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Bence, C. R.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Glanville, James

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

    Benson, G.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Beswick, F.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

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

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mason, Roy

    Blackburn, F.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Messer, Sir F

    Bowden, H. W.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hall, Rt, Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hall, John T (Gateshead, W.)

    Monslow, W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hannan, W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Morley, R.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

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

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hastings, S.

    Mort, D. L.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Carmichael, J.

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

    Murray, J. D.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Nally, W,

    Champion, A. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hobson, C. R.

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

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Clunie, J.

    Holman, P.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Coldrick, W.

    Holmes, Horace

    Oliver, G. H.

    Collick, P. H.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Orbach, M.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hoy, J. H.

    Oswald, T.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Padley, W. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

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

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Crossman, R. H.S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Daines, P

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Parker, J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Peart, T. F.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Popplewell, E.

    Deer, G

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Porter, G.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Donnelly, D. L

    Jones, T. W.(Merioneth)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

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

    Keenan, W.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Kenyon, C.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Edelman, M.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Rankin, John

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Kinley, J.

    Reeves, J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Rhodes, H.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Richards, R.

    Flenburgh, W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    West, D. G.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Swingler, S. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Sylvester, G. O

    While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)

    Ross, William

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

    Royle, C.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Wigg, George

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C A B

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wilkins, W. A

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Willey, F. T.

    Short, E. W.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Albertillery)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Thornton, E.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Timmons, J.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Tomney, F.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Turner-Samuels, M

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

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Ungoed-Thomas, S Lynn

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Usborne, H. C

    Winterbottom, Richard (Bridghtside)

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.

    Sorensan, R. W

    Warbey, W. N

    Wyatt, W. L

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Yates, V. F.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Weitzman, D

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K

    Steele, T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    NOES

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

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Doughly, C. J. A.

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

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H M.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Iremonger, T. L

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Banks, Col. C.

    Eden, J, B, (Bournemouth, West)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Barber, Anthony

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Erroll, F. J.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Fell, A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kerr, H. W.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

    Langford-Holt, J. A

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Birch, Nigel

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fort, R.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Black, C. W

    Foster, John

    Lindsay, Martin

    Bossom, Sir A. C

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Llewellyn, D. T

    Bowen, E. R.

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

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

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

    Galbraith, T. G D. (Hillhead)

    Lockwood, Ll.-Col. J. C

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gammans, L D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Braine, B. R.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)

    George, Rt. Hon Maj. G Lloyd

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Glover, D.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H

    Godber, J. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    MoAdden, S. J.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Gower, H. R.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M S

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

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Bullard, D. G.

    Grimond, J.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)

    Gary, Sir Robert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Channon, H.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hay, John

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Cole, Norman

    Heath, Edward

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Henderson, John (Catheart)

    Marples, A. E.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Maude, Angus

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Maudling, R.

    Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Medlicott, Brig. F

    Crosrhwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Crowder, Sir John (Finohley)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood)

    Holt, A. F.

    Monckton, Rt Hon. Sir Walter

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Horobin, I. M.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Nabarro, G. D. N

    1320

    1321

    Neave, Airey

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Thomas, P J. M. (Conway)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

    Nugent, G. R. H

    Russell, R. S.

    Tilney, John

    Nutting, Anthony

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Odey, G. W.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

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

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Turton, R. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D

    Scott, R. Donald

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Shepherd, William

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

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

    Vosper, D. F.

    Osborne, C.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Wade, D. W.

    Page, R. G.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)

    Peake, Rt. Hon.O

    Snadden. W. McN

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wall, P. H. B.

    Peyton, J. W. W

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Pickthorn, K. W M

    Speir, R. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C

    Pilkington, Capt R. A

    Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Stevens, G P.

    Wellwood, W.

    Powell, J. Enoch

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

    Williams Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

    Williams Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

    Storey, S.

    Williams Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Williams Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Williams R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Rayner, Brig R

    Summers, G. S.

    Wills, G.

    Redmayne, M.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Remnant, Hon. P

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Renton, D. L. M

    Teeling, W.

    Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

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

    Question put, and agreed to.

    To report Resolution, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Kaberry.
    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow. Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

    ROADS, MERIONETH
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kaberry.]
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. T. W. Jones: I am not unmindful of the fact that the subject of roads was debated in this House only a fortnight ago. I make no apology, however, for raising the same subject tonight in relation to Merionethshire, as I am convinced—and I hope that I shall convince the Government— that Merionethshire has road problems not known to many counties in the whole of the United Kingdom. I hasten to add that these problems are not due, of course, to any complacency or lassitude on the part of the county council. On the contrary, the files of the various Government Departments will readily reveal that the Merioneth County Council is among the most advanced and most active in the country.
    1322
    Merioneth is a large county of about 422,000 acres, the main industries of which are agriculture, slate quarrying and tourism. The product of a 1d. rate is only £598. I wish particularly to stress that fact as it will have a great bearing on all that I am about to say. The county council's problems can be readily appreciated if I simply give a table of the county's mileages of roads. These are as follows—trunk roads, 104 miles. Class I roads 72 miles, Class II roads 84, Class III roads 296, and unclassified roads 355 miles. Five main trunk roads pass through the county. They are the A.407. A.494, A.5, A.4108 and A.458. Altogether 104 miles of trunk roads pass through the county.
    These roads, of course, were not constructed primarily in the interest of Merionethshire. Their main purpose is to carry through-traffic to the neighbouring counties. Indeed, the Dolwyddelan— Blaenau Ffestiniog—Cross Foxes—Dinas Mawddwy road is part of the North to South Wales trunk road which carries the bulk of traffic between those two parts of the Principality.
    I must draw the Minister's attention to a singular aspect of the road problem in Merioneth. There is a large, permanent military camp and anti-aircraft range at Tonfannau, near Towyn, together with a permanent camp and field artillery range

    1323
    at Trawsfynydd. Territorial Army units visit both these camps during the summer months from the middle of May to the middle of October, and there are generally about four Territorial Army regiments at Tonfannau at the same time doing a fortnight's training. These regiments bring in and take out their heavy equipment by road, with the result that at week-ends the roads leading into and out of the county are very heavily trafficked by military vehicles.
    The county council would like to improve the condition of trunk roads so that congestion of through-traffic would be eased within the county; and the county itself, as the main portion of the Snowdonia National Park, would be more accessible to the tourist traffic from the Midlands and Merseyside. The council also wishes to make the roads safer for the travelling public.
    Time will not allow me to give all the examples of improvements which are desired. I must, however, mention two or three. The Minister will be very well acquainted, through correspondence, with Oakley Drive in Merioneth, which forms part of A.487. This section is about two miles long. In most places the carriageway width is only 13 feet to 14 feet. This road is heavily trafficked by commercial, military and holiday traffic. It is also one of the main bus routes, yet only at a few places is it possible for two large vehicles to pass one another. This causes great delay and congestion.
    On the Dolgelly to Bala road there are several bad blind corners and weak retention banks. There is the Llanelltyd Bridge on A.487. This bridge is extremely narrow and causes a bottleneck on the trunk road. The council would like to replace that bridge. It dare not pull it down because it is an ancient monument. The council would also like to deal with several bad corners on the approaches to the bridge.
    I wish to say a few words about classified roads such as the Dolgelly-Barmouth-Harlech and the Dolgelly-Fairbourne-Towyn-Aberdovey roads which carry heavy traffic in the summer from the trunk roads to county's coastal resorts. These roads are extremely narrow in parts, and it is a daily occurrence in the summer for it to be absolutely impossible for motor coaches and 'buses to pass one
    1324
    another. It is not unusual for 150 tourist coaches to pass along this road in the period of one hour. These coaches meet traffic going to the coast and the position becomes simply chaotic.
    Class II and Class III roads are even more important for visitors to the National Park, and also serve the agricultural community. These roads are being used more and more by heavy lorries carrying fertilisers and other commodities to the hillside farms, agricultural tractors and other implements and livestock lorries.
    Having dealt with the classified roads, I must remind the Minister that he has approved of only two schemes for the coming year amounting to less than £10,000. I hope that this sum of money will not be regarded as the ceiling for coming years, otherwise Merioneth is doomed. As the Minister well knows, one mile of road in Merioneth cost no less than £89,000. That means that for the distance between the Minister and myself £350 was spent. It may not be worth spending that sum even on separating us, but if £10,000 were to be the ceiling it would take nine years to construct that length of road alone. It is a blessing that that road is an exception, and that £10,000 is not the ceiling, otherwise, with 452 classified roads, 4,000 years would be taken to complete our scheme. Probably we shall have a change of Government in the meantime or the Minister will have gone to another place.
    There remain for consideration the unclassified and the unadopted roads. It is an extraordinary fact that in Merioneth we have 350 miles of unclassified roads, apart from unadopted roads. The county council feels it would be better able to improve these unclassified roads if a proportion of them were upgraded to Class III roads, and I would impress that request upon the Minister, Nowadays much use is made of these unclassified roads by vehicles, including milk lorries, and in the future they will be used a great deal more by tourists now that Merioneth forms the largest portion of the National Park.
    There are also miles of unadopted roads for which no one is responsible. In view of the fact that we are asking agriculturists to increase their production at such a rapid rate, I ask what can be done to the roads in Merioneth to assist their efforts. The roads of Merioneth present

    1325
    difficulties not experienced in any other county. Many miles are supported by retaining banks or walls, and when improvement schemes are carried out either new retaining walls have to be built or the rock has to be hewn from the opposite side of the road, with a resulting cost, as I have stated, of £89,000 for one mile of road. I understand that the Merioneth County Council is anxious that the Minister should receive a deputation from the highways committee, and I hope that he will agree to do so.
    The repair and maintenance of roads in large rural counties where the product of a Id. rate is low, is becoming more burdensome and difficult year by year. I know that I have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in that contention. How can the authority in Merioneth, where the rate is already painfully heavy, embark on schemes which are necessary and which it wishes to undertake? It is simply beyond the wit of the county surveyor, the road engineers and the highways committee to do the work as they would desire. I would refer the Minister to the second Memorandum produced by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, where the problem is carefully analysed.
    I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to look again at the entire problem and to formulate constructive proposals whereby rural areas with difficult terrain, of which my constituency is a first-rate example, may be assisted to get on with the job.
    10.23 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I am sure that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) has the complete sympathy of the House in the strong plea he has made on behalf of the picturesque and delightful county which he represents. I hope he will agree that in considering what can be done for the county of Merioneth it is necessary for us to bear in mind what is being done for the Principality of Wales as a whole.
    I hope that hon. Gentlemen representing Welsh constituencies will agree that when, on 8th December last, my right hon. Friend anaounced the large programme of new construction and the large-scale improvements the Principality obtained its fair share. They will remember the protest
    1326
    made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) on behalf of England. He was of opinion that the Principality of Wales and the Kingdom of Scotland had obtained more than their fair share. I do not necessarily associate myself with what he said, but at any rate I think that Welsh Members will agree that a very substantial proportion of the money available has been devoted to Wales, whether the money is actually spent in Wales or to improve access to Wales from the English industrial areas.
    In that programme the Government made it plain that at present they are trying to give priority to industrial needs. Priority for any cause necessarily and unfortunately means a lower degree of priority for other causes. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the chief industries of Merionethshire are agriculture and tourism. I am afraid that at present we cannot give any priority to tourism which we regard as an amenity.
    The hon. Member has referred to the disadvantages which Merioneth suffers. I wish to draw attention to the advantages which it enjoys. For a rural county of that kind it is remarkable that there are no fewer than 104 miles of trunk roads, 453 miles of classified roads and only 421 miles of unclassified roads. It is not always remembered that the exchequer equalisation grant takes into account the mileage of roads in any given area. I am advised that of the expenditure upon unclassified roads, no less than 60 per cent, is provided by the Exchequer. When we add Road Fund grants, for class III roads the contribution of the Exchequer is 80 per cent., for class II roads it is 84 per cent, and for class I roads it is 90 per cent., whereas for trunk roads it is 100 per cent.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the position about classified roads. Merioneth has done extremely well on maintenance during the five years from 1950–51 to the estimates for 1954–55. It has asked for £348,000 and has had allocated to it £337,000. I do not think that there are many counties in the United Kingdom in that happy position.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to unclassified and unadopted roads. It seemed to me that he was suggesting that the Government were not proposing to do anything to help Merioneth improve these roads which, we all recognise, are of tremendous importance for the agricultural

    1327
    community. I would ask him to look at paragraph 33 of the White Paper on Rural Wales. There he will find these words:
    "The Government agree, however, that there is need for some ad hoc assistance to be provided for the improvement of unclassified and unadopted roads in livestock rearing areas….
    I think Merioneth is pre-eminently a livestock rearing county—
    "…where the improvement would materially assist the economy of farms otherwise satisfactory, or in process of any necessary reorganisation. They will, accordingly, make proposals to Parliament, when opportunity offers, for enabling the Ministry of Agriculture to contribute towards the cost of improving such roads, on the condition that any unadopted road so improved would become the responsibility of the highway authority after improvement.
    I have dealt with these different categories of roads in order to show what I think is the case, that, taking a broad view of the matter, the county of Merioneth, apart from the natural geographical difficulties from which it suffers, which is, after all, the penalty that it has to pay for its delightful and romantic scenery, has, in fact, received a fair contribution from national funds.
    The hon. Gentleman raised three cases in particular. I should like to express my gratitude to him for having given me notice of these matters so that I might obtain some information about them from my Department.
    He spoke, first, about Oakley Drive, which is on A487. This is a road where a good deal of improvement has already been carried out. There has been widening of this section of the road in the last few years, and six passing places have been constructed. I frankly recognise that it would improve conditions on the road if we were able to increase the number of places where the road has been widened, and we are seeing what can be done in this matter, but I am not in a position tonight to give any undertaking as to exactly when it will be done.
    1328
    The argument that the hon. Gentleman advanced to emphasise the difficulties under which the county council labours is also a reason why the Ministry of Transport, with only limited resources available, finds it difficult to carry out the large-scale improvements that he is asking for. The widening of this section of the road is certainly desirable, but it would mean extensive rock excavation, because Oakley Drive runs across sloping ground. This would cost about £110,000, which is more than we have available at present.
    In the second place, the hon. Gentleman referred to Dolgelly, where there was, unfortunately, a fatal accident not long ago when a military vehicle drove over the side of the narrow road. Action has been taken to remedy the immediate danger. We shall authorise the acquisition of land to enable further improvements to be carried out, although, again, it is not possible for me to promise when work can actually be begun.
    It is with regard to the third case, the Llanelltyd Bridge, on A487, that it is not possible for me to give quite so satisfactory a reply. This bridge must not be widened because it is an ancient monument. It can be and will be strengthened, but it would not be justifiable at present to incur the very great expense of building a new bridge.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we approach the problems of Merioneth with genuine sympathy. We have done a great deal for the Principality and, on a modest scale, we are continuing to deal with the problems which he has raised. I hope he will not be unduly disappointed if we are not able to carry out the large-scale improvements which I know he and the county would like to see.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (OFFICERS' PAY)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (OFFICERS' PAY)
  ROYAL YACHT "BRITANNIA"
  ROYAL YACHT "BRITANNIA"
  H.M. SHIPS (MALICIOUS DAMAGE)
  H.M. SHIPS (MALICIOUS DAMAGE)
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION LICENCES (PROSECUTIONS)
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION LICENCES (PROSECUTIONS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Requisitioned Land and Buildings, Gravesend Airport
  Requisitioned Land and Buildings, Gravesend Airport
  Pioneer Aircraft, Malaya
  Pioneer Aircraft, Malaya
  DRIVING LICENCES
  DRIVING LICENCES
  PRESTWICK AIRPORT PURCHASE (AGREED SETTLEMENT)
  PRESTWICK AIRPORT PURCHASE (AGREED SETTLEMENT)
  NEWBURY PARK BRIDGE (WIDENING SCHEME)
  NEWBURY PARK BRIDGE (WIDENING SCHEME)
  LEEK ROAD, STOKE-ON-TRENT
  LEEK ROAD, STOKE-ON-TRENT
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
  INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE, CARACAS
  INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE, CARACAS
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Sugar Beet Factory Facilities, Southern England
  Sugar Beet Factory Facilities, Southern England
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Meat
  Meat
  Duck Eggs
  Duck Eggs
  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONAL CASE)
  BRITISH ARMY (PERSONAL CASE)
  POSTAL FACILITIES, EAST KILBRIDE
  POSTAL FACILITIES, EAST KILBRIDE
  BIRMINGHAM․MELKSHAM POWER LINE (B.E.A. APPLICATION)
  BIRMINGHAM․MELKSHAM POWER LINE (B.E.A. APPLICATION)

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

DISTURBANCES IN THE SUDAN
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement to-day about the disturbances in the Sudan.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with the permission of the House and with the assent of the noble Viscount, I will make a statement on the Sudan at, or as soon as possible after, half-past three.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHM: I am obliged to the noble Marquess.

STRATEGIC EXPORTS TO RUSSIA
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 will state in what circumstances, and under what statutory regulations, an embargo was placed, after the conclusion of the 1939–45 war, upon the export of strategic goods to Russia.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, at a time of increasing international tension, the late Government initiated action in 1949 to bring under control the export of goods of strategic importance. Certain items of high strategic importance were placed under embargo to the Soviet Union and satellite countries, and exports of certain other items which, if supplied in large quantities, could contribute significantly to military potential, were restricted. This action was taken under the authority of Section 1 of the
52
Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which assigns to the Board of Trade power to issue such orders as it may think expedient, prohibiting or regulating the export of any goods.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Are we to understand from it that, as a result of the United States Battle Act of 1951, no extra restrictions were placed upon the export of strategic goods to Russia?
LORD MANCROFT: I think that the list of strategic goods that have been placed under restriction between the time of the passing of the Act to which I have referred and to-day is now pretty well known to the trading community in this country.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord whether, as a result of the Battle Act of 1951, there were imposed upon exports from this country to Russia any restrictions other than those imposed by the original 1949 Order?
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that I cannot, without notice, explain to the noble Viscount what was the reason for, or the cause of. the imposition of any particular restriction in this country on any particular goods; nor can I, without notice, answer any question concerning the implication of a foreign Act on actions of the Board of Trade in this country.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is it not a fact that, as a result of the Battle Act of 1951 of the United States, restrictions upon exports from this country to Russia were primarily dictated by that Act, concerning which there was no consultation between the United States and the British Government?
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Viscount asked me what was the authority in this country for the application of these restrictions. I have answered that Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I think we ought to have a better answer than that. Is it not true, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, himself has said, that the position is fairly well known to business and commerce in the country, and that, whilst the original authority has been correctly stated by him, it has been necessary from

53
time to time to vary the list? That is the real point. It is not for me to press the noble Lord as to why, at a particular time, a particular class of commodity was put on the list, but certainly it has been varied from time to time. I would ask whether, in view of the better atmosphere that was promised the other day—I think it was a member of the Government who said that there was likely to be more freedom in certain classes of goods, while not of course, stepping away from the important strategically valuable goods—we, could be told a little more about that. If so, it would be useful.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked me two questions. To the first, I must repeat that the authority for the statutory regulations under which these embargoes were applied in this country is the Act of 1939. By that Answer I stand. As to the second half of Lord Alexander of Hillsborough's question, I can only repeat the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place a week ago, when he concluded his remarks by saying [OFFICIAL REPORT, COMMONS, Vol. 524 (No. 62), col. 592]:
"We are examining these lists and will discuss them with our American friends."
That, I should have thought, was the complete answer to the noble Viscount's question.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords. I beg to give notice that I shall put down a further Question on this subject.
LORD MANCROFT: I am not surprised.

INLAND TELEGRAPH CHARGES
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: 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 have yet come to a decision as to the steps to be taken to reduce the deficit on the Inland Telegraph Service.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): As your Lordships are aware, the financial position of the Inland Telegraph Service has been getting steadily worse since the war. I warned
54
the House on 29th July last year that, so far as I could see, after making every allowance for every possible economy in working, we might well find ourselves faced with a choice between a continuing heavy subsidy from the users of other Post Office services or higher charges for inland telegrams. This was also the view in another place of the Select Committee on Estimates. Loss on inland telegrams is of very long standing, but it has been rising since the war, and on average the revenue on an inland telegram is now a little over 2s., against a cost of 5s., of which nearly 3s. 6d. represents staff costs.
The Post Office has taken every possible step to reduce this loss. Integration of telegraph and telephone service is sometimes suggested as the remedy, but mere amalgamation of the accounts would at best only hide a telegraph subsidy, if not from one source, then from another. Physical integration of plant, on the other hand, has already gone a long way. All telegraph lines are provided by the telephone network, and it is now possible, by improved techniques, to send twenty-four telegrams simultaneously over one telephone circuit. Transmission by teleprinter is the most economical way of sending telegrams over longer distances, but where it is cheaper, telegrams are telephoned. Facsimile equipment, working over telephone lines, is being tried; and the use of telephone plant for through-switching has enabled us to save £500,000 a year by reducing operating staff. Engineering plant costs are, in total, less than 6d. a telegram. With the co-operation of the staff, which I cannot commend too highly (to be a member of a steadily contracting service can be very disheartening), staff costs also have been reduced; staff numbers have fallen steadily in line with the fall in traffic.
Unhappily, all our efforts at economy have been defeated by the general rise in costs, and the deficit is now over £4½ million. After careful consideration, the Government have decided that it would not be fair to the users of other Post Office services to continue to subsidise the telegraphs to this extent, and that the only course is to ask the telegraph user to contribute more towards the cost of the service. It is therefore proposed to introduce legislation to provide for the following increased charges. The charge for an ordinary inland telegram will be increased.

55
from 1s. 6d. for twelve words, and 1½d. a word thereafter, to 3s. for twelve words, and 3d. a word thereafter. The Greetings telegram will be continued at the new tariff, but the supplementary charge will remain at 6d. For Press telegrams the present charge of 1s. 3d. for each page of sixty words (which was not increased when the ordinary inland telegram went up in 1943 and 1951) will be raised to 3s.—that is, the same as the charge for an ordinary telegram. Copies of Press telegrams will be charged 1s.—as proposed for ordinary telegrams—and restricted, as for ordinary telegrams, to delivery within the same area as the original.
Nearly half the ordinary inland telegraph traffic consists of business messages. Of the rest, about two-fifths are Greetings telegrams. Other social and domestic messages amount to about 12 million a year, or rather less than one per family. The present average yearly expenditure of a family on telegrams is about 2s. 9d. a year, while life and death messages, and bad news, total less than one million a year, or less than one per family every twelve years. But although domestic expenditure on telegrams may be small, there must be some means of sending urgent messages cheaply. I propose, therefore, to introduce an overnight service, under which telegrams other than Greetings telegrams will be accepted at any time up to 10 p.m. for delivery early next morning, normally by first post, at the present standard charge of 1s. 6d. for twelve words, and 1½d. for each additional word. I hope that this night service will help private senders, especially in country areas, who have occasion to send urgent messages on domestic affairs.
It is estimated that when these charges are fully effective they will reduce the deficit on inland telegrams to about £2 million a year. The improvement will consist in roughly equal proportions of reduced costs, which will take a little time to mature, and increased revenue. Even so the inland telegram will be subsidised by users of other Post Office services to the extent of about a quarter of its cost.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his full statement, I should like to ask him one or two supplementary questions. We
56
appreciate that he has shown some consideration for the ordinary user in providing an over-night service at existing rates—that certainly meets the need for an urgent means of communication at cheap rates. But the general effect on the telegraph-using public is serious, and I would ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that he is treating the ordinary user with fairness in relation to other users of the telegraph service. Does he realise that the rate for ordinary telegrams has gone up 300 per cent. since before the war, whereas the Press rate, which he has just announced, will be a rise of only 100 per cent.? I suggest to him that the ordinary public has some grievance on that account.
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Lucan in thanking the noble Earl opposite for making this important statement of policy at this time and before the Bill, and to add that I am sure we all commiserate with him in having to dip so deeply into our pockets twice in the same week. May I add to what noble Lords on this side of the House may wish to say at this stage that we agree with the noble Earl opposite that some increase in the charge for inland telegrams is necessary, having regard to the increasing deficit of the service, but we take the view that the amount of the increase is unfair and excessive in relation to the telegraph-using public, and likely to be detrimental to the efficiency of the telegraph service. May I ask the noble Earl whether he still has an open mind in regard to matters of detail—matters of less than principle such as those mentioned by my noble friend—and whether he will be willing to give serious thought to alternative suggestions which we shall wish to make when the Bill comes before this House?
LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the position which he has put is any different in principle from that which has existed in the past? Is it not a fact that the telegraph service has never paid, that it has always shown a deficit, but that it has been regarded as a public service and the deficit carried on the general revenue of the Post Office? I suggest that that is a point which ought still to be considered.
EARL DE LA WARR: I find the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, a little difficult to answer. Actually there were a great number of questions. What the noble Earl said did not quite amount to a speech, but he certainly put many questions. I think that what he mainly asked was whether what is proposed is fair to the ordinary user. That is much the same question as was put by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He said, I think, that he agreed that at least some rise was necessary, but he asked whether this increase was not too great. I do not mind saying that for a long time I have tried very hard —no Minister likes to put up charges to this extent—to see whether we could not meet the situation by charging half-a-crown for an inland, telegram. The figures show that the present loss, which I said was some £4½ million, is actually £4,600,000. If I increased the rate to only half a crown that would give us only an extra £1 million revenue, so that the loss would be about £3½million.
What was particularly worrying about the situation was not merely the size of the loss but the fact that year by year it is steadily increasing. It would have been possible for the Government to take the line of saying, "We will try half a crown now and leave it to our successors in a year or so"—and it would not have been more than a year or so —"to go up to a further amount." But it seemed to me that it was the honest policy for us to face the situation in its stark reality and do what was really necessary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ammon. He asked whether it is not a fact that since 1870 the telegraph service has always been run as a public service at a loss. That is true. It is a matter of degree. Noble Lords will realise that it is a matter of deliberate policy, and the Government have decided to work the Post Office on a small surplus because they believe that the Post Office should not be used for purposes of taxation. But if there is an extremely small surplus one has no margin for carrying these ever-increasing costs. I would remind Lord Ammon that, in spite of this increase, there is still a subsidy to the inland telegraph service from users of the other postal and telephone services, and there will still be a deficit of no less than £2 million.
LORD ROCHDALE: May I ask the noble Earl two specific supplementary questions. First, has this matter been referred to the Post Office Advisory Council? Secondly, can something be done to assist a member of the public who wishes to send a telegram after the local post office is shut, he not being on the telephone? He is going to be in somewhat of a difficulty in using a public telephone call box, because a great many more coins of the right kind will be necessary to pay for the call. Can the noble Earl say whether there is any other way in which a member of the public, under those conditions, can send a telegram?
EARL DE LA WARR: In reply to the noble Lord's first question, I can tell him that the Post Office Advisory Council have considered this problem of inland telegraph finances at a number of meetings from 1949 onwards, and they agree that there is no alternative to a steep increase in tariffs of the kind now proposed. On the second point, I would say that of course telegrams can always be dictated over telephones, including the 60,000 instruments in call boxes which are available throughout the country at all hours. I do not see how a telegram can be paid for except by the insertion of money in the coin box at the call boxes. I wish I could think of another way in which it could be done, but I think that is the only way.
LORD LAWSON: May I ask the noble Lord whether:the Government have considered the possibility of this increase in charges resulting in a reduction in the number of telegrams sent, so that in the long run there will probably be a reduction of income and the last state may be worse than the first.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have made careful calculations on that point. When dealing with matters like this, questions regarding the future have, of course, to be answered by means of estimates. In view of its past record—and I think the noble Earl Lord Listowel will confirm this—it may be said that the Post Office has proved to be capable of making very accurate prognostications. But I confess this is an estimate.
LORD LAWSON: I take it that what the noble Earl really means is that this is just a long shot.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is the result of taking a very careful survey, in which there have been taken into consideration such matters as the nature of the telegrams sent, the reasons for which they have been sent, and past experience in relation to alteration of charges
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It would be interesting to the House if the noble Earl could give us an estimate of the reduction in the volume of traffic which it is thought may result from the increased charges which he is proposing. He may not wish to give that estimate to your Lordships now, but if he were able to do so I think it would be of interest.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have made our estimates, but I am not sure that it would be altogether fair to those concerned to give estimates now; but I will gladly communicate with the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I understand that this matter will be the subject of a Bill. If so, we can raise further matters of detail when the Bill is before us.
LORD AMMON: Is it not a fact that this policy has proved a failure in the past, because each time there has been an increase in charges the deficit has grown? That is what will happen on this occasion.
LORD TEYNHAM: As a member of the Post Office Advisory Council I can assure noble Lords opposite that we have gone into this matter extremely carefully, and we feel that there is no option but to raise the charges as proposed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I beg to move that the Lord Schuster be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and that the Lord Derwent be named of the Committee in his place. Your Lordships will, I think, wish to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Schuster for his long, distinguished and arduous service on this Committee and of welcoming Lord Derwent in his place. I beg to move.
60
Moved, That the Lord Schuster be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Lord Derwent be named of the Committee in his place.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ROAD SYSTEM
3.0 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON LORD BRABAZON of TARA rose to draw attention to the inadequacy of our road system; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have the privilege of moving the Motion which stands in my name. I know perfectly well that one only has to mention the word "road" when vistas of extended debates on many subjects rise to the minds of noble Lords. There are such things as accidents to be debated, parking, and speed limits. I know perfectly well that these matters are of extreme importance, but to-day I want to confine my remarks, and I hope the remarks of those who follow, to the road situation as a function of our economic life. I have not the power to regulate the debate, nor has anybody else in this House, but I think it will be to the advantage of all concerned if we stick to that rather narrow channel.
The first thing I want to tell your Lordships, if you do not know it already, is that this country has the densest traffic per mile of any in the world. There are no fewer than 18·1 vehicles per mile. Consequently, we have a problem here which is not the problem of other countries. I want to pay tribute to Mr. Christopher Brunner, who has made a most exhaustive survey of the economic side of road development, and I quote many of his figures. I have every reason to believe that they are correct—nobody has challenged them. The expenditure on road transport in 1950 was no less than £1,200 million—that is, about 11·5 per cent. of our national income. In 1951, the figure had risen to £1,400 million—about 12·5 per cent. of our national income. And it is a fact that road transportation accounts for almost 10 per cent. of the cost of all production and distribution in this country. That is a very important figure. To show how road transport and the costs thereof come into manufacture, in analysing the costs of a great motor factory in the Midlands, it

61
was discovered that they had raw materials and goods from 750 sources averaging 100 miles distant from the factory, and that no fewer than 700 lorries delivered daily at the works. That, I think, gives us a picture of the importance of road transportation in our national economy. Therefore, it is obvious that roads are a capital equipment in industry to-day, and a very important one. I do not think that fact has been sufficiently appreciated by successive Governments. While they are quite prepared to spend money on capital equipment for making industry more efficient, they have all failed to realise the importance of roads.
Let me quote one activity of the Government to-day—namely, that of putting down London Airport. Sir Ben Lockspeiser, the Government scientist, said the other day that the amount of concrete in London Airport was enough to make a two-track road, thirty feet broad, from London to Edinburgh—a remarkable statement. But we can see that we pour money into one thing and forget something else which is even more important. Take electricity. Since 1945, we have spent £600 million on the development of electrical generation, yet since the beginning of the century we have spent only £400 million on our roads. It is interesting to note that the actual contribution of electricity in manufacture is only 3 per cent. of the total cost of production, whereas the cost of roads and transportation is 10 per cent. Supposing a Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to put a tax upon lathes, what a scream there would have been throughout the whole country! But while a tax upon lathes would have affected only some Manufacturers, a tax on transport affects all manufacturers.
May I draw attention to the situation relevant to taxation on road transport to-day? The Chancellor of the Exchequer derives £293 million a year from road taxation—£67 million from licences and £226 million from fuel taxation. I am not going to suggest for one moment that all money from motor transport taxation should be spent on roads. Your Lordships may remember that when the original Road Fund was formed, the idea was that the licence duty should be allocated to the Road Fund to be spent upon roads. I freely admit that there is a luxury element in all private motor cars, which is a perfectly legitimate
62
thing to tax for Exchequer purposes. But when we come to the commercial side of road transport, whilst there is every reason to tax commercial vehicles so that they pay for the roads they use, we must realise that when they are taxed further than that such tax is nothing but a tax upon industry. To-day, we are deriving from motor taxation four and a quarter times the amount of money that we are spending upon the roads.
For a moment, I should like to analyse what is happening to our expenditure upon the roads, compared with what we did before the war. One cannot dispute the fact that to-day our roads are degenerating in quality. Maintenance is not comparable to what it was before the war. To-day, we are spending only 65 per cent. of the pre-war level. Before the war, we used to resurface a road after nineteen years; now, we resurface after forty-four years. Along this line deterioration takes place. On improvements to roads before the war, we spent £10½ million; to-day, we are spending only £4½ million, and £1½ million. of that is to remove "black spots." On new construction, before the war we spent £3½ million—a modest figure. Now, we are spending £1½ million; and that includes roads on new housing estates. Adjusting money values, those figures mean a reduction of about 90 per cent.
I will not go through a long catalogue of the new works which are required, and required urgently, but I should like to draw attention to one road which, in my view, is more pressing than any other. Successive Governments have, rightly, developed industry in South Wales. A fine effort it has been, and the people in that area have reacted in a wonderful way. But they are not joined to the Midlands in any way: from the point of view of communication by road, they might be in the Channel Islands. If we are to make that venture a success, and link it with the industrial Midlands, a big road is wanted urgently from Birmingham to South Wales. I should also like to draw attention to the main artery between England and Scotland, a road which is humorously called the Great North Road. There is nothing "great" about it in any way; it is practically a two-track road the whole distance. Finally I would draw attention to the London-Southampton road. That also is

63
a two-track road, yet it joins our greatest passenger port with the greatest metropolis in the world. When we have all these great new projects, let us not forget that it is no use getting people easily into a town and then leaving them in a congested and too narrowly planned metropolis. I understand that the last major road improvement that we had in London was Kingsway, and that nothing has been done since. I understand that my noble friend Lord Latham, who has been, so to speak, muzzled for the last six years, in view of his important duties in London Transport, will tell us a little about the flow of traffic in London. We shall look forward with interest to hearing what he has to say, and we shall be glad to know how much the delay in traffic has cost us.
I know that it is difficult for anybody to be in a position of wanting reduced taxation and at the same time advocating increased expenditure. It has been proposed in another place, and in many outside quarters, that a road loan should be started by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I support such a proposal. I make the following suggestion, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have to earmark more money than is necessary. If he would anchor the taxation from road transport at a figure, and allow any increase in that taxation to flow towards paying the interest and sinking fund of a loan, then I do not think he would be embarrassed; and the money would be forthcoming. I have another proposition on which I am particularly keen but with which some of my friends do not agree. It is a revival of what is sometimes looked on as an archaic practice —namely, the toll road. I have been impressed in America at seeing the remarkable way in which bridges—notably over the East River—have been erected there, and, due to a small toll, have paid for themselves and now bring in a steady revenue for other purposes. I do not in any way advocate tolls for a long trunk road; I do not think the idea suits that kind of road, because it would require attendance to people coming in at the side all along the road, which is not desirable. But for local works, for a small by-pass, or something of that sort, I believe that it might well be indulged in. It would be no penalty to anybody.
64
If, for instance, there were a by-pass to Staines, Maidstone or Chatham, if you had the time and were prepared to go through the town, you could do so; but if you went the short quick way you would pay your 2s. 6d. and make use of the by-pass. That would not be a hardship.
I hope that in these few words I have made clear the grave situation that faces us to-day on the question of roads. We are many years out of date in this respect I only hope that in this debate we shall not have any, so to speak, "Billy Graham" speeches of "how to be saved"—from death on the roads, important as is the subject, but that we shall confine ourselves strictly to the economic situation relative to the roads. It is, indeed, an important subject, and if we hammer at it—because one debate alone will not do; we must keep on hammering at it—one day we may obtain a better system of roads, which will have the most profound effect upon the commercial potentialities and the prosperity of our country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, when I saw on the Order Paper this Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I wondered what he could possibly find fresh to say upon this subject, because if there is one question which your Lordships have been most assiduous in discussing during the last five or six years it is the problem of the roads of this country and the part they play in the industrial and economic life of the country. But the noble Lord has succeeded in bringing at least some new thoughts, and old ideas put in a different way, before your Lordships this afternoon. I shall try to follow him as closely as I can, and to confine the majority of my remarks to what he has termed the economic aspect of our national highways. The noble Lord referred to the cost of transport as a percentage of total production cost. If I heard him aright, he said that transport accounted for something in the region of 10 per cent. I should have put that percentage far higher. Some figures given in a survey some years before the war—if my memory serves me aright, it was in 1926—showed that of the cost of the price of an article to the ultimate purchaser the

65
cost of movement was somewhere in the region of between 75 and 80 per cent.; that is to say, the cost of movement from the time of the mining of the raw material, and through fabrication, until the article reached the hands of the ultimate purchaser, was between 75 and 80 per cent.
I believe the noble Lord has rendered a service at this particular time in drawing our attention and that of the country to the cost of transportation, because, in my view, we are at present in grave danger of pricing ourselves out of the export market. I would beg your Lordships to look at this problem most seriously. We are at the moment engaged in a fight for our economic salvation. Exhortation to industry to export more is no good if the price is unattractive to our markets and is not, at least, comparable with that of our competitors. I made a speech in July, 1952, when I said very much the same thing as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said. In my studies of this problem I have come to the definite conclusion that traffic on our roads is getting slower and slower. What I have called the conveyor belts of industry, which is only another name for the roads of this country, are getting slower. That is due to the fact that our roads are over-trafficked, and the congestion is growing every day. There is nothing like congestion, whether it is on one of the roads of the country or in a production factory, to put up cost.
Here I will part from the wish of the noble Lord, because f know that your Lordships could never have a debate of this nature, with seventeen speakers, without somebody raising the question of roads and road accidents. Road accidents are due to exactly the same cause as the high cost of transportation, and that is congestion. An efficient highway system is a safe highway system, and we shall never cure the high cost of transport, as we shall never cure the road accident problem, until we do away with congestion; because do not forget that 80 per cent. of the road accidents in this country still occur in built-up areas. It is getting to such a state that no one is safe from accidents. Even the most careful drivers on the road to-day become involved in accidents because of that congestion. As I said in your Lordships' House not long ago, congestion breeds frustration, bad manners and all the
66
atmosphere of road accidents; and I regret to say that, in my view, the manners of all classes of drivers on the roads to-day are steadily deteriorating. In my opinion it is not because they want to be bad mannered. To drive on some of our roads to-day is a. nightmare. You have only to test it by driving a motor-car and trying to get from a side road into the main stream of traffic. How many will halt and wait for you to come in? Generally speaking, the old, grey-haired lorry driver is about the last remaining gentleman of the road. This is not because we are inherently bad mannered; it is because of this terrible congestion.
I do not think there is one royal road to the cure of this problem of high trans-portal ion costs or road accidents. I have tried in your Lordships' House to illustrate one minor aspect of it, and I think it is only by removing some of these causes, little by little, that we shall make any great headway. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara —and it is forced upon us every day in the figures emerging from the Treasury —that it is difficult to advocate the lowering of taxation and an increase of expenditure. if I am honest with your Lordships this afternoon, and I am asked which I think would be for the betterment of this country as a whole, the lowering of income tax and the heightening of the incentive to produce more or a vast sum expended on the roads, I tell your Lordships frankly that I should choose the first, because I believe the second would then come automatically.
Because we must have a smaller expenditure upon the roads of this country than we should all like and the problem deserves, it behoves those who have the spending of this money to spend it to the best possible advantage. I question whether the amount that is being spent to-day on the roads is being spent to the best advantage. I believe that in this matter there arc too many cooks; there are too many people who have the spending of money. I could illustrate that by pointing to one or two stretches of road. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is sitting opposite, and I will mention one that he knows well. One of the growing main roads of this country is the road from Newbury—where the noble Lord lives—to Abingdon. It is now one of the main routes from the South Coast to the Midlands. I suppose there is not an "A"

67
road in this country which has such bad alignment as the Abingdon—Newbury road. For the last six months they have been "messing about" with it—because that is the only expression I can use—putting kerbing on one side and then on the other, not increasing the width of the road and doing nothing for the alignment, when we all know that in any sensible road construction scheme that road will, in a measurable space of time, have to be realigned along its whole length from Harwell to Newbury. That is an illustration of the waste of money. One sees the same waste, which involves the National Exchequer and the Ministry of Transport, in the 75 per cent. grant made at the whim of the local authorities.
We hoped to save the trunk roads of this country from this kind of thing when, some years ago, we brought all the trunk roads under the Ministry of Transport. I believe that if we are going to spend the amount of money which is allocated to the maintenance and construction of roads to the best possible advantage, we cannot have all these people dipping their hands into the purse for their little pet schemes. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is to wind up this debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to see whether he can bring some pressure to bear, so that this money is not wasted on routine things such as widening a road by nine inches to a foot merely because it is laid down that a certain class of road must be a certain width. The Government should see that such schemes are not given first priority.
This is where I again part company with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The noble Lord mentioned two things: first, that road expenditure should be financed by a loan. I am wholeheartedly opposed to that. If we in this country do not learn from experience it is about time we did. I remember the pledge on the Road Fund which was given by Mr. Lloyd George. That held no terrors later for an impecunious Chancellor of the Exchequer whose name, out of sympathy and feeling for noble Lords opposite, I will not mention. That is the wrong way. It is a bad principle. The roads of this country are a national charge, and that charge should be borne out of the Exchequer and paid for fairly by everybody. The next matter about which I quarrel with the noble Lord is
68
the suggestion that we should go back to turnpikes or tolls in this country, The noble Lord said that it would be more attractive for the motor vehicle operator to pay half a crown to go on a by-pass than to travel on one of the ordinary traffic-congested roads. One of the problems facing us to-day is the fact that we spend millions of pounds on by-passes, and they are not used when they are free. The congestion in some of our towns, such as Winchester. Oxford and attractive and other historical places like those, all of which have by-passes, has not diminished very much.
Now, my Lords, I am not going to say that those by-passes were a waste of money, but I think that this is one of the questions which the Government ought to consider. I put this suggestion again to the noble Earl: that we shall soon have to find a way of enforcing the use of by-passes by the very heavy traffic that at the present time holds up the rest of the traffic in our cities. I am glad to see the noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence here, because I am going to tell him, quite plainly, that he is one of the worst offenders. I say to the noble and gallant Lord, the Secretary of State for Air also that he, with his Queen Mary trailers, is one of the worst offenders. Huge tanks are carted round this country on huge transporters, and some of the abnormal loads that go through our big cities cause the very congestion about which we are complaining. In the last debate we had in your Lordships' House on this subject, I cited cases of boats being transported from the north of England to the south by road. If that is not Gilbertian, in a country of this size, surrounded by the sea, I do not know what is. I have seen ships' lifeboats transported from the Tyne to Southampton by road, taking up the time of the police and congesting the roads.
If we cannot have new roads, surely common sense dictates that we should utilise to the best advantage the roads we have; but we are not doing it. We cannot, I realise, put some, perhaps many, of these loads on the railways, for the bridges are unsuitable: the loads cannot go underneath the bridges. I am trying to turn my thoughts and my approach to this problem in the direction of what we can do to make the best of the present

69
situation. I do not want the noble Earl to wind up this debate from a Treasury brief saying that we cannot afford to spend any more money; and I am going to suggest how we can improve the position without spending any more money. Some of these big loads—these huge electrical apparatus, cranes and other abnormal loads which are a curse on the roads—could be fabricated in a different manner and could be taken in sections. The other day I saw a piece of equipment being transported which would only just go down a twenty-foot road. It was obvious on a cursory examination that the whole contraption could have beer dismantled and put in five-ton lorries. As I said before, some of our haulage contractors boast by advertising how they can congest the roads by taking these abnormal loads through traffic; they think it is good advertising.
I hope the noble Earl will not tell me of the difficulties in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, yesterday said that nobody (he particularly mentioned the Home Secretary) can instruct the police on these matters. I want to ask who can instruct the police. Do the police control Parliament or do Parliament control the police? I do not know who is authorised to see that the roads are not congested in this way; but surely Her Majesty's Government can find a way of seeing that these loads do not hold up all the essential traffic. If we cannot have these roads, then I beg the Government, first of all to see that the money we have is spent to the best advantage—that we are not just slavishly following a set plan, irrespective of more urgent requirements; and secondly, to see that the by-passes of this country—and they are excellent by-passes—are not so much money wasted. We have spent in the past a great deal of money on pedestrian tunnels. There are tunnels under some of the main roads going out of London which are never used; your Lordships could take your beds and go to sleep in them, and never be disturbed for weeks on end—and they cost millions of pounds. There are bridges over certain roads—the Kingston by-pass for instance—over which, I hazard a guess, nobody ever goes: any noble Lord who saw anybody going over them might think he was Being things, as a result of some conduct of his own which was conducive thereto.
70
All this money has been wasted, and we stand to-day in very great risk of spending a lot of money on some of the pet schemes of certain county surveyors and borough engineers which have no regard to the main plan which the noble Lord has brought before us this afternoon: that is, how we can make the roads suit the economic purposes of this country to the last degree of efficiency. I am not going to touch on a number of other points which I think are pertinent. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, who speaks With great authority, having been at one time Chairman of the London County Council and also Chairman of the London Transport Executive, will very likely have something to say on the congestion of London traffic, which will come almost to a standstill if we go on as at present, for no one will be able to stop the growth of traffic. At present 400,000 more vehicles a year are being put on the roads of this country. In ten years' time walking will be an express service. I have tried at least to give Her Majesty's Government some thoughts on this matter which do net involve extra expenditure of money.

KENYA: MEETINGS WITH MAU MAU
3.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER):My Lords, may I interrupt the proceedings for a few moments in order to make a statement on the situation in Kenya? The following announcement was made by the Government of Kenya this morning:
"As a result of the interrogation of 'General China,' it appeared that there was a fairly widespread feeling amongst the terrorists that further armed insurrection would bring nothing but hardship to the Kikuyu people and that there was little to be gained by continuing the struggle. It was decided that if this appreciation was correct it afforded an opportunity of hastening the end of the emergency which should not be missed.
"On Sunday, 14th February, China' was moved to a closely guarded building in Nyeri. From there, largely by means of personal letters from 'China,' touch has been established with Mau Mau leaders in the forest and the Reserves. There has also been personal contact between 'China and the individual leaders. Special Branch representatives have always been present at these meetings. 'China's' movements in the Reserves have been by armoured car and under police guard. The

71
result of such contacts cannot be clear for some time, but should any organised meeting take place, safe-conduct arrangements to all parties will be guaranteed.
"Meanwhile, there has been, and there will be, no relaxation of the impact of the security forces upon the terrorist organisations. Indeed, during the past three weeks security forces have had some of their most successful operations. These operations will be continued and intensified."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that statement. I am glad to see that some successful attempt has been made to make contact with those members in the Mau Mau organisation who seem to be willing to try to bring to an end this frightful set of actions of theirs. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will welcome the statement, and will wish success to the subsequent efforts which are to be made, especially if the last comment in the statement, that about security, is duly observed.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, can my noble friend Lord Munster say, speaking from recollection, whether this is a novel procedure or has it been attempted on several occasions in Malaya, with no fructuous results?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think the answer is that what was done in Malaya was something very different from what is being done in Kenya.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May we assume in the meantime that this convicted prisoner, "China," will be kept alive?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes. The death sentence on "China" has been commuted.

DISTURBANCES IN THE SUDAN
3.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS of READING: My Lords, with the permission of the House, now desire to make the statement, which I promised the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, at an earlier stage, on the regrettable disturbances which took place in Khartoum on March 1. The House will have seen the newspaper reports of these events, and I have no further details to acid. I regret to say that in the course of the rioting
72
total casualties amounted to some 30 persons killed and about 100 injured. This includes casualties among the police, which were 10 killed, including the British Commandant of Police in Khartoum and his Sudanese Second-in-Command, and 66 injured. I am sure the whole House will join with me in expressing deep regret at this loss of life and sympathy with the relatives.
As the House will have seen, the Governor General has declared a state of emergency and has announced that the Opening of Parliament will be postponed until March 10. The state of emergency was made under the Defence of the Sudan Ordinance and not under the Self-Government Statute. The Council of Ministers, therefore, remains responsible for law and order and public security, and the orders giving effect to the Governor General's declaration have been made by him on the advice of the Council. Several thousands of the demonstrators have, I am informed, now left Khartoum and the situation is quiet.
I do not propose, nor is it my duty, to pass judgment on these events. No one would wish to condone violence. But the fact remains that a large measure of responsibility must rest upon those who have in the recent past sought to raise the emotional temperature in the Sudan. We have repeatedly emphasised that the Sudanese people should be allowed to work out their political development free from all outside interference, and we have scrupulously observed this principle. It will, I am sure, be the sincere hope of the whole House that these serious events will have brought this lesson home to all concerned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for the statement he has made. I can quite understand that at this stage it is not easy to go into further detail; we quite accept that. I am sure the whole House regrets very much the events in Khartoum as they have transpired. The only comment I would make at the moment—and I speak with some feeling on this matter; I was closely associated with the late Ernest Bevin in Middle East problems, especially in relation to the Sudan, and with Sir Robert Howe—is that I resent very much what was

73
broadcast this morning from Egypt, as if this had been an attempt, a sort of plot, on behalf of what was called "imperialism." It seemed to me to be a most unworthy suggestion especially in view of our record, however slow sonic people may think it, of preparing the Sudan for self-government. I feel that the people who, in the Middle East and various other countries, have grave responsibility for the peace of the world at the present time might well abstain from statements of this kind, which seem to be made almost without provocation, on the spur of the moment, from time to time, and to have little relation to the actual truth. I take just one phrase from the statement of the noble Marquess which I think perhaps showed a great economy of words but which nevertheless was very important. He said the Sudanese people should be allowed to work out their political development
" free from all outside interference, and we have scrupulously observed this principle."
I should like to say that I know that to be the case. I hope that that fact will be duly noted.
EARL WINTERTON: I do not wish to embarrass the noble Marquess or Her Majesty's Government in what is a most embarrassing and difficult situation, but I should like to ask the noble Marquess one question, because his statement was not quite clear. The Governor General, in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him, presumably with the support of Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain, has declared a state of emergency. My noble friend Lord Reading then went on to say that it was this new Government—which, to say the least of it, does not seem to be in a very secure position—that was responsible for public security in that state of emergency. May I ask my noble friend whether he can give your Lordships an assurance that British troops will not be used for this purpose without the consent of the Governor General; and, if they are used, to whom will they be responsible?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The statement that I made was, I hope, clear. The position is this: that under the Constitution the Governor General has powers, in certain circumstances, to declare an emergency. Those powers have not in this instance been used. If he
74
declares an emergency under the Constitution, he has further consequential powers of taking all authority into his own hands. that is not what has been done in this case. What has been done in this case is to declare a state of emergency under the Defence of the Sudan Ordinance, which dates from before the coming into force of the Constitution and under which the Governor General declares a state of emergency. But the carrying out of the state of emergency and the exercise of authority remain with the Council of Ministers. That is the position. The Council of Ministers under the Constitution is in charge of the present situation.
EARL WINTERTON: Yes, but, if I may say so with the greatest respect, that does not answer the last part of my question, which I regard as a very important one. In the event of its being necessary to call out British troops—arid already British troops, I understand, have been guarding General Neguib—who is responsible for calling them out, the Governor General or the Government of the Sudan?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As long as the conduct of matters is in the hands of the Government, I should take it—and I am not pledging myself definitely to this, because it requires a good deal of looking into—that the responsibility for the preservation of order is theirs. If a situation arose in which they were not in a position to carry out their responsibility, the Governor would then have to look at the situation again.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But surely the Council of Ministers would not have power to call out British troops.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: They are, I think, part of the Sudan Defence Forces, who are under the command of a British officer. I am not very anxious to go into detail on this matter, because it is not an easy situation. I have done my best in the statement to tell your Lordships how the position stands at the moment.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, would the noble Marquess take this opportunity of specifically repudiating the accusations which appeared in the broadcast reported in the newspapers this morning—namely, that the only benefit that

75
these disturbances could give would be to what are called "imperialistic interests," by which, presumably, is meant this country; and, secondly, that they could—and I emphasise the word "could"—have been inspired by former British administrators.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, all I have seen is probably all that the noble Lord has seen—a short report in the newspapers this morning. But, so far as that short report is concerned, I would say that it is obviously absurd to suggest that Her Majesty's Government or British administrators in the Sudan, past or present, were in any way responsible for these disturbances.
LORD CALVERLEY: May I ask the noble Marquess whether General Neguib has expressed his thanks for being saved by the Yorkshire and Lancashire Regiment?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I think no expression has yet been received.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I agree entirely with my noble Leader, but would not it help if the noble Marquess were to say here and now that it is against British interests that there should be differences between Egypt, the Sudan and ourselves, and that harmony in that area is the first of all British interests?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I would not differ from the noble Viscount upon that. We have desired throughout, in the steps that we have taken, to protect the interests of the Sudanese and, so far as we could promote that end, to see that they were free to proceed with their own independent development. That has been the object of our whole policy; and in that we have desired equally throughout to work in conjunction with the Egyptian Government.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I did not observe in the noble Marquess's answer anything which appeared to reprove those who were responsible for the Ansar demonstrations.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I said that no one would wish to condone violence.

THE ROAD SYSTEM
3.53 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I fully support the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the condition of our roads has a tremendous effect upon the costs of industry. The noble Lord also raised the question of congestion of the roads by heavy loads. I suggest that that point is a little exaggerated, as most of these loads move by night. Of course, road conditions have a great bearing on accidents, but to-day I propose to confine my remarks to what is perhaps the best method of getting new roads. In the first place, I fully appreciate the value of the recent schemes put forward by Her Majesty's Government for road improvements during the next few years, and I certainly do not see how more can be done out of current revenue, unless we are prepared to have new taxes, and I am sure none of us wants that. But what I suggest is that expenditure on the roads should be divided into two classes, namely, maintenance and capital improvements, and that only maintenance should come from current revenue. Commercial enterprises and the nationalised undertakings have to resort to the capital market for capital improvements when they want them, and it seems only logical that major new roads, or major improvements to existing, roads, should be treated in the same way.
I believe I was the first to put forward in your Lordships' House the proposition for a road loan. I was rather sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not support that proposition to-day. I believe that during the last debate he undertook to think about it. I can understand the hesitation of Her Majesty's Treasury in sponsoring a road loan. No doubt that hesitation arises over the question of security for interest and sinking fund. Money collected from motor taxation goes into a consolidated fund from which moneys are voted annually by Parliament. Surely it would not be beyond the wit of man and the Treasury to devise some form of security for a road loan, which I am convinced is the only way by which this country will get a properly balanced and efficient road system in a measurable distance of time. If the proposed loan were sponsored by Her Majesty's Government I understand there would be no

77
difficulty in obtaining the money from the public, provided that the terms of issue, interest and redemption dates, were carefully adjusted to the state of the stock market at the time of issue. A road loan of some £500 should like to see a figure of £800 million—could not, of course, he spent all at once, and would probably be raised gradually over a period of years. In fact, we might have several road stocks on the market at the same time, as is the case with the nationalised industries.
But apart from the mere financial mechanism of a road loan, I have little doubt that the second hesitation on the part of Her Majesty's Government results from a decision as to the employment of the nation's investment resources as represented by physical assets—physical assets being labour and materials at a time of full employment, when diversion might become necessary for a major road scheme. I suggest that such a diversion t would be of only a comparatively small nature and would be unlikely to have any adverse effect on other works that are now being carried on in the country. I suggest, too, that very little labour is required with the modern large-scale mechanisation processes which are available for roadmaking to-day. I should like to spend a few moment in going into one or two technical details. It may not be generally known that one mechanised spreader with a team of two men, assisted by a gang of five, can lay five times as much bitumen material per hour as a gang of eight men can lay per hour by hand. That, of course, is a tremendous improvement on road laying in the old days. With modern technique, the direct labour force required for road construction and maintenance is comparatively small.
It may be argued also that engineering firms who construct road mechanical instruments are engaged in vital export work. This may well be true, but surely we ought to keep a certain perspective about these matters. Is it not possible to increase the capacity of these firms so that more road machinery can be produced? I think that can be done. I wonder whether it has ever been really looked into. In any case, with our export market, which is daily becoming more difficult, any road improvements which result in a freer flow of traffic will reduce
78
transport costs and, of course, the export price of the article. When we examine the question of materials we are certainly not faced with difficulties about foreign exchange, because what we really want is stone from British quarries, and cement, and we have no difficulty about getting those. The importance of road transport as a factor of production is not always appreciated. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has given certain figures of money spent on road transport. I will put it in another way, by saying that 70 per cent. of all goods traffic is carried by road, and 85 per cent. of the total expenditure on road transport relates to commercial traffic. I think it can be assessed that commercial road use accounts for some 10 per cent. of the total cost of production and distribution. I was most interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, put this figure very much higher, and I think that may be true. This figure of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., as it may be, could well be lowered with an efficient road system, and our position in the export market thereby improved.
There has been a tremendous increase in the density of road traffic in recent years. I think that this density figure was touched upon by Lord Brabazon of Tara. I should like to give one or two more figures. For every three vehicles on the roads in 1939, there are now five. Motor cars have increased by 700,000 and motor cycles have more than doubled in number; in fact, they now number almost a million. But what is important to note is that goods vehicles have almost doubled in number, arid now stand at the figure of 909,000. The great increase in road vehicles is due to the great industrial developments which have occurred since the war. The index of industrial production has risen from a figure of, I believe, 87 in 1946 to 132 in November, 1953. Therefore, we can readily see the reason for this tremendous increase in road vehicles. It is obvious that all this activity and construction has greatly stimulated the need for more road transport upon which, to a large extent, the development depends.
And yet, in spite of the enormous capital investment in these industries, little provision has been made for a corresponding treatment of the roads. Between the years 1948 and 1953, a mere five years,

79
the density of traffic in Britain has increased from 18·6 vehicles per mile of road to 26·2 vehicles. What do we find when we look at the density figures of other countries? They are rather surprising. If we take the figure for Britain as something over 11,000 vehicles per 1,000 kilometres, we find that West Germany comes next with just over 10,000 vehicles, then the United States with just over 9,000, Belgium, with just over 7,000 and lastly France with over 2,000. So, in fact, we have the highest density figures for vehicle traffic in the world. There is every reason to believe that the growth in the numbers of road vehicles will continue, and very serious congestion and delays are mounting up from day to day. I suggest that if drastic action is not taken on the lines which I have suggested, it will be only a matter of time before road transport will be virtually slowed down to a completely uneconomic level.
4.4 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be held discourteous to the noble Lord who introduced this subject if I do not follow the appeal which he made that the House should confine itself very largely to the commercial and economic effects of the inadequacy of our roads. I should be sorry if anything which I or any subsequent speaker said detracted in any way from the very powerful statement which the noble Lord made. I need hardly say that I agree entirely with what Lord Brabazon said about the increasing gravity of the position and the importance of taking action as soon as possible. However, I want to support the argument which he has advanced by saying that the inadequacy of our road system is one of the causes of the appalling fatalities which are taking place, day after day, month after month. It is difficult to appreciate how grave and how numerous these casualties are. I will inflict upon the House as few figures as possible, but I must remind your Lordships of the position. Last year, over 5,000 persons were killed on the roads—that is equivalent to the population of a market town like either Marlborough or Wells—and the total number of casualties, including the killed, on the roads last year was over 220,000—that is to say, the equivalent of a population such as is found in
80
a great city like Plymouth or Southampton. I should have found it very difficult to listen to a debate in your Lordships' House on the inadequacy of the roads without rising to draw attention to the fatalities and the casualties which are always occurring largely because our roads were made for quite different conditions from those in which they are being used to-day.
It is difficult to bring home to the country the gravity of the position. I notice that in his News Letter, Commander Stephen King-Hall made the somewhat original suggestion that in our big towns 5,000 volunteers should slowly walk through the towns saying, "We are the 5,000 who were killed last year," preceded by bands playing funeral marches. I am afraid that to adopt that suggestion might increase the number of casualties in that particular town on that occasion, but it is of real importance that, in some way or another, the country as a whole should be brought to realise much more than it does the gravity of the present position. The heaviest toll, I think, so far as pedestrians are concerned, falls upon the very young and upon the elderly or the aged. In 1952, there were just on 24,000 casualties to young children, and there were over 65 casualties—either fatal or not so serious—to children every day. Among the old—that is, people over 60, for that seems to be the popular definition of "old age"—in that year the casualties amounted to over 1,300 killed and over 22,000 injured.
I was interested to read the Report by a voluntary society on the causes of fatalities among those between the ages of 60 and 80. The first cause given is that such people are more absent-minded than younger ones—though personally I should repudiate that statement. The Report goes on to say (and this is quite true) that these old people are less agile and have less acute hearing and vision. The Report uses the comforting phrase
" Although the old arc less teachable than the young they are still capable of learning and profiting from wise advice about road usage."
Whatever may be the causes of the casualties among young and old, it is humiliating that, at this time in our civilisation, so many young and so many old should be sacrificed in this kind of way on the roads. I feel this is partly due to

81
the tremendous congestion on our roads, which means increasing strain on the drivers of vehicles; to the fact that many roads suddenly become narrow or have sharp blind corners. All these causes help to increase the number of casualties. I was reading a report from the West Riding Constabulary of Yorkshire which was issued I think, only two days ago, on road accidents. In this report it was stated that the type of road or road junction where most accidents occurred was a straight stretch followed by "T" or "Y" junctions, a slight curve and cross roads. And there is general agreement that a large number of these accidents are due to the congestion on, arid the condition of, our roads.
The condition of the roads, however, is not the only cause of accidents. Improve the roads as much as we can, unless there is an increasing sense of responsibility on the part of all users of the roads, accidents will continue. I know it to be grossly unfair to say that any one class of road user is responsible for all these accidents. Those of us who have to use the roads frequently—and I am in my car day after day, afternoon and evening, sometimes at nights, in the roads in the North of England—know that the condition of the road is:not the only cause of accidents, and that it is not only the motorist who causes accidents. But the motorist has a very special responsibility. He has the instrument which kills. If there is an error of judgment on the part of a child or an old man, he may pay the penalty of that misjudgment with his life. The motorist who makes an error of judgment probably does not pay the penalty with his own life, but the pedestrian, the child or the cyclist has to pay for the motorist's error of judgment We have to face the fact that, however goad the roads are, there is a class of motorist who is selfish and callous, who uses the roads without regard to any others who use it. Perhaps I may quote what I regard as a remarkable description of the psychology of this minority—and it is only a minority—of selfish users of the road. It occurs not in a strictly scientific hook, but in The Wind in the Willows. The writer describes his character, Toad, as getting into the driving seat, then goes on:
" … as if in a dream, all sense of right and wrong, all fear of obvious consequences, seemed temporarily suspended. He increased
82
his pace, and as the car devoured the street and leapt forth on the high road through the open country, he was only conscious that he was Toad once more, Toad at his best and highest, Toad the terror, the traffic-queller, the Lord of the lone trail, before whom all must give way or be smitten into nothingness and everlasting night."
I think that is a true description of the minority of motorists who make the roads a real terror.
One of the problems in dealing with the inadequacy of our roads is how this minority should be dealt with. Not long ago I was bold enough to make a tentative suggestion that when a motorist had been frequently convicted of careless or dangerous driving, his car should be confiscated. That suggestion did not meet with general approval. I had a certain number of letters warmly approving it, especially, I think, from those who did not own their own cars, and I received vigorous protests from a number of those who did own cats. I am convinced that this suggestion is not a practical one. It would have meant simply that the wealthy owner of a car would have bought another and used the roads again. I think the right solution is a stricter enforcement of existing laws. In many cases the existing road laws are ignored. I am not suggesting that the kind of penalty that was put on Toad, whom I have just been describing, should be put on the road user. If I remember aright, that penalty was one year for stealing the car, two years for speeding, eighteen for cheating the police and one extra year from the magistrates "to be sure they were on the safe side." I am not proposing drastic penalties like that, but I do say that the road user who time after time has been shown to be so careless that he has caused injury to life and limb ought to have his licence suspended for a very long time—and in some cases it ought to be withdrawn altogether.
Most of our magistrates use fully and rightly the powers they possess, but not always. Some of our magistrates are extremely lax and lenient in this matter. I will mention just one case. At the beginning of last year, in a dense part of a narrow road, a motorist passed three cars which were one behind the other and collided head on with a car coming in the other direction. The cars were badly damaged, and the two occupants of the car into which he ran, a man and wife, were seriously injured; one

83
has not altogether recovered even yet from the effects of the collision. The motorist who had passed the other cars was brought before the local magistrates, and they refused to convict him for dangerous driving. The bad conditions prevailing, they said, prevented them from convicting for dangerous driving (a strange reason, I should have thought) but they convicted him of driving without due care and attention, and in that category they regarded it as a serious case. They fined the offender £20 and suspended his licence for one month only, notwithstanding that on a number of occasions in the last two years he had been convicted of speeding. That is simply encouraging laxity on the roads.
I am sorry that I have wandered some way from the lines laid down by the noble Lord who introduced the Motion, but I felt that this was an opportunity of pointing out that, serious as is the inadequacy of our roads, that is not the only cause of motor accidents. I am glad the noble Lord has raised this question and I support him most warmly. I would end by saying that this is not only a question of law, there is also a moral question involved. Until the country as a whole realises the seriousness of the position and demands some more revolutionary change in our roads and, still more, until all road users realise their responsibility to others who use the roads, these casualties will continue to rise.
4.18 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords. I cannot imagine a debate on roads taking place without the intervention of the most reverend Primate. With much of what he has said I find myself in cordial agreement, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him. I want to get back to the subject matter of the Motion introduced by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. As previous speakers have pointed out, there is a steady worsening of road conditions. The increase in traffic that is going on at the rate of 300,000 to 400,000 cars a year makes that certain. There is also a steady piling up of arrears of maintenance. It seems to me there has been a hopeless lack of vision by successive Governments, who have paid little enough attention to the fact that roads being built to-day will have to last for a very long time. That means
84
that those who design and lay out new roads have to think a long way ahead, and the Government must make certain that the design and lay-out adopted are of the latest possible pattern. As has been truly said by the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, roads to-day are hopelessly over-trafficked, both in the cities and in the country, and many of our classified roads are well known to be accident prone. We have heard a lot about black spots. It has always seemed to me. from the allusions made by people to black spots, that this is an easy problem with which to deal. There are over 50,000 black spots in this country to-day, and if I were to suggest anything to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is to reply, it would be that the whole of Lancashire is a black spot. To my mind, widening and improvement of our roads is essential.
Your Lordships have great experience in these matters, but I want to recall to you the conditions existing to-day, although they really speak for themselves. Let me take A.1, to which the noble Lord. Lord Brabazon. drew attention. You start off down A.1, and you probably go through Finchley and out by the Great North Way. You then come to the intersection of the Great North Way and the North Circular Road. There you always have an appalling block. Such blocks are not found in cities abroad, where they deal with the problem differently. What is there to prevent the Government from improving that intersection by means of an overhead bridge to take the traffic clear of London? There is an enormous flow of traffic passing over that road intersection, and I feel that the intersection should be dealt with. You then go along the Barnet by-pass and eventually arrive at Stevenage. A new town has been built at Stevenage, but there is no new road. The road is just as we have always known it for the last twenty or thirty years—it has not even been widened. Two vehicles, one in each direction, can get along if they are careful but that is all. There we have established a new town, with a great centre of population. Surely, the Ministry of Transport, the Government or somebody will do something about it. But there is no evidence of this in the statement made in another place a few days ago by the Minister. You then arrive at Baldock, another small town

85
with right-angle turns in both directions, where, too, there is always a terrible block of traffic, controlled to a certain extent by traffic lights, but imposing further delay.
Then you come to Stamford—and many of your Lordships must know the conditions there: they are simply appalling. Through Stamford goes A.1, one of the greatest and most heavily trafficked trunk roads in the country. No improvements have been carried out in Stamford, I should think, for the last fifty or sixty years. The hold-ups that occur there are mainly due to heavy lorries and commercial traffic. The streets are so narrow that they find difficulty in getting round corners and passing each other. Then you arrive at Grantham, with further appalling traffic blocks. You go on to Retford—and I am glad to see that there this problem is probably going to be dealt with. Then you arrive at Doncaster, where, on occasions, the conditions are indescribable. If by any chance Doncaster Rovers are playing at home, or if the St. Leger is being run, heaven help anybody who tries to drive a lorry or any other form of motor vehicle through Doncaster! Can you wonder that accidents take place? Can you wonder at the appalling delays there are to traffic? In the Minister's statement it says that Doncaster Mill Bridge is going to be dealt with. I do not know which bridge is called Doncaster Mill Bridge. I do not know whether the noble Earl who is to reply can tell me whether it is one of the bridges on the main trunk road through Doncaster. Moreover, on the Great North Road there are long stretches where the road is so inadequate that there are notices on the side of the road saying "No passing" or "No overtaking." That sort of thing goes on for miles, and is repeated on many occasions, particularly on the part of the road that runs through Huntingdonshire— with good reason, I agree; but surely that is an appalling state of affairs.
Then there are other main roads. Let me take A.5. There you have a stretch from St. Albans to Markyate. Anybody who knows that stretch of road knows that there is single-line traffic in each direction. How many thousands of lorries pass down that road in the course of a day. I do not know, but the number is between 10,000 and 15,000. If anybody
86
wants to know what A.5 is like, he should take my tip and leave London between three and four in the morning and drive north. He will see a most extraordinary collection of traffic—if anything, heavier than in the daytime—with cars and lorries mixed up. It is worth doing, if only to see what conditions can be like. Then, further along you get to Atherstone.
Or take A.30, the road leading to Southampton, our premier port, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said. On many occasions in the summer it can take you anything from three-quarters of an hour to an hour and a half to get through Staines, which is not a large town. What are the Ministry of Transport going to do about that? There is no mention in the Minister's statement about Staines or Staines Bridge. You proceed further on. and arrive at Sunningdale. There you have a level crossing, right across the main road. You then come to Camberley, and from then on it is one-line traffic in each direction, with, very often, an extraordinary collection of military traffic. Large convoys of lorries are sent out on to that road carrying "L" plates, with the idea, I suppose, that the drivers should obtain experience in driving in heavy traffic. There are tanks on tank transporters. On more than one occasion, I have followed a tank transporter for ten or fifteen miles on that road, when it has caused a traffic block as much as two or three miles long. I remember, on one occasion, being on the stretch of road where there is the public-house at the top of the hill leading out of Bagshot, where the really narrow part of the road begins. From there you have a downhill stretch leading into Camberley. So far as I could see, the whole road was blocked by a tank transporter; and this block continued for miles.
Then you can go east, on A.12, to Brentwood, Romfard, Ingatestone, and so on. It is commonplace in the summer months to have traffic blocks there two or three miles long. Then take the High Wycombe—Oxford road. I have had a good deal of correspondence with the Chief Constable of Oxford about A.40, and he has given it to me as his opinion that A.40 is a death-trap. But what are the Ministry of Transport going to do about this death-trap? There is no doubt that the traffic will go on increasing. Then

87
you get A.4, which goes through Slough, Maidenhead, and so on, where the conditions arc the same. Then there is A.2, to Rochester and Dover, where similar conditions exist; and A.22, to East Grinstead and Forest Row. So one can go on up and down the country, with appalling conditions everywhere. In Lancashire it is a by-word that the accident rate there is 2·5 per cent. worse than the whole of the average for the rest of the country. According to the Minister's statement, nothing is likely to be done for any section of the roads of Lancashire for at least two to four years. To-day there are at least 66 per cent. more vehicles on the roads than there were in 1948; commercial traffic has more than doubled, and it is carrying far heavier loads; buses and coaches have increased by 50 per cent.—and this increase is going on steadily all the time. But what is much worse is that we are threatened with the advent of the "people's car." Those who are interested in motor vehicles, motor shows and the like, will remember at the last Motor Show the number of new small cars which were exhibited. When the factories really get busy, and those cars begin to come out in large numbers, what then'? I wonder what the Government's idea is? I wonder what they think is going to happen? They must have some idea, but we have not yet been told what it is. I am glad to think that one of the noble Lords who is to reply to this debate, by reason of experience, is one of the most experienced Members of your Lordships' House on the subject of roads, road accidents, and everything connected with roads—I refer to a former member of the Alness Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. We who know anything about roads know the value of the Alness Report, and the subsequent Reports which have been issued from time to time have in no way detracted from the extreme importance of the deliberations of the Alness Committee. I am hopeful that the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, will be able to give us some hope with regard to some of these things.
It has already been stated that traffic density on our roads is the greatest in the world. It is roughly three times that of France, and is increasing steadily. Then again, there has been an enormous increase in agricultural traffic, and that
88
increase is still going on. There are also new housing estates, new towns and new factories. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, gave us some particulars about what it means to run a factory. There is another circumstance to which reference has not been made. There are over 3,000 weak bridges on our roads, of which over 1,700 are on trunk roads or Class A roads. What on earth are the Ministry of Transport going to do about that? It means that at the present moment if a heavy load has to go by road—and enormous loads are going by road, be they transformers, ships' propellers or the enormous things called, I think, cracking towers, used for the production of petrol—as a result of the weak bridges, the low bridges, or the general inadequacy of the roads, they have to go 100 to 150 miles round in order to get to their destination which may be only a few miles away. Only a few days ago, one of these heavy loads had to go from Rochester to the other side of the river, and it had to go all round Bromley, then up to Hendon, and then come back again somehow to the London Docks to get there.
The Ministry of Transport have told us nothing about another problem. There are 108 level crossings across trunk roads in this country. There is a proposal on the part of the Ministry of Transport to remove one of them, but 107 will still remain, according to my elementary mathematics. What on earth is the Minister going to do? In the Lancashire area, the level crossings are closed for about twenty minutes in every hour, and the hold-ups in consequence are colossal, but nothing seems to be done. Then again, on our trunk roads, 1,465 miles are restricted roads under the 30 m.p.h. limit. Is that not in itself a commentary on the adequacy or otherwise of our trunk roads? It does not seem to me that the Government realise that the roads are one of our most vital items of capital equipment. They seem to think that their duty to the nation is fulfilled by scattering traffic lights and roundabouts—very often of poor design and inadequate radius—pedestrian crossings, cycle tracks and footpaths all over the country. On the Watford by-pass, the Ministry constructed a roundabout which was so small that a lorry and trailer could not possibly get round without going

89
over the grass. I believe that roundabout has been improved now, but no doubt it was originally put down with the Minister's approval. It shows what can happen. Things like traffic lights, roundabouts, and so on, are merely palliatives and are no answer to the modern conditions of traffic. And it is not what is being done abroad, as everybody knows.
As regards London, we have been told about Kingsway. What about the Kings-way tunnel? It is vacant, and nobody is using it at the present time. Could not some use be found for it? Again, when we consider London, with a little bit of vision and looking ahead, what would be the effect of an under-pass, a tunnel, at Oxford Circus and similar road intersections? Would that not do a considerable amount to relieve traffic congestion at such points. What about a fly-over system at Shepherds Bush, and at the Junction of Hanger Lane and Western Avenue and the Great North Way and the North Circular Road? What about the arcading of streets? Is nothing being done to encourage that, or to encourage the construction of elevated roads? We shall have to come to these things, and meanwhile the present state of congestion goes on. What about treating the Great West Road and the Western Avenue as, for instance, Paris has treated the Autoroute de L'ouest? There is a great motor road where no line of traffic ever crosses another. What about something done on those lines?
Again, go to the lower Thames. the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel. We are spending £10,000 a year to keep that vacant. Does that not speak for itself? Either blow it up or make it into a tunnel, but do not go on wasting money like that. Italy, Germany, France, the United States and Belgium, have shown the world what motor roads can do, and that method is being followed by Yugoslavia, Austria, Japan, Sweden, Canada and Equador. Perhaps it is better to be defeated in war. Perhaps if we had beer defeated in the last war by now we should have had a fine system of motorways. It seems an extraordinary thing to he told that all these other countries can have these things and we cannot afford them in this country. I suggest that this means that we are trying to increase our production and compete with other countries by using a second, or third-rate road system.
90
In the teeth of the need, how can we possibly go on in this way?
Reference has been made to what the motor world is paying in taxation. As we all know, it is about £1 million per day. It has been estimated that the requirements of a modern motorway—I could. give your Lordships many figures, but I do not wish to inflict them upon you—would mean a considerable amount in tonnage of steel, cement, stone, sand, and bitumen, and also machinery. In this country we have a tremendous amount of machinery which was purchased for the laying down of airfields and paid for with dollars, and which is idle and doing nothing at the present time. Surely, we could make use of that.
I should like to turn now to the question of a road loan and toll roads. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not find it possible to support the idea of a road loan or toll roads. It seems to me that, as things are going now, if we are going to wait for the Exchequer to provide us with the roads which this courtry must have, we must have either a loan or toll roads, or perhaps a little of both. The toll roads which have been laid down in America, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, have been paying an enormous revenue. The Pennsylvania turnpike is paying £5,749 per year, and the New Jersey turnpike, £3,340; and New York has laid out a toll road which is going to bring in an estimated return of £8,899 a year. If we could have a loan for the purpose of the construction of roads, which could be administered by a big board and which would not be subject to a change of Government or perhaps the demands of a needy Chancellor of the Exchequer, road construction and road improvement in this country would be properly financed. It seems to me that if a road could be administered as a toll road it would bring in a certain return to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and would enable the enterprise to be much more of an economic proposition in other ways.
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time but I wanted to put these few arguments before you. I submit that we have a right to a considered long-term policy with regard to roads instead of the rather hand-to-mouth policy pursued at present. If we had a

91
£500 million programme to cover a period of about ten years, road construction could go forward in accordance with the needs of the country as we know them to-day. I am certain that it will be no use for anyone who is replying to this debate to say, in effect, "Well, there it is: nothing can be done." It can be done and it must be done; and if the present Government do not do it there will certainly be a considerable demand at the next Election for something to be done and there will also be some difficult questions to answer. I hope the Government will give careful attention to the points which have been put forward to-day by myself and by other noble Lords who have spoken.
4.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in his interesting opening speech, confined himself mainly to discussing and suggesting new methods of financing better roads, such as tolls, loans, and so forth. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, also said something about that. All these aspects of our problem will be fully dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. when he comes to wind up this debate, and I propose, with your Lordships' permission. to concern myself in my remarks only with the question of safety on the roads. I thought, if I may say so, that we had a very fine speech from the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York—as indeed we have on many previous occasions. I sincerely hope that in the course of my observations he will find some, at least, of his objections sympathetically, if not fully, answered.
I would emphasise, first of all, that the last thing I want is to be thought to display any complacency in the matter of road accidents. I have sometimes thought certain Members of your Lordships' House felt that those who were called upon to answer these questions were almost completely without interest in the matter. That, of course, is certainly not true. I personally have always admired all the Members of your Lordships' House who form part of a very well organised and efficient body who have for years been selflessly concerning themselves with the horrible carnage on the
92
roads. I had a rather alarming interview with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, yesterday, but he has been so pleasant to me to-day that I shall certainly remove from my brief some observations that I had intended to make. I think it would be rather difficult for me to answer Lord Howe because, starved as I am of modern travel, he took me on a very rapid tour, starting from Scotland, which is perhaps the province of my noble friend Lord Selkirk more than mine, and I really shall not attempt to answer the questions. I will, however, find out the answers later and acquaint the noble Earl with them.
I think that all sensible people nowadays realise that accidents are due to a combination of circumstances. There was a time, well within your Lordships' recollection, when the wicked motorist, almost like a figure in Victorian melodrama, was automatically the "villain of the piece." Nowadays, I think, we realise that speed, as such, in a modern vehicle is not necessarily dangerous. I had understood that at this point the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, was going to raise the question of the alcoholic motorist. Perhaps I may point out that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will answer the point if it is raised.
LORD MATHERS: I shall be raising it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Lord Selkirk will deal with the matter. We can derive only very bleak comfort from statistics in this matter and it is because I am particularly anxious to be honest with your Lordships that I propose to quote these rather appalling figures. In 1953, 226,500 people were killed or injured on the roads. Except for 1952, when road casualties fell by about 4 per cent., perhaps largely because of the new policy relating to zebra crossings, casualties have shown a steady increase. In 1953, there were 28 per cent, more than in 1949 and only 3 per cent. less than the worst year on record, which was 1934. December, 1953, moreover, was the worst December for which we have any records. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not think I am endeavouring to conceal any of these harsh facts; every word which the most reverend Primate said is, I am afraid, true.
On the other hand, it is perhaps permissible to note certain factors which may help to put the question in a slightly

93
more favourable perspective. The population has increased by some 4 million in the last ten years, and the number of motor vehicles licensed is to-day more than twice what it was in 1934. The number of vehicles licensed is, of course, not altogether a reliable guide to the density of the actual traffic on the roads, but a pilot census taken in August, 1953, suggests that actual traffic may have in-creased by nearly 25 per cent. since 1938. Nevertheless, road casualties for every 10,000 mechanically propelled vehicles have fallen from 816 in 1930 to 429 in 1953. Moreover, the rates per 100,000 inhabitants of deaths caused by motor traffic accidents in England and Wales are only about half what they are in the United States and Canada.
I give these figures for what they a re worth: I am not saying there is anything particularly encouraging in them. Bat when we considered these matters when the situation appeared so terrible, in 1938 and 1939, every member of the Alness Committee was agreed as to the apathy with which these ghastly figures were regarded by the public. In a debate on the roads in another place, someone—I cannot remember which Member of Parliament it was, but the question was answered by Mr. Hugh Molson—asked why these appalling figures were so supinely regarded by the British public. He said that if this kind of thing happened on British railways, or in B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., the British public would rise in its wrath. And I believe that is true. Mr. Molson said—and this is the only explanation I have ever heard given—that while the driver of an express tram is a highly qualified and highly trained man, who is responsible for the lives of a thousand people, or however many there may be on the train; and while the commander of au aircraft is similarly trained, when it comes to roads, although the tests are better than they were before, there are none the less millions of people who can take out licences, So that may be the answer. But. the hard fact of the matter remains that we get nearly 250,000 road casualties every year, and the number is tending to increase.
In these circumstances, it seems clear that there are limits to what the Government can do to reduce road accidents, since the cause of accidents, as I think everyone now agrees, depends to a considerable extent upon personal behaviour.
94
This does not mean, of course, that more should not be done by the Government—indeed, I can assure your Lordships that they intend to do a great deal more. But a very great effort is required on the part of the Government to reduce accidents, while a very small general improvement in behaviour would result in a great reduction in road accidents. I shall try to tell your Lordships, as briefly as I can, the measures we have in mind for combating this horrible disease. Human nature being what it is—and this is my own opinion, rather than that of anyone else—I say that segregation of traffic, with foolproof roads. cycle tracks, pedestrian paths, fly-over bridges, modern non-skid surfaces and all the rest of it, must remain the most desirable of all panaceas, alas! a hideously expensive one, for this ill. I do not think I. am far off the mark in saying that a modern dual carriageway road, with all these extra things to which I have referred, costs something like £200,000 sterling per mile, which gives one some indication of what problems the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to cope with when he is confronted with wild demands for a wholesale extension of the roads.
I shall also hope to convince your Lordships that we are strongly interested, apart from these radical things, in collateral measures. Youth, with its marvellous aptitudes, offers great opportunities for the formation in childhood of strong habits of self-preservation. I am sure that the most reverent Primate will agree with me there. Of course, we should concentrate on the young One of your Lordships said, I think (I may be wrong), that the young are very dangerous at the wheel and that the young consider the old become progressively more incompetent. It is not for me to say which is right. But, so far as road safety education goes, I must give your Lordships the facts. Since 1946, a continuous road safety education campaign has been carried on, the main cost of which has been borne by the Ministry of Transport, through the Road Fund—although some of your Lordships may well doubt that there is much left out of it. Since the initiation of this campaign, practically £3 million has been paid. by way of grants to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and to local road safety committees, of which there are about a

95
thousand, spread all over Great Britain. These committees obtain a 50 per cent. grant towards approved activities. The direct use by the Ministry of Press advertisement and posters has been discontinued and, so far as the Central Government are concerned, the present method is to create news through ministerial speeches, statements of policy, and so on, which are recorded in the news columns of the newspapers and on the wireless. The Government intend to continue this policy of road safety education, which has been one of the main weapons against road accidents in the last ten years.
I should like now to say a few words on road improvements. It has not been possible in the last few years—I frankly admit it—to spend as much money as we should have wished on roads; but, nevertheless, from such resources as have been available a good deal has been spent on trying to improve places where accidents occur too frequently, places that are known as "black spots" For example, in 1952–53 and in 1953–54, when, I must remind your Lordships, extremely little money was available for road improvements, the Exchequer contributed some £2,250,000 towards a total expenditure of some £3 million for improving black spots, and from the increasing allocation for roads in the new road programme beginning in the next financial year the removal of those black spots will be given high priority. With regard to legislation and enforcement, I should like to say something about the police. On the enforcement side of road safety, a number of extremely important points arise. The Minister is in close touch with the Home Secretary to sec what can be done to increase the number of mobile police to enforce the road traffic law. There can be no doubt whatever, as the result of observation, that the presence of uniformed policemen on the roads, whether in the form of mobile patrols or otherwise, makes a considerable contribution to road safety. Discussions are now going on with the local authorities' associations, and with chief officers of police, to see whether a satisfactory scheme can be evolved which, notwithstanding the present difficulties of police manpower, which have always to be borne in mind,
96
will result in more police vehicles being put on the roads for the work of enforcing these traffic laws.
Now I should like to say a few words about the new Road Traffic Bill, which it is intended to introduce as soon as possible—though it may not be possible, I should warn your Lordships, before the 1954–55 Session. The Bill will amend the Road Traffic Acts and contain a number of provisions designed to promote road safety. It is obviously impossible for me or my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, at this stage of the proceedings, to reveal the contents of the Bill in any detail, but it may be useful to quote the words of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport in another place recently when he said, in answer to a question:
".My right honourable friend knows the amount of consultation necessary to make this a generally acceptable proposal. It is bound to be controversial. It will not, I hope, be controversial along limited Party political lines, but it is bound to be controversial and I personally prefer to try to get the difficulties out of the way as far as possible before I present the Bill to the House."
I think I cannot go any further than that. May I say a few words now about a matter which I regard as of extreme importance; that is, vehicle lighting regulations. I am afraid that this matter has taken a long time, but the problem is not yet completely solved. A Bill was passed last Session which will increase the requirements for rear lights and reflectors on vehicles. This was in another place a Private Member's Bill introduced by Colonel Harrison, but the Government gave strong support to the Bill when it was being prepared. When the provisions come fully into force, the improvement in rear lights on vehicles will undoubtedly mean a reduction in the number of particularly nasty accidents caused by vehicles running into one another at night.
My Lords, I have only one more thing to say, on the subject of a Royal Commission. I would ask your Lordships on all sides of the House to agree with me about this. From time to time suggestions are made that, in view of the increasing seriousness of road accidents, a Royal Commission should be held to investigate them. This suggestion is strongly pressed by, for example, the powerful Pedestrians' Association, whose President is a very distinguished jurist, Dr. Goodhart, the Master of University

97
College, Oxford. The reply might be—it is the reply that I would make —that what is required at present is action rather than a Commission or further Committees, of which we have had plenty. In fact, all your Lordships are asking for action to-day, and I entirely agree. Let us have it as quickly as possible. May I take your Lordships over the number of Committees which have already threshed out this problem? There was the Select Committee of the House of Lords under Lord Alness, which went into the whole question of road accidents and reported in 1939. I do not think that particular Report has ever been superseded. At the end of the war the predecessor of the present Departmental Committee on Road Safety reviewed the Alness Report and issued two further Reports, an Interim one in 1944 and the Final one in 1947. These Reports endorsed a large number of the recommendations of the Alness Committee, and it may be expected that those recommendations of the Departmental Committee which the Government have decided to accept, and which require legislation, will undoubtedly form part of the forthcoming Road Traffic Bill.
There is also now in being a standing National Committee of Road Safety under the chairmanship of one of the Joint. Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, Mr. Hugh Molson, to whom I referred a few moments ago. It is widely representative of local authorities, the police, road user organisations, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and Government Departments—in fact, almost all the bodies concerned with road accidents. This Committee has produced a number of reports, including reports on the Highway Code and accidents to motor cyclists, and is about to issue a report on massed-start cycle racing, which I understand is thought to be dangerous. This body is always available to deal with questions, either on its own initiative or on instructions from the Minister. My Lords, I would say that if the Government wished to delay all important action on road safety for at least two years, they could hardly do better than agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission; but they do not want to do that In regard to the High-
98
way Code,, I should say that a new version of the Highway Code, approved by the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, is now nearly complete and will be ready to be submitted for statutory approval of both Houses of Parliament before long. I am afraid that this matter has taken a long time, for which apologies are made, but the Committee's comments have tad to be considered and extensive redrafting of the Code has had to be carried out.
I most humbly apologise to your Lordships for detaining you so long. I have tried 10 be as quick as. I can, but I have only scratched at the surface of the subject. I have, as I said, attempted to confine myself to the physical aspects of the prevention of road accidents. My noble friend, Lord Selkirk, who will wind up this debate, will deal with all the questions relating to the financing of road construction—such little afterthoughts as Sir Gurney Braithwaite's loan and other matters of that kind, and also, of course, the question of tolls, in which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is interested. I am convinced that your Lordships will realise that Her Majesty's Government are not trying to avoid this most horrible problem. I can assure your Lordships personally that we regard this most sincerely as a monstrous social evil which we are longing to eradicate.
5.5 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, to-day I break six years of silence—in your Lordships' House. I felt that I should add those words in case it he thought that the area of my silence has; been more extensive than in fact it has been. Nevertheless. I now enjoy a greater measure of freedom, which I hope I shall exercise with no less responsibility. I am greatly pleased that my initial re-entry into the "agitations" of your Lordships' House (to quote the words of one of the ancient Standing Orders) should be in connection with a subject with which I have been associated especially in London, first in the government of London, and secondly in the administration of most of its passenger transport. I think that, notwithstanding the many debates which have taken place on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has served a useful purpose in once again drawing to the attention of this House, and through this House to the attention of the

99
people at large, the gathering gravity of this problem of the inadequacy and inefficiency of our road system. Most of us know that this is leading to a growing congestion which is slowing down the movement of traffic on our roads and streets to something near immobility.
I shall say nothing with regard to the important and human element of the accidents which arise from our outmoded road system. The most reverend Primate has made a powerful contribution in regard to that deplorable aspect of the matter. I would only say that it is a little unflattering, but a very grim fact, that the Queen's highways are no longer safe for the Queen's subjects. I wish to deal with the matter from the point of view of the economic waste which arises from the present inadequate system of highways—a national waste which is an avoidable waste and a waste which we cannot afford. The waste of manpower and of materials, a fair proportion of which is imported, is growing every day with the continuing growth of congestion on our roads. The total cost to the nation must be something terrifying to contemplate. As some indication, as a sort of means of measurement, the London County Council estimate that for the central area of London, congestion costs something in the region of £7 million a year; and as regards the county as a whole, the cost has been variously estimated at up to £70 million per annum. However approximate those figures are, and, indeed, must be, however much they may be written down, they are some indication of the enormity of the national cost arising from our inefficient and outmoded road system.
Reference has been made this afternoon by my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to the statement frequently made, no doubt with justification, that we are pricing ourselves out of the world's markets. What we are doing is to transport ourselves out of the world's markets. We are seeking everywhere, and properly so, increased production on the one hand, and we are wasting it on the other. We ask for more efficiency in our factories, and we see our roads daily becoming less and less efficient. As Lord Lucas of Chilworth has indicated, roads must now, from an economic point of view, be regarded as a projection, as it were, of the production lines of the factories, and of the ways of distribution.
100
The problem of traffic congestion is no new one. It has been with us for thirty years or more, and for thirty years we have refused resolutely to deal with it. We have been able, happily, to stave off the approach of something nearing stagnation on our roads and streets by the adoption of quite a number of diverse but useful devices and expedients, such as traffic lights, roundabouts, one-way working, unilateral parking, and no-waiting. These have been admirable reliefs, but the tragedy of it is that the benefit of those reliefs has been overtaken by the growth of traffic. And those reliefs cannot be repeated. Their contribution to the reduction of congestion is exhausted. We can no longer look to them as alternatives and substitutes for a thorough scheme of road improvement and road reconstruction. The position was bad enough, in all conscience, before the war, but, as has been indicated this afternoon, it is infinitely worse now. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in the number of vehicles on the roads since before the war. In London alone, the number of vehicles licensed has gone up by 27 per cent. What a pity, and what a commentary upon our lack of wisdom in deferring so many needed road improvements between the wars, when there was no shortage of materials, when there was no shortage of labour, when there were hundreds of thousands of the citizens of this country unemployed! It is the case that the deferment of necessary projects is seldom economical; it is more often the reverse. We must now face the situation that these improvements will cost us something like three times as much as they would have done had they been carried out between the wars. Now we can no longer defer, because this problem is gnawing at the very vitals of our nation.
I should like now to turn to the position in London with which I am more directly acquainted. I am not speaking only as a "former boss of London" to use the infelicitous terms employed by the Minister in another place recently. I am seeking no undue priority for London. I am giving certain facts as regards London as a quantitative example of what the general problem is. But let us not forget this—London is the capital of the Commonwealth. It is the largest unitary production and distribution area

101
in this country. It is the largest port in this country, and one of the largest ports in the world. There are 28,000 separate factories in the County of London alone. So London cannot be overlooked. The conditions which prevail in London are more or less typical of those to be found in most big cities and most built-up towns. The degree of acuteness may be different, but we are all sufferers from this failure to provide and maintain an up-to-date road system. According to the Police Census of 1952, the traffic of Greater London had increased by 6 per cent. over that in 1939. But in the central area of London, namely, the City and the West End— and this is where we find the real congestion—the number of vehicles entering and leaving had increased between those two dates by no less than 13 per cent.
It may interest your Lordships to have a break-down of that 13 per cent. because it does materially affect the scale of the problem. Commercial vehicles increased by 35 per cent., taxi-cabs by 8 per cent., other vehicles, namely, motor-cycles and auto-cycles, by 9 per cent., and private cars by 10 per cent. In that connection, I should mention that the number of private cars registered in London increased between 1952, when this census was taken, and September of last year by no less than 10 per cent. Off-set against those figures of increases, there was a decrease in public vehicles entering and leaving the central area of 9 per cent. Those public vehicles were mainly buses.
I should like to say a word or two about buses. There is much misconception and misunderstanding as to the impact of buses on congestion in the inner areas of London. It is generally assumed that buses are mainly responsible for this congestion. That is not the case. The number of buses operating in the inner areas of London has decreased, while, at the same time, congestion has become worse. It follows that as decentralisation of population takes place, whether as the result of the building of new towns or of the building of large new housing estates, the volume of bus services necessary in the centre of London diminishes and the volume necessary outside, in the outer suburbs, increases. And that has been the case. Between 1939 and 1952 the number of buses in the central area of London went down by 12 per cent. the inner suburbs it went down by 1.5
102
per cent. But in the outer suburbs it went up by 19 per cent. Now it is the case that, measured per passenger, the bus is much more economical of road space than the private car. On the basis of the present-day average of twenty passengers per bus compared with the average of 1¾ passengers per private car (which is based upon very long observation), the bus occupies less than one-quarter of the road space per passenger that the private car does.
It has been suggested that that very substantial advantage is materially offset by the difference in speed. Well, as regards the outer suburbs there may be some materiality in that paint. But there is very little, if, indeed, any, in it in the congested central areas, because there the private car cannot, physically, go much. faster, if, indeed, any faster at all, than the bus. But even if it were possible to reduce substantially the number of buses operating in the central area, there are no grounds for assuming that the fluidity of traffic would he much improved. That is the view which we had generally formed in London Transport, and it has the advantage of some support from a test which was made in 1950. Your Lordships may recall that in September of that year there was a partial bus strike in London, and the Road Research Laboratory were good enough to take some tests in certain streets in the City and. West End. Those tests showed that although the number of buses had been reduced by something like 60 per cent. from normal, other vehicles quickly took their place, and the overall speed of traffic remained about the same.
May I say a word or two with regard to costs? I have already referred to the L.C.C. figures, but as is now generally known, London Transport estimate that if the speed of the Central London buses could be increased by one mile an hour, they would save something like £2 million a year. And there are other savings which could be effected by a freer movement of traffic. Congestion leads to many unnecesary stops and. starts. London Transport estimate—and the estimate has been carefully made—that every time a bus decelerates from 20 m.p.h. to stop, and accelerates from stop to 20 m.p.h., it costs over one farthing for fuel alone. There are 8.000 oil buses plying in Greater London. and if we contemplate

103
the myriads of stops and starts, a large number of them unnecessary, we get some indication of the cost; and that figure does not include the not inconsiderable unnecessary wear upon tyres, in particular, and on the wearing parts of vehicles in general. That loss or cost (whichever word one is pleased to use) is borne not only by buses, but by all vehicular traffic which uses the roads in congested areas. because it, too, has to stop and start unnecessarily.
Probably the most fruitful field for reducing the cost of passenger transport would be in the field of economies to be effected by road improvements. That is the case not only as regards London: I believe it to be the case as regards the whole country. But in London, the position since the war is most disturbing. Leaving aside the exceptional improvement which was occasioned by the Festival of Britain, normal street improvement in London has practically ceased. Apart from special projects, to one of which I have referred, since the war the average road grant for normal street improvements received by the L.C.C., which is the major improvement authority of London, has been no more than £13,000 per annum: and I believe that now it is even less than that paltry sum. In another place, the Minister said that the highway system of this country had been largely starved of development over the past fourteen years. So far as London, the Capital city of the Commonwealth, is concerned, the figure I have given indicates that it is starvation with refinement.
What is to be done? I think that every fair-minded person is driven to the feeling, I hope without political or Party bias. that the programme which has been submitted by the Government is utterly inadequate to meet the present needs of the situation. Unless something drastic is done. and done very soon, we may reach the state of traffic immobility and near-chaos which is to be found in many American cities. We may be compelled to ask the question which is frequently heard in those cities. "Shall we walk or have we time to take a taxi?" That may well be the position in London at a not too distant time, especially when we bear in mind that the L.C.C. estimate that there is likely to be a 50 per cent. increase in traffic in the county over the next twenty years
104
The noble Earl, Lord Howe. has referred to the coming of the "people's car," and to the effect that that will have on the road user and road inadequacy. In their Development Plan the L.C.C. had a twenty-year improvement programme, estimated to cost £90 million. This programme was not regarded as completely adequate to meet existing and contemplated needs, but it was felt that it would be a balanced contribution. Here, if I may, I should like to interpose a few remarks to put the figure of £90 million in proper perspective. It is the case with improvement in built-up, in-town areas that nearly 75 per cent. of the total expenditure on the improvement is in respect of the acquisition of property. Therefore it must not be assumed that a figure of £90 million for the total cost reflects an equivalent draft on materials and labour. In fact, the draft on materials and labour in respect of in-town street improvements is estimated to be from 20 to 25 per cent. That is an important aspect of in-town figures which should be borne in mind.
Contrast this plan for the County of London alone, with the programme for the whole country which the Government have authorised—not to be spent—of £50 million over the next three years. It is noteworthy that the list of projects in the Government's programme does not include a single one of the schemes scheduled by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee as being first priorities in the inner area of London. There is no word about the Hyde Park—Park Lane—Marble Arch scheme. yet 67,000 vehicles a day pass Hyde Park Corner, and 45,000 pass Marble Arch. The London Home Traffic Advisory Committee put that improvement at the top of the list of their first priorities; but there is not a word in regard to that in the Government's proposals.
Then we come to St. Giles's Circus. The London County Council regard this scheme as having priority even over Hyde Park. At St. Giles's Circus 27,000 vehicles pass each day. But there again there is no mention of it in the Government's proposals. I should like to refer to a third illustration—namely, the Notting Hill Gate widening. This bottleneck has been a trouble for the last forty years. Property was acquired thirty-five years

105
ago in respect of part of the scheme. I believe that it was the first "as and when scheme": the property was acquired as and when there was a change of ownership, or when a lease fell in. Seventy-five per cent. of the property has been acquired. Preliminary work was started by London Transport to amalgamate their two stations. Apart from the great value to traffic that this improvement scheme would create, if it were effected now it would save abortive expenditure by London Transport on the renewal of obsolete lifts at one of the stations. This is more waste.
The Middlesex County Council have major schemes which were formulated and planned before the war. They, too, have acquired a good deal of the necessary land. The total cost of these schemes is about £1,750,000. They are held up. But what is much more difficult to approve is that the ban on capital expenditure may well lead the Middlesex County. Council to spend money on reconstruction works on roads which they know will have to be re-positioned later. That is waste indeed. And, would you believe it, my Lords, the sum involved, for which approval cannot be secured, is no more than £500,000 ! I give those examples as illustrating the position which exists in Greater London generally, because they are typical in some respects of the position in the country as a whole.
In my view, what is wanted is not an excessively modest list of a few projects to be approved over three years. This is a long-term problem: it has been left so long that it has become so extended that one can hardly see the end of it; and the longer it is left the more extended it will become. This is not a problem for a short-term programme, or for short-term consideration. What is needed is not one programme but a series of comprehensive programmes, properly phased, for execution over the next twenty or, it may be, thirty years. I should like to emphasise the importance of the proper balance and phasing of such programmes and projects. We must avoid the experience of America, where, although millions of dollars have been spent on building parkways, speedways, throughways and all sorts of ways, very little money—in some cities hardly any at all—has been spent on removing the physical congestion in the centre of the cities. The result is that every morning thousands of cars
106
using these speedways, no doubt with joy, are delivered into the central areas of the city where they reach a state of almost complete immobility: you feel yourself fortunate if you calculate that you are moving at anything above one mile an hour. I remember that when I was in Chicago in 1948 I saw one great car park in which there were over 5,000 cars. Most of those cars would seek to get out of Chicago through the celebrated congested area called The Loop. They did get out, but their owners could have walked out much more quickly.
We must remember that better facilities beget new traffic. If we do improve the main roads, or build new ones, this improvement must be timed to coincide with improvements in the built-up inner areas, otherwise the benefits will be nullified and the problem in the inner areas of the cities and towns will be exacerbated. I know the attraction to county surveyors—of whom I would utter no word of criticism; they do a grand job of work for their respective counties, both on roads and elsewhere—of the relative speed with which they can carry through road improvements. They are not obstructed; they are not delayed by all the multiple complications of acquiring property, demolishing it, and so on. The county surveyor can put a road in green fields and say, "There, I have done it." It is an admirable thing to have done, but the value of that road is much reduced unless at the same time the streets in the cities and towns through which the additional traffic will go have been improved. When I asked in America why out-city improvements were lavishly supported, and in-city improvement; were not, I was told that it was due, perhaps (it was not said affirmatively), to the influence of the Cement Lobby at Washington, in association with the Automotive Lobby in Washington. I give that explanation for information.
I would also point out that in any scheme or programme of road improvements we must have regard to the use to which the roads are to be put. Somehow, by provision or otherwise, we must keep the roads free for the passage of traffic, and not for the parking of vehicles. On the assumpition, which all experience proves to be correct, that better facilities beget new traffic, we must be careful, even with our in-town improvements, to see

107
that, concurrently with, and in some cases perhaps in advance of, the street improvements, something is done to provide for off-street parking; otherwise the increase in the number of vehicles will completely nullify the value of the road improvement upon which money has been spent.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that I do not share the view of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth (I am sorry he is not here) with regard to a loan. I believe that the proposal to finance comprehensive long-term programmes of road improvement by way of loan has much to commend it. After all, the local authorities provide their contribution, which can be up to 25 per cent.—or, indeed, more—by way of loan, and they service the loan on their budgets each year. One of the great advantages of a loan would be that it would take the consideration of the expenditure out of the frustrations, the limitations, complexities and competitions of budgetary finance, and all that would have to be borne would be the service of the debt. It may well be, of course, that there would be calls upon material and labour which would have to be met at the expense of other sectors of the economy. I admit that. The test is whether that withdrawal would be less harmful to the economy of the nation than the inefficiency and inadequacy of our roads—and that can be established. It is a case of which is the better investment. My submission, with respect, is that the better investment would be money spent, carefully and wisely but energetically, and I hope reasonably speedily, on improving the system of roads which, by common consent, is now so inadequate as to be one of the most inefficient elements in the economy of the nation.
5.41 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I wish for a few moments to descend the scale of roads, from the great trunk roads which your Lordships have been discussing up to now to the more lowly but none the less important links in the road system. The two aspects which I should like to bring out certainly apply to Scotland, and I am not sure how far they apply to the rest of the Kingdom. Starting from the bottom is the unclassified road, which
108
is none the less important because it carries the food on its first stage from the field to the table. These roads were constructed for practically no traffic at all, or for very light traffic indeed, and now they have to carry the heaviest lorries taking produce from the farms and bringing fertilisers and other heavy substances back. The roads are maintained entirely from the rates. They are, of course, all in the landward areas and, therefore, areas of very low rateable value. The result of this is that they can receive only patching, and they are breaking up comparatively quickly. These roads were classified in 1946, and I would suggest that the time has possibly come for a reclassification and possibly up-grading of these roads.
Another, and even more important subject, is the problem of planning. I realise the difficulties of forecasting what money will be available, but it is extremely difficult for the county engineer to plan economically, either as regards his staff or the material and plant which he will require, when he has such short notice as to what he will be allowed to spend. That is especially the case in improvements which, I am glad to say, have at last been allowed, for the first time, in the district which I know. For the first time since the war an improvement to a road, as distinct from mere maintenance, has been sanctioned. That was sanctioned only five days ago, and the work was to be done in the current year. That may make for great waste. It is possible that the section of road to be not only reconstructed but re-aligned may have been resurfaced only a year or two ago, and the whole of that money will be wasted owing to the re-alignment. If it is possible for some forecast of improvements to be made, I would suggest that the period should be, if possible, five and certainly two or three years. I do not go quite so far as the noble Lord opposite, who suggested twenty years. On the scale upon which he is talking that would be desirable, but in the somewhat lowlier scale with which I am dealing, a programme forecast for even five years would be a tremendous advantage, both to good planning and to economy in the maintaining of our road system. If Her Majesty's Government can give consideration to those two small points, it would be of great help in the country districts.
5.46 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Calverley for allowing me to rise now in his place. Unfortunately, I have to leave the House shortly, and I wanted to say a few words on this subject. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will not think my leaving is discourteous. I have listened with considerable attention to many of the speeches that have been made, and I realise that in a debate of this kind one sees exactly the same "road faces" that one always sees in a debate on the roads. I have listened to other debates where one sees faces of different kinds—the "agricultural faces" and, on other occasions, the "housing faces" All these various types of claimants are making claims upon the use of the land of this country, and their claims are not always consistent with one another. I feel that, while every speaker to-clay has made out an excellent case for a large number of additional roads, a little warning as to where we are going is necessary. The extreme case was put by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who asked that over a period of years we should spend £800 million on roads. My noble friend Lord Latham wisely made a number of conditions as to how the money should be spent and what kind of safeguards we ought to introduce.
But nobody who has spoken so far has had any regard to what would be the effect of this large-scale expenditure on certain sections of the economy of this country. I want to mention one in particular, and that is agriculture. Your: Lordships know that every time anybody wants to seize an acre of land for almost any purpose, the agriculturists put up a screen. I have calculated what: would be the effect on agriculture of spending £800 million on roads, and the best calculation I can make is that it would involve us in a loss of about one million acres of land. That is a substantial proportion of the total agricultural land of this country. I will not vouch for the accuracy of my figures, because we have not the schemes in front of us and we cannot say. Speaking broadly, however, I base myself on the loss of land that is involved in road schemes generally, and I do not think that I am far out. But that is not taking into account another factor: the loss to agriculture resulting from severance,
110
which would undoubtedly ensue in many cases. We are an increasing population on this island, and that increasing population has got to be housed, which means an increasing demand for land for housing. As your Lordships know, we are about to embark upon slum clearance and improvement schemes, all of which involve a greater use of land. We need land for defence purpose and for almost all other purposes which come to your Lordships' notice from time to time.
I would say to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that it is impossible for all these claimants to land to be fully satisfied. We must have regard to the conflicting claims. There was a time, when the Ministry of Town and Country Planning was really functioning, when it was the duty of the Minister to have regard to these conflicting claims for the use of land and to resolve them in the public interest to the best of his ability. I do not say that that is riot the position to-day; but it is a little unfortunate that the functions of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning have become so submerged that even the title has gone, and the Minister's duties have become merged into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I imagine he still has these duties conferred upon him by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning Act, 1943. That being the case, white I believe we have got to consider an extension of our road system—and it is a very proper claim to be made—I am convinced that we cannot meet it in what I think is the extreme form in which the claim has been made by some who spoke in this debate to-day. They seemed to me to speak as if the claims on our land for roads was the only claim that should be considered at all, regardless of any others. I do not wish to take part in a general discussion, but I felt it my duty just to make this general caveat, because it is quite obvious (though I do not know what the noble Earl is going to say) that these claims cannot possibly be met in the extreme form in which some noble Lords have suggested by the manner in which they put their cases.
5.53 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and his appeal to us to keep off the subject of safety, I was

111
very pleased to hear the most reverend Primate when he reinforced the point that so many of us feel: that if we have to debate the subjects of roads at all, those of us who are interested in road safety must bring that subject up here, and, indeed, in any other assembly where we can rouse public interest in the matter. The most reverend Primate quoted a report from a body in the West Riding. I have the honour to be "utility" President of the sixty-nine public authorities in federation in the West Riding, covering a great population; and I should like to draw your Lordships' notice to something which the chairman of our general purposes committee said in a report. He said that Mr. George Scott, Chief Constable of Sheffield, had stated:
"The most outstanding fault is excessive speed, and many experienced drivers have told me they are appalled by the high speed of overtaking vehicles on dark roads."
When the A.1 road was mentioned I was much interested, because nearly 100 miles of that road go through the West Riding into the North Riding. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Lord Brabazon of Tara in his remark that we must have, and the sooner the better, a long-term policy. I have been reading day by day reports of what is happening, especially at night, on the Great North Road in Yorkshire; and, frankly, I am surprised that we do not have more accidents through the amount of cutting out, not only on dark nights but in daylight as well. Cutting out is becoming increasingly one of the more deadly sins. It is not confined simply to the north of England. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote from the Chief Constable of Warwickshire—a county area. This is what he says:
"It is as if, when decent men and women take possession of a car, they themselves become possessed of a devil. He who drives at 40 miles per hour in a built-up area, or who ignores a traffic sign, shows an utter disregard of his fellows. …" "
and so on.
But I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that most of these accidents occur in built-up areas. When I listened to the last debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, he admitted that he had broken the eleventh commandment by driving over 30 miles an hour in a built-up area. I was rather sorry he had not been found out. He went
112
on to accuse your Lordships of having committed the same mistake. I do not know whether that is so or not, but the point is that if I do wrong it does not follow that I have to try to get other people to do so. For a minute or two I should like to speak on built-up areas. I will take the budget of one county borough, with 300,000 inhabitants. These are the figures for the coming financial year, which starts on April 1. As a short-term policy, my own city of Bradford is going to spend £127,000 in re-carpeting pedestrian crossings, and on traffic lights, and so on. They did not wait forty-four years, as one noble Lord suggested they might. We are to spend £127,000—and the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, and his Department are going to give us the magnificent sum of £6,700, crumbs from the Treasury table, proving that the Ministry of Transport is practically the Cinderella of the services so far as this country is concerned. Our rates are 25s. in the pound, so even if a penny rate brought in £8,000, if we have to spend £127,000 it will mean an increase of about ls. 5d. in the pound on the rates. And Her Majesty's Government come along with £6,700! I have a word for it, but I do not wish to distress your Lordships' feelings. I will say it is "microscopical." That is all I want to say about it.
For a long-term policy—that is, in the next two or three years—Bradford are going to spend £141,600, again in trying to remedy what are called the "black spots." The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead—or is it the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk?: if it is, I am sorry he has to come forward in this spirit—offers us £26,000; altogether £32,000 or £33.000 towards trying to reduce the casualty rate from 220,000 to about 180,000, as we hope to do. The appropriate committee in my day was the watch committee, because the police had the matter under control then. I wish that we could get back under the Home Office and not be put off with this most obstinate new Ministry which has not celebrated its silver jubilee. All they can say is "No, no" with the obstinacy of a Russian statesman.
In some of our county boroughs, and in the county areas as well, there is an increasing sense of frustration. Sheffield has made representations to the Minister

113
with regard to the defining of built-up areas. Leeds has followed suit and has been refused. Bradford has been refused. The West Riding County Council refused—and this was 'brought to the notice of the Minister—in regard to the road which comes from Manchester over the Pennines towards the West Riding. It is decontrolled when it approaches a place called The Triangle, which is a suburb of Sowerby Bridge. Your Lordships may say that this is a trivial matter, but this road is decontrolled. It comes into the township and is controlled for about 800 or 900 yards, then it is decontrolled, and then controlled again. A stranger may break the law unwittingly, without wanting to do so, because he does not know where he is.
These seventy public authorities are expected to go on with their great work. We need the co-operation of the West Riding police and the police of every other county borough and area. I have been specially asked to come from Yorkshire, where there is nearly a foot of snow today, to put this point before your Lordships' House. There is a sense of frustration. I will not hide behind and blame a bureaucrat who cannot reply to me in this House and say, "It is not my fault; it is the Minister's," so I will leave it at that. That is what is happening. The principal officer of the West 'Riding County Council told me three days ago: "They are simply tinkering with this problem of trying to make black spots a little whiter." I was rather amused When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was making his speech, to remember that when he was in office I made him a present of 116 beautifully mounted photographs of black spots. He had never seen them before. I hope he went through them. I got them back. I was speaking to the surveyor of the West Riding County Council the other day, and I said: "How many black spots have you got? Have you reduced that 116?" He said: "Very little." Again, the grant to such an important body as the West Riding County Council is really "microscopical"; in fact, it is worse.
I want to emphasise that we public bodies are trying to knock down a brick wall and we do not get much "forrader." I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, when he was speaking,
114
rather suggested that the money they give to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents was to be cut down. If they do that, they will make a mistake. Certainly it would not do any harm if we had the "Black widow" on the hoardings again. For the comfort of my noble friend, Lord Mathers, I may tell him that I believe that there is to he a poster called "One for the road." I am told it is rather a good one, and I am hoping so. If the Ministry get on with it, I will give them credit, instead of criticising them even more.
Another point I want to emphasise is that of traffic lights. Before the war a set of traffic lights cost about £697. To-day, according to figures which have been supplied to me only to-day, the figure is nearer £2,000. Therefore, I am hoping that the noble Earl, if he can get the ear of the Minister of Transport—I was hoping he would be sitting opposite listening to me, but he is not—will consider trying what I think is happening in Berlin, where they have not as much money as we have. They have a signal which they can draw across the road. It comes from the stanchions on which are the lamps which illuminate the place. It gives a rotating green signal for about twenty seconds, then a rotating red for twenty seconds, and that slows down the traffic at semi-important places. I can speak most feelingly of such places near where I live, and I draw that method to the notice of the Minister.
The most reverend Primate referred to penalties. If we turn to the 1930 Act, Section 6, we find mentioned the suspension of a licence for a month. That is the extent of the law passed in 1930. It does not say that you shall impose suspension of a licence for a month, but that you may do so after a second offence for the misdemeanour of driving without due care and attention, or, more serious still, to the danger of the public. I draw the attention of the appropriate authority—I think the Lord Chancellor's Department—to the fact that too many benches of magistrates are perhaps not aware of Section 6 of the 1930 Act, whereby they can suspend a licence. To deprive a wealthy person of his car for a month is sometimes better than fining him. I thought the most reverend Primate, in a speech he made on a previous occasion—to-day he has repented—was most unfair

115
when he suggested the confiscation of the car. He has withdrawn that suggestion to-day, but on that occasion I was rather horrified. However, I think we ought to implement this power of suspension after the first or second offence. The most reverend Primate drew attention to one case where a person had been let off most lightly. Under Section 29 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1949, the case could have been referred to quarter sessions or even to the Assizes, where the presiding judge could have increased the penalty.
My Lords, those of us who are putting in some hard work on road safety would like a long-term policy. I was delighted when, in another place, the honourable gentleman, Sir Gurney Braithwaite, speaking, as it were, no longer as a gamekeeper but rather as a poacher, suggested raising a loan of £500 million in the City. I believe he could. But what is essential is that we should not have a mean, microscopic £2 million or £3 million a year to spend on a long-term policy; it must be nearer £30 million or £40 million. I do not want to be too grandiose, but I believe that we have to spend something of that sort, because what is happening at present is that we are tinkering with the problem. We must keep together the noble army of policemen, teachers and children who are concerned in this problem. The accident rate is bad at ages from one to five; it drops at ages from five to twelve. A child of five taught me my road drill. It is amazing how careful these children are. Nowadays, it is a case of writing off the parents as bad debts, because we are deteriorating into a generation of jay walkers. I do not think I need go through the seven stages of man, because other noble Lords want to speak; but I express my greatest disappointment at the Government for their coming forward this afternoon with these mean offerings to already overburdened public authorities such as the county boroughs and the great county councils of this country.
6.15 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I do not think anyone will expect me to go into the question of the inadequacy of our roads: that has been proved up to the hilt. Nor do I think I shall be expected to go into the question of what
116
should be done about it; that aspect also, I think, has been fully covered. But the question of how it is to be done needs a little sorting out. At the present moment we have a Minister of Transport who is as keen as anybody else to settle this road question, but, like everybody else for many years past, he has come up against the problem of promise and performance. Yesterday, Mr. Hugh Molson made an interesting statement at a luncheon in London, which I think puts the whole situation rather neatly. He said this:
"There has been criticism of the scale of our proposed road programme. This is partly due to misunderstanding of the difference between commitments and payments. Large-scale road-works may take a year or more to plan, and several years to carry out. The final instalment of payment will not be made until some time after the work has been completed. Commitment is the Ministry of Transport's promise to make its full contribution to a scheme, and the sum committed will therefore be spent over a number of years, and the first payment will not usually be made at once."
Moreover, although the amount is committed, the rate of expenditure is not under the control of the Minister but is under the control of the Treasury. That at once brings us to the question, should we not find a better method so far as the construction of new road-works is concerned? Must it be limited to what the Treasury can find?
To give an idea of the position at the moment, although £50 million is to be committed in the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, the actual expenditure, apart from the commitment, is, in 1954–55 £1,750,000, in 1955, £4,500,000, and in 1956–57, £9,500,000—that is a total of £15,750,000, out of £50 million committed. Therefore, it is obvious that we have got to get away from this old system into something which will enable us to commit our money at a really fast rate, otherwise we shall merely crawl along, and nothing will be done for years and years. So let, us get away from the fact that £293 million a year is contributed by the vehicle-owning population of this country. Let us forget that. If we are over-taxed, let us fight for a reduction in tax. But let us not at the same time say to the Government: "You have got to produce the money out of taxation to pay for the roads."
As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has said, there are two alternative

117
methods: one is to raise a road fund, which would he guaranteed and serviced by the Treasury; the other is toll roads or toll bridges, or toll roads and toll bridges. I know that it seems absurd to say that vehicle owners should pay tolls on top of what they are already paying in the way of taxation. I cannot help wondering what the 'businessman, the fleet owner, will say if someone goes to him and says, "I will build you a toll road from London to Birmingham; the toll shall be fixed at a certain figure, and if you work that out you will find that every journey your vehicles make will still show you a profit after the payment of toll."
I have some interesting figures here with respect to a toll road from London to Birmingham. The cost of such a road would be, roughly speaking, £200,000 a mile. The cost of maintaining it after it was built would be approximately £1,800 a mile. Then you would have to provide a toll collecting staff at accesses, which are suggested to be every six miles. You would also have to provide an interest and sinking fund at 4·63 per cent. per annum. The question is, how are you going to do it? Assuming that half of the existing main-route traffic used that toll road, there would be 4,000 vehicles a day travelling upon it. A toll of £1 for every five-ton lorry going the full distance, and of 7s. for a small or medium-sized car, would provide all the capital needed—and that takes into account only half the traffic which at the moment is using the main route. I am inclined to think that a lorry owner would cheerfully pay the £1 toll to save journey time of nearly 60 per cent. on his present figures. And I am sure that the majority of private car owners would pay their seven
"bob," both to get to their destination more quickly and to save themselves the annoyance of travelling on existing roads.
I am not at all sure, however, what would be the answer from the country if it were suggested that a scheme of this sort should be put into operation. I think that steps should be taken to find out what the answer to a proposal for toll roads would be. I do not know whether it is a good idea or a bad one. But I certainly have this in my mind: that unless we can provide some scheme that is going to produce money other than
118
directly out of the Treasury pocket, we are not going to get it. I also have a distinct idea that if the Treasury people can see themselves getting a little bit back in the palms of their hands, they are likely to sanction a scheme much more quickly than if they can see no prospect of anything canting back. The financial position has to be worked out, either on the basis of a loan or on the basis of tolls, or both side by side. I can see no reason at all why we should not have this. Something has got to be done to provide new roads, and the sooner it is done the better, because we cannot allow any more delay.
6.25 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BAR- LOCH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has certainly introduced into the debate an interesting topic of speculation regarding the possibility of building toll roads. I have not looked into this, but it occurs to me that if any body of men have sufficient faith in the possibility of making a toll road pay there is nothing to prevent them from doing what the railway companies did in days gone by—that is, promote a Private Bill for the purpose. Then they can adventure their money on carrying out the idea, and see whether their speculation is profitable or otherwise. With regard to the other suggestion for financing road improvement which has been thrown out during the course of this debate, namely, the raising of a loan of some hundreds of millions of pounds for the purpose, that, of course, could be done. The attraction of it, from the point of view of those who are anxious to see road improvement, is that if it were once done the money would presumably be finally committed to that particular purpose. So far as the economy of the country as a whole is concerned, it would not make an atom of difference because the resources of labour and of capital which would have to be devoted, year by year, to road construction and improvement would be diverted from other purposes, no matter whether the financing was by means of loan or by means of taxation. So far as national economy as a whole is concerned. it would make not the slightest difference.
It is natural that, in the course of this discussion, though it is mainly directed to the economics of our road system,

119
there should be discussion of the alarming problem of road accidents. It is inevitable that that matter should be referred to, because it is not only a human loss, in terms of suffering and bereavement, but it is also an economic loss, in terms of loss of working days of those who are injured or of the shortening of life of those who are killed. And there are the incidental concomitants which are involved in it—the enormous expense of insurance, of litigation and so on, which arises out of road accidents. These are tangible economic losses which are part of the problem which we are discussing to-day.
The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, made a comparison between the skill of the driver of the motor vehicle and the skill of the engine driver upon the railways. It may be that the one is more skilful than the other; but that is not an explanation of road accidents. If the driver of a railway train were running his vehicle along a thoroughfare which was being used by men, women and children, cyclists. perambulators and I do not know what else. the accidents upon the railways would be very different indeed from what they are. The comparison is fallacious. It is now no longer possible to contemplate that motor vehicles should be kept entirely to roads which they use, and nobody else. It is possible that we could have special motor roads covering long distances, as has been done in many countries, but we cannot divorce motor vehicles from the general road system. One of the great advantages of motor transport is that it is a means of carrying persons and goods from door to door, and that advantage will now never be surrendered. Motor vehicles cannot be relegated to the position of trains running on railway lines.
In this connection, I want to draw special attention to the urban problem because, as I say, although no doubt something can be done with regard to segregating traffic on trunk roads, it is far more difficult in cities and towns to do anything of that kind. What is happening with the growth of motor traffic is that more and more ingenuity is being devoted to going through by-streets to avoid the traffic congestion, with the result that streets built in the age of the horse and cart for a totally different purpose are now being used by motor
120
vehicles This is one of the causes of accidents. I want to refer particularly to the case of London, with which I am acquainted. This problem of motor traffic in London is growing more and more acute, not only because there are more vehicles upon the streets but because they do not all emanate from London and are going to and from other places.
Before the war, the L.C.C. were engaged upon schemes of road improvement. For a short time I was Chairman of the Highways Committee of the L.C.C., and the last task which I had to perform there was to negotiate with the Ministry of Transport permission for the creation of a roundabout at the northern abutment of Waterloo Bridge, at the crossing of the Strand and Wellington Street, a project which, if my memory serves me correctly, was going to cost about £2 million, to which the Minister of Transport, after negotiation, agreed to contribute 75 per cent. That is one single illustration of the needs of traffic improvement in London, and of the enormous amount of money which is involved in it, a very large part of it, as my noble friend Lord Latham correctly said, being compensation for property, and not the cost of the actual road works. Practically nothing at all has been done in London in the way of road improvement since 1939. The County of London Plan contemplated the creation of ring road systems and radial roads to deal with major traffic problems, and particularly with the problem of traffic which, for one reason or another, had to pass through London. Nothing concrete has been done with regard to that, although parts of those proposals were included in the County of London Development Plan.
Let me draw attention to the financial position of London in this matter. Up to 1929, the metropolitan borough councils, as highway authorities in London, received grants on a percentage basis from the Ministry of Transport in respect of maintenance of Class I and Class II roads. In 1929, those and other percentage grants were abolished, and there was introduced a block grant system, which was computed according to a formula, one of the elements of which was the mileage of road. So far as I am aware, no local authority in London ever agreed that that was compensation for the grants

121
which they had previously been receiving from the Ministry of Transport. Now the position has become a great deal worse, because the Local Government Act, 1948, abolished the block grants and introduced equalisation grants. The consequence is that London gets no financial aid at all from the Central Government to cope with this problem, which of course is not entirely a London problem but deals largely with through traffic which emanates from other parts of the country.
More than that, although in counties other than London the Minister of Transport has taken over a number of roads and classified them as trunk roads, and they have become the responsibility of the Central Government, nothing of that kind has been done in London. London has been treated extremely unfairly in this respect. There cannot be the slightest doubt that on any proper interpretation a number of the principal roads in London are trunk roads and ought to be taken over by the Ministry of Transport, which should be responsible for them. In any case, I think it is extremely deplorable that not a single project mentioned in the announcement which the Minister made recently has any reference to the needs of London, which contains a large proportion of the population and industry of this country and whose road system is a vital part of the road system of the whole country. I hope that this matter will be looked at with the closest attention, and that some steps will be taken to deal with the traffic problem in London. For if it is not dealt with, we shall certainly soon reach the stage at which traffic will hardly move at all. That may conceivably reduce the number of road accidents—I do not know whether it will or not—but it will certainly increase the amount of economic loss which is already being endured.
6.40 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, it is unfortunate that many Scottish Peers who would have liked to be present to-day have been unable to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said at the beginning of the debate, it is impossible to cover all the subjects in one day. I should like to suggest that your Lordships should find time to have a debate on Scottish roads. My noble friend Lord Elgin has twice had a Motion down, but at the request of the Govern-
122
ment has postponed it. I feel that it would be an advantage if his Motion were to be restored. We in Scotland are glad that progress is being made on the Glasgow-Stirling road, and on the Perth-Inverness road. I will not say anything about the Forth road bridge, because my noble friend Lord Mathers will have something to say about that, but I should like to take Lord Brabazon's story further up the Great North Road, where it gets to Edinburgh, and say a word or two about the Queensferry.
There are two boats operating across there at present, with. a third in the summer. Three operate no more quickly than two, because it takes half an hour to work a boat, and getting on and off is a slow business. One would have thought that a better solution would be a pontoon; that is to say, a boat that traffic goes on at one end and off at the other. I suppose that that idea has been considered and found to be inadequate. On January 27, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, in answer to a question by Major Anstruther-Gray, said that the Government's plan was for an additional boat, making four boats, which would mean a double service, and an improvement to the piers. That double service would be working both sides of the piers. If you get a strong wind blowing clown the West, which is the prevailing wind, it would not be possible to use both sides, and an additional pier would be necessary to protect the boat. On February 3, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, in reply to a question, said that substantial improvements could not be made until the Government received a report on the possibility of a road under the Forth railway bridge. I trust that they will not tinker about with an old bridge like that. It was built for a railway, and I should think it would be dangerous to put a road underneath it—there might be another accident like that to the Tay Bridge. In a further reply on the question, Mr. Lennox-Boyd said that the Government were getting on with the preliminary work with regard to this ferry. I do not like the word "preliminary." Surely, they should go ahead with this plan. This is the most direct route from Edinburgh to the North. The Government say that it will cost £250,000. Surely, they should go ahead and get their ferries ordered, and not delay while they make inquiries about an additional road over the Forth. With that amount of expenditure, they

123
would be justified in giving the orders now and not having further delay.
I should like to emphasise the fundamental fact that county councils have so much to finance in their social service of all sorts that they cannot find the money necessary for road improvements of all classes. I need not say more about that, because sufficient has already been said to-day to emphasise the fact. I would support what my noble friend Lord Stratheden said about unclassified roads. Previously these roads had practically no traffic on them other than farm carts; but to-day they have all sorts of motors using them. I would ask my noble friend Lord Selkirk to remember (it might help him with his argument to get them graded) that these vehicles are bringing in revenue to the Minister; and the Minister has no share in the cost of these roads, the whole of which the county council bear. As all sorts of traffic is now using the roads, there is a fair argument for upgrading them. There is still in the northern counties the crofter county scheme. Before the Government deal with the question of upgrading the unclassified roads I think it is important that this scheme should be completed. After that I feel there is a good case for reconsidering the whole question, and for some of the Class II and Class III roads to be upgraded. I do urge, however, that before anything is done the local authorities should be consulted. The circumstances are different in every county, and what suits some does not suit all. The cost in Scotland (I have the figures for the county of Inverness), taking £100 as the basic figure in 1938, was £250 in 1952; and in 1953 the figure had risen to £270, which is nearly three times as much. Salaries, too, have trebled, and I feel that that is also reason for helping the county councils with the reclassification of the roads.
To get back to the road from Edinburgh to the North, the alternative means of getting over the Forth is the Kincardine bridge. That is a wonderful bridge: it was opened by my noble friend Lord Elgin a few years ago, and is now carrying a rapidly increasing volume of traffic. What about the roads approaching that bridge? The position is that there is a Class 1 bridge with Class III roads approaching it. I can speak as to the road north of the Kincardine bridge. Our census—it
124
sounds small compared with some that have been given to-day—is that 3,500 heavy vehicles use it weekly. The surface of the road is not fit to bear this traffic. The present cost of maintaining these roads is about £8,000 a year. An estimate has been made of the cost to put this road into the necessary order, and it amounts to £48,000. That again is too much for the county councils to tackle. The counties of Clackmannan and Fife are anxious that this road should be upgraded to a trunk road; and on Monday the Perth County Council agreed to support them in their appeal. I should like to express to my noble friend Lord Selkirk the hope that he will give this matter his favourable consideration when it comes before him.
There is only one other thing I should like to say—it has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Latham —and that is on the question of lay-bys. In Scotland we are very much behind in their construction. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said that to build a road to-day costs £200,000 a mile. To me, that sounds an astounding figure, but I am sure it costs a large sum. It seems to me foolish to spend a vast sum on a fast road—and trunk roads and first-class roads are fast roads—and then allow cars to park where they will along them. On most of these trunk roads, as my noble friend Lord Howe has said, there are stretches probably not more than 18 ft. to 20 ft. wide, where three cars cannot go abreast. Therefore, if you have one car parked at the side of the road, you turn your wide road into one-way traffic. We find that going on mile after mile. The traffic is held up, and not only is it costly, because of the delay, and also in time and petrol, but it is a great danger. There are a large number of accidents, particularly in the winter in Scotland when the roads get icy, because cars have suddenly to pull up in the mist. I have seen as many as four cars, following one behind another, crash into one parked lorry. I think we should have these lay-bys and, as time goes on, make it illegal for any car to park on any of our fast roads. We must make it possible for them to have somewhere to park alongside.
6.51 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I do not propose to follow to any extent the noble

125
Lord who has just sat down, but I wish to take the opportunity, as the last speaker from this side, to emphasise, endorse and endeavour to further the claim that he has made—that in the not distant future there should be a Scottish debate on roads, separately considering Scottish roads. I am glad that Scottish voices have been raised this afternoon in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, speaking, as it were, for the Highlands, and the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, speaking for the Border country which I know better, having been born within ten miles or so of Hartrigge, whore Lord Stratheden and Campbell lives.
I am not going to speak for long, but I wish to deal with one matter which came to my attention. In the last issue of the Spectator of February 26, there was an article headed "Sidelight" by Compton Mackenzie. I suppose it should have been Sir Compton Mackenzie, because I am assuming it is the famous author who was recently knighted. He was dealing with a letter which Queen Victoria caused to be written to the managers of the railways having headquarters in London. Apparently she was celebrating the New Year, because the letter is said to have been dated January 1, 1865. That is a long time ago, and she was drawing attention to the fact that many accidents had taken place on the railways at that time. Sir Compton Mackenzie hangs on to that statement in that particular letter and makes reference to it in the article, which I think is misleading and could be harmful, to a certain extent, by causing further congestion on the roads, because he wants to denigrate the railways of this country. I will read only one part of a aragraph—I do not want to read too much—because as a railwayman I feel I should make an emphatic protest against the possibility of harm to railway interests as a result of this article. The author says:
" Railway accidents gradually diminished during the next twenty years, and by 1884 they were sufficiently rare net to be given a place to themselves in the Index of the Annual Register; they were now grouped with fires and explosions in mines under the general heading Accidents.' There have been serious railway accidents from time to time during this century, but I must confess to being startled by the figures given by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation for 1946 to 1952 which reveal that there was a total of 8,773 accidents in which 495 people were killed and 6,273 injured."
126
That is collating the figures for seven years. There is no doubt where the figures came from, because they are published in the report to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation upon the accidents which occurred on the-railways of Great Britain during the year 1952. It is the report of Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson, the Chief Inspecting Officer of British Railways.
I will not enlarge upon that, but I take the figure of 495 people killed. The whole tone of the article seems to indicate that these figures relate to passengers in railway trains. A little examination of the figures will show that in those seven years there were 331 passengers killed in train accidents in Great Britain. It is notable that in the last year of all, 1952, 108 passengers—the largest number of passengers we have had killed in a railway accident for many years—out of the 331 were accounted for by the Harrow and Wealdstone double collision on October 8, 1952. When the figures for 1952 are examined, it will be found that in that year 111 passengers carried by British Railways trains were killed. That means that, apart from the Harrow and Wealdstone accident, only three passengers were killed on the railways in 1952.
What does that mean? In the seven years ending 1952, 180,000 million passenger miles were run. It means one passenger fatality for over 35 million passenger journeys, or, alternatively, about one passenger fatality for every 544 million passenger miles. It seems to me that my old pride as a railwayman, of believing that you were in the safest place in the world if you were in a railway train, is justified by the figures I have quoted, and certainly the whole tone of Sir Compton Mackenzie's article is misleading. if he wished to be logical, he could write another article about the danger of going to bed, because he could prove by statistics that most people die in their beds—so, therefore, do not go to bed. I hope the implied suggestion that is contained in this article, that people should not travel by British railways because of the danger of accidents and the possibility of being killed, is completely disposed of.
I think that the whole article is unworthy of the author of Whisky Galore notwithstanding the fact that he

127
has come to be a citizen of Edinburgh, in which I live. We welcomed him in that city, and I hope that soon he will mend his ways in the light of the criticism that I have found it necessary to make of his article. He indicates in his statement that the position was safer in Queen Victoria's time. I have taken the trouble to obtain the statistics for 1860, 1861 and 1862; and adding the figures for those three years together I find that there were 88 people killed on British railways. Taking 1950, 1951 and 1952 together, even including the 108 of the Harrow and Wealdstone accident, the total is 165. Actually, the proper comparison is that in Victorian times there was one passenger killed in every 10 million, whereas in the 1952 period one passenger was killed in every 35 million. The mileage, of course, has increased considerably during that time, and so has the number of passengers—which lowers the impact of the figures.
Having disposed of that matter, I come to the main theme of the debate, the inadequacy of the road system. I claim that the roads would be more adequate if more care were taken by those who use them. My noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had much to say about congestion, and about abnormal loads causing congestion on the roads. The railways have equipped themselves very well indeed for conveying these big loads, and it seems to me that it is upon the railways that those great loads should be carried. It has been indicated that where they are too big for the bridges under which they have to pass they can be reduced to more manageable proportions. I think that that is very largely true, for railway bridges are, in the main, at least as adequate for the passage of traffic as are road bridges.
It is the use of the roads that matters; and I was glad to hear the fine contribution made to this debate by the most reverend Primate. I thought the excellent contribution which he made was most certainly one that should be heeded. I was glad to hear him say that this is not merely a problem of economics but that it is also a moral problem. That is where I take my stand: that it is necessary for us to impose moral sanctions upon those who use the roads. I am certain that in the statistics the figures given of those who are under the in-
128
fluence of drink and are involved in road accidents are derisory. These figures are compiled in the most difficult circumstances. The police hardly dare bring a charge of drunkenness without being absolutely certain that they can prove it up to the hilt. And then, even when they do seem to prove it, an appeal is asked for; and, away from the actual scene and circumstances of the accident and under the presidency of someone who has not had the first-hand knowledge of what had actually happened, frequently the charge is set aside instead of being maintained.
I look upon the drinking motorist as a menace on the roads. Some speakers have said already in this debate to-day that he has a very great responsibility, for he is in charge of a deadly instrument—particularly deadly if it gets out of his control. It seems to me that it should be laid down that there is a moral obligation upon everyone who has driven on We roads of this country to pay heed to the demand: "If you drive, don't drink; and if you drink, don't drive." I am certain that if that maxim were heeded more than it is, there would be many fewer accidents on the roads of this country. There would be much less expense to the hospitals and other organisations that are affected by accidents of that kind.
While I am not a vindictive person in any way, I say that we should be more severe in the punishment of those who are convicted on more than one occasion of driving to the danger of the public. Then, it is very difficult to get accurate evidence on which to secure a conviction. I have made reference to that already. We have boggled at the idea of taking a blood test from people; it would be against the law; it would be looked upon as an assault if a needle were to be put into someone and a sample of his blood taken when he was brought in after having caused an accident on the road. But I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should consider the possibility of bringing into operation or, at any rate, testing in the first place, a nevi instrument that is in use in New York and a number of other cities in the United States, and also in Toronto—that is the latest information I have—called "the alcometer," a meter which indicates the quantity of alcohol in the breath of the person. It does not call for the taking of a blood test. A person who is

129
suspected of being under the influence of drink is called upon to blow through a tube into a plastic balloon; that air is kept and analysed, arid it can be shown with absolute accuracy what is the amount of alcohol in the blood. All that is needed is to have a standard beyond which people should not he in charge of a vehicle.
Someone may say, "What about pedestrians who cause accidents?" My answer would be that if a pedestrian is suspected of being under the influence of drink, let him be tested, too; let him he put through the same test. It is absolutely necessary that we should have a stricter control over those who are responsible for accidents, and I commend that idea most warmly to the noble Earl who is to reply. I hope he may be able to say something favourable about it—at least, that what I have suggested will be considered. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, indicated that the new road code will shortly be available to us. May I ask whether the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate can be more precise, and give us a more definite indication as to when the road code will be coming out? I hope that there, as in the previous road code, there will be a clear indication that drinking is an absolute menace to anyone who is thinking of driving a car or any other vehicle.
I cannot allow myself to sit down without making some reference to the long projected Forth road bridge. I lived with this problem for quite a number of years, because for sixteen and a half years I was Member of Parliament for the county in which the southern end of the Forth road bridge will come. I am not going to make a long story of this, but many preliminary considerations have been given to this Forth road bridge. As I understand it (I hope that I am right in what I say), the approaches have been decided upon, and the exact location of the bridge itself has been decided upon, by the taking of borings in the bed of the river and on the banks of the Forth. It seems to me that the time has come for us to see actual progress made in the provision of that bridge. It is claimed that it is too expensive a thing for us to afford, and yet the argument that was used years ago about the provision of the bridge was—I will put it in a paradoxical way—that we were not sufficiently "hard up" to enable us to go on
130
with the building of the bridge. That is actually what the attitude of that day meant. It was that this would be one of the big projects that we should use if we landed in a position of severe unemployment. That is the position. It seems to me that that is rather a "cock-eyed" way of looking at things.
I know how difficult it is to get money out of the hard stone of the British Treasury(I make no Party reference in this), but the approaches have got to be made. Only a few minutes ago we heard the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, say how the Kincardine bridge is hampered to-day because of the lack of adequate approach roads. Yet the proposal being advanced now is that the bridge should be given greater priority than it has at the present time, that the bridge should be erected, but that the approach roads should not be proceeded with because they represent an addition of a considerable amount to the cost of the bridge. That amount, however, is very much less than the cost of the bridge itself, and my suggestion is that those approach roads should be gone on with. I know that there may be some criticism from those who own the land through which the new roads will be driven, but I think that if the landowners know that this great project for Scotland is at last to be given clear signs of being approved and proceeded with, that will be some compensation to them. The idea that the road approaches should be left out in the meantime has been criticised by the county authority, the West Lothian County Council. In my view, in the light of the experience with the Kincardine bridge, there is justification for the county council's attitude, an attitude with which I agree. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate will be able to give me some measure of comfort over the matters that I have ventured to indicate to your Lordships' House as being necessary in the near future.
7.16 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, following the interesting speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord. Lord Mathers, I, too, hope that the Government will in the near future give serious consideration to this Forth road bridge project. Your Lordships may wonder why an Englishman dares to enter into a Scottish debate on that subject, but

131
I had the pleasure a few years ago of sitting in Edinburgh for two weeks on a Joint Select Committee on the General Powers Bill promoted by the Fife County Council. I know the great developments that are going to take place in the county of Fife, big coal projects and so on. So this new bridge is something we have to bear in mind. I know that Scotsmen feel strongly that this question should have serious consideration in the next few years
I shall address your Lordships for only a few moments, and first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for putting down this Motion and so giving us an opportunity once more of discussing this all-important topic. I should also like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on announcing the £50 million scheme of road works, because it is a great advance. Last year, when we were debating the subject, the noble Viscount, Lord Leathers said that with great difficulty he had extracted another £1 million from the Treasury for further clearance of black spots. To-day, we are debating this new programme of £50 million. I welcome the amount which has been provided; I think it will go some way. But, of course, I should like to see a great deal more.
There has been some criticism that London is not to get much of this money. The Cromwell Road extension, I understand, will cost £3½ million, of which £2½ million is in the County of London. That is going on in the programme for 1954–55. Then there is the Dartford—Purfleet tunnel which is to start in 1955–56 and which will relieve tremendously the congestion in the middle of London. That will cost £10 million, of which £1 million has already been spent. Then Glasgow is going to get its tunnel under the Clyde, costing £3 million; and so on. These tunnels are expensive and I am one of those people who think we ought seriously to consider placing a toll on them. The toll works satisfactorily on the Mersey Tunnel, and as these new tunnels will cost about £13 million, out of the £50 million expenditure, I think serious consideration should be given to tolls on tunnels. The bridge programme so far announced is very little. There is the Conway Bridge, which is to cost £500,000; the Cavendish Bridge, over A.5, another £500,000. These are not big items, but the tunnels are.
132
However, the point I want to raise particularly is how further programmes can be financed in the future. None of us wants to see taxation rise higher than it is at the moment. At present. the Government are extracting a very large sum of money from road taxation—something like £270 million a year—and are putting back only something like £34 million annually. My noble friend Lord Teynham and myself, in your Lordships' House last July, put forward a serious proposal for a road loan, but we were much more modest in our ideas than the proposal recently put forward in another place. We suggested that a road loan of perhaps £150 million should be raised by Her Majesty's Government over a period of ten years—a twenty-year loan which would run out over twenty-eight years, so the service of the loan would have to continue for about twenty-eight years. On the figures which I submitted to your Lordships last July, the service of the loan, working it out on a 4 per cent. basis, would cost about £11½ million a year. That is a large slice out of the £34 million which Parliament allocates annually to the Road Fund. However, if it cannot be done in that way—and perhaps it is not possible—I am greatly attracted by the idea put forward in another place, that perhaps some under-the-line expenditure could be given to the Ministry of Transport, in the form of loans such as are given to local authorities for housing, drainage and water supply.
I think we have got to face this problem on the basis that we shall not be able to accomplish anything, or at best only a very small amount, out of income. As the next generation will benefit a good deal by these long-term projects, I think they should pay some portion of the cost. I informed my noble friend Lord Birkenhead that I intended raising this question when the matter was debated last July, and the day before that debate my noble friend Lord Teynham and I told the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, as he then was, that we were going to raise it. In the course of the debate (I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 183. col. 419), the noble Lord said:
"At first. I was not greatly attracted to the: idea, because I felt that in thinking about putting this business to posterity rather than financing it ourselves we were doing so at a time when our roads had been deprived of

133
road expenditure assigned to them for some years. I think, nevertheless, that all this will have to be looked into with great care, and I am obliged to Lord Teynham for making the suggestion."
Naturally we have not had any answer to that comment, except that I think it was more or less turned down in another place. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will again look at this question of a loan, and will also see whether they cannot get some revenue from tolls from the new bridges which may have to be built and also from the new tunnels. Without something of that nature I do not see how, out of the revenue which Parliament allocates every year from the Consolidated Fund, we can finance these big schemes over and above what Her Majesty's Government have already announced. I beg to, support the Motion.
7.23 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I shall be only a few moments at this time of the night and I shall mention railways only once. I am going to devote myself to the terms of my noble friend's Motion, which I heartily support. I think your Lordships will agree that he made out a very good case, as have those who have followed him, on the economics of the matter and why it is a question not of our being unable to afford to do this, but rather that we cannot afford not to do it. If one is running a business and one needs to make the business progressive and competitive, one has to get special machinery, and one seeks ways and means of financing that capital expenditure; one does not retain old machines and become uncompetitive. What we are doing to-day is to retain old machines in the shape of inadequate roads.
I have two small points to raise in connection with the debate in another place on February 15 last. In this debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Mr. Hugh Molson, brought out two reasons why the Government could not accelerate road plans. Those two reasons have been brought out again and again, and I do not think they are justified. He said in that debate (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 52.3 (No. 54), col. 1663):
"After fifteen years of economy on the roads we have not the surveyors and engineers necessary to carry out any sudden expansion of new construction."
134
He also said (col. 1664):
"… I think that it will be realised that even in the case of mechanisation some of the engineering firms which produce heavy machinery required for road construction have at present large export markets, and we should hesitate to divert large amounts of machinery from people who export, even for work on something as important as roads."
My Lords, I ant glad to think he agrees that roads are important.
But I do not believe that his statements are justified or in accordance with fact. and I think that if they go unchallenged they will be a red herring which may obscure the fact that such restrictions are not justified, and the statements may be brought up again and again. My reason for saying that is that I think there is no such thing as the alleged shortage of civil engineers, technicians and surveyors. There is no reason to believe that our present civil engineers, technicians and others could not get on with the job if they were given it. I believe there is about £150 million worth of plans already prepared for which contracts, could be let within a short time, and all of which could be started off quite quickly without any great demand on the existing number of civil engineers. There are large firms of civil engineers who find they would be able to cope with any of this work should it arise in the near future, because the hydro-electric schemes are coming to an end, airfield work is slackening off, very little civil engineering work on docks and the railways is currently taking place, and the demand on the industry in connection with opencast mining is dwindling away. Further, your Lordships may recollect that civil engineers were able to cope very quickly and satisfactorily with the £40 million worth of sea defence work round our coasts, and that also is finished.
In regard to the availability of machinery, I would call your Lordships' attention to an article in the Financial Times of Monday, February 22, written by Sir George Burt, who is president of the Federation of Civil Engineering Constructors. With your Lordships' permission, I will read the opening paragraph, in which he says:
"The civil engineering industry has immediately available the necessary skilled and experienced personnel and the latest types of plant to undertake this task (that is, improving road communications) and is ready and waiting

135
for the signal to go ahead. Never before has the civil engineering industry been so well equipped and prepared to carry out road construction work on a large scale."
That is why I wish to challenge those two statements which were made in another place the other day. I could give your Lordships many details about the availability of material and of specialised machines, but the hour is late and your Lordships can find those details in articles if you wish so to do.
I should like to add just one or two more words, and they are in connection with something which my noble friend, Lord Birkenhead, said in the course of his speech. He was talking about safety on the roads as compared with safety on the railways and in the air. I think, if I recollect him fairly accurately, that he said that Mr. Molson had stated that the reason why travelling by trains was safer than travelling on the road was because an engine driver was a highly-skilled and trained person. And the noble Earl said that the same description applied to the commander of an aircraft. What the noble Earl did not add—and I feel he should have done—was that trains run on rails. They go along a set way over which the public is not allowed to trespass. The engine driver has to stop and start at a given signal. If we had segregation of roads, as Lord Birkenhead afterwards said he advocated, we should find a different standard of efficiency. As to air travel, the separation of aircraft, the landing patterns and taking off patterns, all keep aircraft away from each other. I should like to finish as I started, and again say that, for economic reasons, for the sake of our industry in this country and for the prevention of accidents, we cannot afford not to get on with our road construction.
7.33 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, must have satisfied himself that he has touched upon a subject of very real interest to your Lordships this afternoon. I am not going to suggest for one moment that I differ substantially from the case which he has presented. I think Her Majesty's Government do agree, in fact, that the road system to-day is not adequate to the vehicles presenting them-
136
selves on the roads. Even if they had been in any doubt at the time when they took office, your Lordships would soon have removed any sense of delusion. Nor do we doubt in any way the importance of an adequate road system. I do not propose to argue the details of points which have been raised. What I should like particularly to do is to put in proportion this vast system, which affects every man and woman in this country—on the one hand from the point of view of recreation and entertainment, on the other hand, from the point of view of personal safety. In between, there are a great variety of economic factors which are of very real importance to our people.
This is a subject over which personal emotions are roused to a high degree. We have to recognise that there are people who regard motorists as a form of criminal, while there are others who are passionately devoted to some particular scheme which they believe will be of lasting and real significance to the health and economy of the particular area in which they are interested. Moreover, we are dealing here with astronomical figures—for they are astronomical when we come to examine them—and dealing with considerations which may involve personal liberty. If segregation of traffic means anything, it means that were it imposed it would become illegal for a man to walk upon the public street. If found walking there, he could be arrested. That is what segregation, fully developed, would mean. I suggest that this is a matter which has to be considered with extreme care. The arguments which have been put forward for improvement in our road system have been based on economics and safety. The noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who speaks with more authority than I do on the subject of safety, has dealt substantially with that subject. I will say only that whilst, fortunately, both these objectives have similar requirements, the requirements are not necessarily identical. Indeed, the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of York, made that point.
When we are advocating improvements we can do so in two ways. We can take the broad point made by Lord Brabazon of Tara, that we are not to-day devoting enough of our national resources to road development, and that it is essential for our economy that greater capital re-

137
sources should be devoted to this purpose. Alternatively, we can take the other line—in some sense it overlaps—and say that, granted the volume of resources to be devoted to road development, we think the priorities which the Minister has selected are wrong, and we put our emphasis on any part of the country—it may be the upper Thames, the Severn, the Clyde, the Forth, the Tyne, the Humber or the lower Thames, according to our preference. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, whom we are delighted to hear speaking again in your Lordships' House, indicated certain other priorities which he would like to have emphasised in London. If I may say so with great respect, I think he was less than generous in not including the Cromwell Road extension and the Dartford—Purfleet tunnel which, if not precisely in London, are certainly within the London conurbation.
I know that these different schemes arouse a deep sense of the strongest local patriotism. Indeed, it was noticeable that when the Minister made his original statement in another place at the beginning of December, it immediately provoked a most violent expression of English nationalism, so that the Minister had to avow that his Scottish ancestry had not unduly biased him in his decision. Of course, if noble Lords wish to have a day devoted to debate on Scottish roads, I am sure there will be no difficulty in making the necessary arrangements. But I can say this: if anyone wants to change priorities, I think the first thing is to see which one of the existing schemes proposed for the next three years should he struck out—whether it should be developments in South Wales, one of the Lancashire proposals, or one of the proposals for London or the Great North Road. And in this connection I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has now left the Chamber, that we are spending £750,000 on the Great North Road. In view of what the Minister has done, I think it will not be easy to argue that priorities which he has selected should be displaced. He has laid the emphasis on two aspects of this question—one, the relief of industrial congestion, and the other, the improvement of black spots. Those are the two things to which he is directing most of the money which has been made available.
138
Now let me deal with one or two points which have been raised in the course of the debate. Lord Kinnaird asked about the Highlands I think he is aware that the Minister has said that he intends to maintain the increased expenditure on the Highlands which has already been announced—that is, roughly speaking, £1 million over three years. Lord Stratheden asked about the upgrading of roads. That is a matter upon which the local authority can apply to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the roads qualify for such upgrading by reason of their through traffic. Lord Kinnaird and Lord Mathers both mentioned the Forth road bridge. I should like to say to them that. while they may have no confidence in having a road bridge in connection with the existing railway bridge, they might do well to await the report by technicians which should be available in the course of the next few weeks—possibly in less. So whether there is anything in this project or not we should learn in a very short time. I do not propose to go further into the subject. I certainly do not agree that a Forth road bridge is a thing to be developed only in time of recession, and I would point out to Lord Mathers that the cost, £13½ million, would take up virtually the whole grant. for the United Kingdom for new developments for the space of twelve months—that is, on the basis on which we propose to work in the course of carrying out our programme. This would be asking a lot. I do not say that it cannot be done, but it would take a big slice out of what it has been found possible to make available. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, also raised the question of Kincardine Bridge. I wonder whether he is right about that. My information is that the bridge and the approach roads leading to it are already trunk roads.
LORD KINNAIRD: Not the roads to Kinross through Clackmannan and Fife; they are certainly not trunk roads. That is what we are asking for.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lords must not press me too much. I k now that the bridge itself is reckoned as part of the trunk road system.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, asked about the new Highway Code. I do not want to make any very definite promises about that. My right honourable friend

139
hopes that it will be available for both Houses of Parliament to consider well before the Summer Recess. I hope that I am making that a conservative expression of hope—I do not want to go further at the moment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the question of bridges. I do not want to say much about that matter, but it must be borne in mind that vehicles on our roads probably carry a heavier single load than vehicles in any other country in the world. The reason why the Ardrossan Bridge collapsed was that a bridge intended to carry five tons collapsed under a load of 100 tons. Of course that sort of thing has been going on a good many years and where the position is at all serious it is being tackled.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, mentioned alcoholism. I am informed that out of 250,000 cases of motor accidents, only 400 involved motorists found to be under the influence of drink: though I will not disagree with the noble Lord that in certain circumstances the statistics may not be wholly accurate. With regard to the suggestion of the alcohol meter, my information is that the alcohol content in the breath has to be very high in order to obtain a reading with certainty. But we have little experience of the instrument in this country. I do not think the noble Lord pressed very hard his other suggestion of blood testing. We are not enamoured of blood testing, and certainly not of compulsory blood testing. This matter was discussed recently under the auspices of the Economic Council of Europe, and the countries which pressed strongly for this form of testing were, by a singular coincidence, the countries where chronic alcoholism was highest. We do not think it desirable to take this course, for various reasons, one of which is that it is not an extremely reliable method. Meanwhile, Professor Drew and his team of assistants at Bristol University are examining this whole question.
If I may now turn to the economic side of this question, I think we should recognise frankly that we are the oldest industrial country, with all that that means including the congestion of population. Many of our problems arise from the fact that we started first. Often it is much easier to start with a blank programme,
140
so that one can lay out plans to meet modern requirements. For instance, we can think of cities like Paris and Berlin. which are beautifully laid out: but of course they were laid out by men possessing dictatorial powers. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was correct in saying that we have had no rational layout in the centre of London since Kings-way was laid out in 1903. We have always had to reconcile Parliamentary demo-cracy—its proper insistence on individual liberty and individual rights—with the sweeping requirements of long-term planning. Of course, we have struggled with this problem for a long time, and we have had a number of profound and interesting reports on the subject of planning. We have had a good deal of legislation about it over a number of years. But I think this is a sphere where the best is often the enemy of the good. After the war, a fair number of grandiose schemes costing fabulous sums of money were put forward—I knew some of them in the big towns with which I was familiar. The majority of them have proved impossible to execute in any reasonable time, and in some cases nothing whatever has been done. We hope that here we are putting forward a plan which really will be carried out, not something which will remain on blue prints. That is what my right honourable friend has in mind.
I want to emphasise that while the plan may be limited, there are further safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seemed to cast some doubt on whether planning had stopped altogether. I can assure the noble Lord that physical planning has certainly not stopped; we are fully using the development plans. In many cases, statutory orders and schemes have not been made but the plans are there, so that we are ready to go forward when the economic health of the country permits. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin. suggested that these plans might cost one million acres of agricultural land. Whilst it is only a guess, my information is that it would be much less than that, perhaps not more than 30,000 to 40,000 acres, because much of the development is already in urban areas of one sort or another. When my noble friend Lord Leathers was speaking on this subject eighteen months ago, he emphasised that the restrictions imposed

141
on road development had to be heavy because the country's affairs were not on an even keel. It has been fairly common in this debate to throw bricks at the Treasury. But the real reason we are able to proceed with some development is the strong guidance we have had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Because the State to-day is on a sounder footing we see the green light which, in terms of the Highway Code, means "Proceed," and not "Jam your foot on the throttle."
If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I think the British Road Federation have been perhaps a little less than fair to the proposals which have been made. The noble Lord said we had come to Parliament to say that we will spend £15 million in three years. That is a one-sided way of presenting the case and perhaps the noble Lord will not mind if I give the facts here. I think it is important that this should not be misunderstood. There are two things to be considered here—commitments and expenditure It is obvious that in road expenditure one cannot expend in a single year all the money that is committed. Between 1947 and 1957, the commitments run in this way: between 1947 and 1951 they were between £3 million and £4 million; in 1952 they were £3,500,000; in 1953, £6,400,000; in 1954, £19,400,000; in 1955, £17,800,000; in 1956, £12,700,000. On the other side, expenditure up to 1951 was of the order of £3 million a year; in 1952, it was £3,400,000; in 1953, £5 million; in 1954, £5 million; in 1957, £7,200,000; in 1956, £11,800,000; in 1957, £14,500,000. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will see that between the current year and 1957 there will be an expenditure of about £44 million. That is rather different from the figure he gave. I suggest that when we realise that there is an additional expenditure of 13 per cent. on maintenance, we can see that we are really taking a step forward which is worth while.
There has been a good deal of criticism of our road system, but I feel it is fair to the taxpayer of the country to remind your Lordships that over the last thirty years, with the exception of the war years, expenditure on roads has never fallen below £50 million a year—that is, counting expenditure by local authorities. This
142
year the total expenditure is about £90 million, and in the coming years it will be about £100 million. If we are able to maintain that level, it will mean a national expenditure of the order of £1,000 million in ten years, which, by any calculation, is a substantial sum of money. Therefore, I suggest that it would be a mistake to say that in this. field we have committed a colossal blunder. Rather, what we have run up against is a very expensive capital investment. I should like to say that, taking the country altogether, we were probably right to accept the old alignment of roads and development rather than to go wholesale into agricultural land, which is a point made by the 'noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Taking these limits, I suggest that the road authorities have really done technically the best job that they could. It is fair to say, I think, first, that the road surfaces in this country are better than those of any other country in the world; and secondly, that we have the finest system of secondary roads of any country in the world. Anyone who is familiar with the roads in America will realise that when you get off the main trunk roads the secondary roads bear absolutely no relation to them.
I do not dispute the main contention of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that our arterial communications, and particularly the entrances to our big towns, are far from what we should desire. I should, however, like to make the point that some of these examinations of capital expenditure that we have heard are rather misleading. For instance, the noble Lord gave us the figure of the expenditure on electricity—I believe he got the years wrong, but it does not much matter. I think it is proper to remember that, so far as electricity is concerned, we have had to give a definite priority. We know that if electricity is cut off, industry comes to a complete standstill. Therefore, electricity must be provided, and I suggest that this Government, like the Government before, are perfectly correct in giving a high priority to electricity. I would suggest, further, that to make a proper comparison we must recognise that roads are a special type of asset which you cannot depreciate or replace as you can machine tools, locomotives, or anything of that character. A road is something that you maintain and improve. Therefore, you may add the

143
depreciation which, in an ordinary business, would normally fall on to the existing equipment. Under that scheme, if we take, for instance, the actual expenditure on physical maintenance of the roads, and we add to that the new expenditure, we get a figure of about £300 million, which I suggest is more reasonably comparable to the £600 million mentioned by the noble Lord in regard to electricity during the relevant years.
I should now like to turn to what I suggest is the main problem. The main problem is budgetary. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, that at the moment there is no question of a shortage of surveyor staff; but as the programme increases, of course, that might arise. As I say, the problem we face to-day is budgetary. I suggest, with respect. that it is the ability of this Government to maintain what I would describe as a great measure of normality in life, which is persuading us to forget the burden the State is bearing at the present time. We talk about £300 million paid by the motor industry in taxes, or on motorcars, as a big figure. But that sum would not meet half the cost of the Royal Air Force. If we go back just over twenty years, we find that the taxes paid by the motor industry were three times the cost of the Royal Air Force. Another example is to take the motor industry and add to it purchase tax. Even then, you do not meet the cost of the National Health Service. I just give these examples to emphasise the burden which we are succeeding in carrying at the present moment. I say that if people feel that a larger allocation of our national resources should go into roads, then they must decide what further taxes they would like to pay, or how much they are prepared to cut off the national expenditure. Of course, if they cut off less than £20 million, that will be called a "very miserable effort."
There have been three alternatives put forward, and I should like to deal with them shortly. No one has actually suggested a road fund, but the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned among his other suggestions the allocation of certain revenues for the sole purpose of maintaining roads. Frankly, the objection to that is that it reduces the flexibility of control which the Chancellor
144
of the Exchequer can exercise. The prosperity of the road industry depends entirely on the general economic health of the country, and if the Chancellor is able to maintain that, it is necessarily of far greater importance than any allocated payments exclusively devoted to the improvement of our road system. If he does not do that: the road system cannot be a success. We must remember that, owing to the weakness of our economy, it is not so long ago that petrol was rationed; and it is only recently that one has been able to purchase any form of motor vehicle almost immediately. I feel that probably this matter would not be pressed very hard if taxes were a little lower, or alternatively, if the Chancellor could allocate more funds.
What I believe is put forward more seriously is the question of tolls. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was quite clear that he did not mean to impose tolls on anything except a short by-pass; but the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, took it much further, and I believe the figures he gave were for the proposed London—Birmingham road. I have heard discussed the financial background of the New Jersey turnpike, and I am bound to say that it sounds most attractive. I suggest, however, that the position in America is different. The taxes on the motor trade are a good deal lower, and the general openness of the country suggests opportunities there winch we do not have. I personally would hesitate about suggesting that by-passes should be tolled, because, after all—and this is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—the purpose of the by-pass is to get people to use it, and you do not want to impose a toll which would discourage people from using it. We do, of course, use tolls: we use them on the Mersey Tunnel, and we have taken power to use them on the Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel; but it is right to realise that in both those cases only a small percentage of the whole capital cost will be met. I am given to understand that in the case of the Mersey Tunnel the toll will meet only the local authority charges—and that not for some time—and will not meet the central Exchequer charges at all.
I am bound to say, on the information I have, that it is doubtful how far industrialists would be willing to pay a substantial toll. I may be wrong there, but my information is that they would

145
not do so. My information, which differs from that of both the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord. Lord Brabazon of Tara, is that the percentage cost of road transport to productive industry is much less than he suggested. The figure which I have, which is necessarily tentative, is about 2 to 3 per cent. of productive industry. If we get a saving of 10 per cent., that would mean a saving of something under one penny in the £. It is not a big sum, and we have to measure how far it is justified to do something of this character. If anybody does put up a scheme of this sort, whether it is private enterprise or local authority, the Government will be willing to consider any such practical project. I have only explained what our experience on tolls is in the case of the Mersey Tunnel, but whether it be for the Forth Road Bridge or anything else, the Government will certainly consider it carefully.
I should like to turn for one moment to the question of a loan. I am not quite certain on what basis this should be. I should like to mention one or two of the difficulties which might arise. There is the danger. of course, of inflationary pressure arising from excessive loans. It would not increase our resources. What it would do would be to some extent to divert our resources from other productive industries. What it would amount to—and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, acknowledged it quite frankly—would be a charge on the Treasury it would be an increase of our national debt without the possibility of ascribing to it any particular earning revenue, as you can with electricity or anything else. I suggest that, powerful as the arguments are, we must be careful not to buy our roads on the "Never-never" system. Only last week we were discussing. National Insurance, and the House was reminded that in twenty-five years' time the deficit would amount to £400 million a year. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, did not think that that was enough. Much the same arguments might be made in regard to defence. Three years ago we started an immense defence programme. The late Government might have done that on a loan, but, if they had, they would have been severely startled when they read the recent White Paper which says:
" It is the Government view that the continuation over a tong period of the present
146
state of cold war is now more likely than the outbreak of a major war on a particular date."
That would have meant not only bearing the whole current expenditure, but the charges necessary to service the loan. One must consider how far it is an advantage to service a loan over thirty years, perhaps £27 million or £30 million a year, when, in fact, the Government, as the noble Lord will see from the recent Vote on accounts, is spending £40 million a year on road services. What the rate would be over thirty years is something which could be quite easily calculated.
I have tried to put this problem into proportion, so far as I have been able to do so. I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, because it is a big problem which we have to face. The emphasis on loans and tolls has been an emphasis of continuity—something that cannot be just shut off or put on at the present time. Of course, if the economy of the country will not allow it, then it has to be shut off. But we have this assurance: the programme which the Government put forward now is welcomed on both sides of this House, as it was in another place, so that even if this country were to suffer the grievous misfortune of a change of Government, there is a reasonable chance that this programme would be carried forward We are determined that this development shall proceed, at least on the basis which has been announced.
It may be thought that, in trying to put this matter in proportion, I have over-emphasised the difficulties. I have done so because I thought the speakers seemed to skirt a little round them. We are dealing with astronomical figures, because the figure of £1 million per mile development for the Cromwell. Road is only one. We are doing this at a time when most of us would like to talk about a reduction in taxation. It is similar to other spheres of our life in which we want to improve the capital equipment available—there are many spheres of industry where we should like to do so. Basically, there is only one way in which we can do that, and that is from the savings of the people of this country. Ultimately, tat is the only way in which it can be done. We are facing a world-wide problem, and it is not a simple one. It may be worn for us because of our congested urban areas, but I think it is

147
proper to say that in the realm of safety we are facing up to these problems as well as any other country. For instance, taking the casualties per head of the population, America has twice the rate of this country; and so have Canada and Australia. The rate for Germany is about 50 per cent. higher. That suggests that motor roads by themselves are not the whole answer to road accidents. The casualty rate in America of 40,000 fatal accidents in 1952, suggests, by any comparison, that their problem is materially worse than ours.
It has not been said to-day, but some people have called the car a "lethal weapon." I have little doubt that if lethal weapons of this character were used in our factories, the factory inspectors would insist on a much higher standard of discipline than that which exists on our roads at the present time. It is one of the problems that we must face if we are going into this matter. Finally, I would say this. We have set something in motion which is worth while, and we certainly intend to maintain it. This country, if it is slow to make up its mind, once it does so has a way, in the long run, of getting what it wants. I think the opinion of this debate has been clearly expressed, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for raising it.
8.7 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I was unaware, when I moved this Motion, that I was preaching to the converted. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that he does not differ from me. All I can say is that I am pleased that I did not move a Motion over which he differed from me, because, although he has not had experience in another place, considering that he agrees with me, he is the most arch-wriggler of any Minister that I have ever seen. Anyhow, if we have converted him to the fact that roads are a capital equipment in industry, that is something. If he will go from his place and tell his colleagues that particular fact—which they certainly have not appreciated yet—then, although this debate has been somewhat long, it will have been well worth while. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  BOARDING EDUCATION OF SERVICE CHILDREN
  BOARDING EDUCATION OF SERVICE CHILDREN
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]