Sitting of 3 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [Lords]
A verbal Amendment made to the Bill; Bill read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.
HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Call-up Arrangements
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that national and international developments during the last three months have made obsolete the arrangements of his Department for the deferment of the call-up of men employed in the Merchant Navy, fishing industry, coal mining, agriculture and as police cadets, and for the deferment of call-up of apprentices, learners, pupils and students; and, in view of these developments, if he will now set up an authoritative committee to inquire into all matters relative to call-up arrangements and report to Parliament.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to his Question on 6th March last.
    Mr. Hughes: But does not the Minister realise that many changes have taken place since 6th March last, and will he not keep up to date? Does he not realise that the extent of the present call-up and deferment arrangements operate adversely on our productivity, foreign currency and trade generally, and that it is time that they were revised?
    Mr. Macleod: The most important unknown factor is at what level recruiting will emerge as a result of the increased pay for the Regular Forces. That is a decisive factor in future consideration of the matter, and it is too early yet to say what the level will be.
    Commander Maitland: In view of the mounting importance of the matter, does not my right hon. Friend think that it should be considered by a committee, should not that committee be the Cabinet, and can he assure us that that is being done now?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, indeed. I think that the only point on which the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and myself differ is as to what sort of body should look at this. We believe firmly that this is a matter for Cabinet consideration, whereas the hon. and learned Member thinks that an outside body is appropriate.

    Immigrants
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the male immigrants to this country during the past four years who are liable for National Service have been medically examined for such service; and what proportion have undergone or are undergoing such service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret the information is not available. The statistics do not distinguish between immigrants and other British subjects.

    Agricultural Workers, Scotland
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour how many agricultural workers were called up for National Service in Scotland in 1955.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: In 1955, 815 men were called up under the National Service Acts from agriculture in Scotland.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that last year the labour force in Scotland declined by over 4,000, and that official figures show that one-third of the people who are called up never return to the land in Scotland? Does he not think it is time to face these facts?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes; but of course a very substantial number are deferred, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows,

    1131
    and a figure of 815 called up from agriculture does not seem to me to be an unduly large one.

    Shepherds
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Labour why he continues to call up shepherds for National Service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: A shepherd is called up only if his employer makes no application for his deferment or if the Agricultural Advisory Panel and the National Service Deferment Board, in considering such an application, decide that no case has been made out.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that of these 800 agricultural workers called up, some are important key workers, and that shepherds are becoming important key workers in many of the lonely places in Scotland? Is he aware that he sent me a reply saying that a shepherd would be deferred until after the lambing season, not thinking that there might be another lambing season after that?
    Mr. Macleod: Perhaps the shepherd in that case could be deferred again. But, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, shepherds, who are, of course, key workers because they are in charge of stock, have always been eligible, and still are, for consideration for deferment.

    Call-up (Deferment)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will now arrange to exempt from National Service those whose call-up has to be deferred.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the suspension of the call-up of grade III medical cases, has not the time come to do more tapering off of the call-up, which in any event is to be abandoned in the lifetime of this Parliament? Is there not a strong case for suspending the call-up now in the case of those who have had their call-up suspended for many months—those in apprenticeships, university courses, in chemistry, or in agriculture, etc.?
    Mr. Macleod: Obviously I am making no statement in regard to the future of National Service, but, as the hon. and
    1132
    gallant Member realises, this is an administrative arrangement and not statutory; and it would be unfair to extend exemption from National Service obligations to the people who happen to have been deferred.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour to state the nationalised industries which are short of manpower with the numbers now required in each case.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Present manpower shortages in the nationalised industries are mainly in coal mining and railway employment. I understand that the National Coal Board would welcome a net increase of 10,000 on its present labour force by the end of the year. But to reverse the normal seasonal trend between June and December to this extent would require recruitment of about 45,000 men. I understand that staff shortages on British Railways total about 26,000.
    Mr. Lee: Would the Minister remember that there has been much agitation by the British Employers' Confederation and the F.B.I. against the nationalised industries giving advances which the F.B.I. considers not warranted? Do not the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given show that, in fact, there cannot possibly be too high a wage scale in those industries, otherwise there would not be this vast number of vacancies?
    Mr. Macleod: I am afraid that I could not accept all the implications contained in that supplementary question. There are certainly great numbers of vacancies here, as there are in many fields of private industry which as well are equally of the first importance. I think it is worth making the point that these vacancies which I have mentioned are very much higher than those shown at the employment exchanges throughout the country.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Arising out of the Minister's first reply, in which he said that the coal industry would require 10,000 men by the end of the year, may I ask whether his Department is giving careful consideration to what is the biggest change which has taken place in recent years, namely, that there is no

    1133
    prospect of 10,000 men being recruited in the mining areas, and that therefore they will have to be recruited outside those areas? Are he and his Department studying that problem?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, we are studying it in many areas. As I indicated last week, the National Coal Board has recruiting schemes in other areas. It is not just the recruitment of 10,000; as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, in order to get a net increase of 10,000 we have to get 45,000 men.

    Motor Car Industry
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will obtain from all employers in the motor car industry their estimates of the numbers and types of employees they will require by the end of the year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. Such estimates as employers might be willing to make would be based on so many assumptions that they would not serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 19th June I asked him whether he would take powers to require employers to give him notice of pending redundancies, and that in his reply he told me he was quite certain that employers would co-operate with him before such action was taken? Following upon the decision of the British Motor Corporation, which has caused him so much trouble and anxiety, is he now quite so certain that employers will willingly co-operate, and will he reconsider the answer which he gave on 19th June?
    Mr. Macleod: That is a very different Question from the one on the Order Paper, which is whether there would be any value in having such an estimate of requirements by the end of the year.

    Employment Exchanges, Selly Oak and Longbridge
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that hundreds of men who are working short time in the motor car and allied industries are having to queue for two hours and more each week at the Selly Oak Employment Exchange; and whether he will open an emergency office in Longbridge or employ extra staff in order to reduce this waiting.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The staff of the Selly Oak Employment Exchange has been substantially increased, overtime is being worked and special premises have been opened. I regret that, nevertheless, there were delays on two days last month which, in a few cases, amounted to as much as two hours. These were due to the attendance of an unexpectedly large number of applicants, including some who had come well in advance of their scheduled times. I am doing my best to reduce delays to a minimum, and I am opening special premises to deal with the further increase in unemployment in the Longbridge area.
    Mr. Chapman: Referring to the short-time workers for a start, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that they were waiting for two hours yesterday afternoon—let alone last week—after all he is supposed to be doing? Is he further aware that the emergency premises which he has opened for them are on the city boundary, costing the men at least 1s. 6d. to go in buses to sign on, creating an absolutely stupid situation? Further, is it the case that the money for these short-time workers is already two months in arrears in calculation? What is the Minister doing about that?
    Mr. Macleod: I should very much like to look into the matters which the hon. Gentleman raises but which I am afraid, just like that, I do not accept. On the question of the special premises, I do not think that those to which I referred are the same ones as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman, because the premises I have in mind are at Longbridge and are being opened tomorrow or the next day.
    Mr. Chapman: They are the same.
    Mr. Macleod: No, they are different ones.

    Gipsies
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour what special efforts have been made by his Department to persuade gipsies to undertake useful employment, in view of the special conditions affecting this community.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: My Department would be very willing to give any assistance it could in this way if its help is sought.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in other European countries enlightened policies are followed so as to find first-class craftsmen and musicians among the younger gipsies, whilst we make Romany life impossible, treating them as outcasts? Does he not think that we should do better to put our own house in order rather than criticise other countries for the way in which they are dealing with their human problems?

    Remploy
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour what effect the administrative economies totalling £475,000 announced by his Department will have on Remploy; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): None, Sir.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that that reply will give satisfaction? Can he ask his right hon. Friend if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the heads under which these economies will be made, and can he further say why, if these economies can be made without affecting the service, they were not made before?
    Mr. Carr: That is an entirely different question from that on the Order Paper. I can, however, say that my right hon. Friend does intend to outline his proposals in detail to the National Joint Advisory Council at its meeting later this month.

    Motor Car Workers, Birmingham
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many workers are unemployed and working short time, respectively, in the Birmingham area; and what has been the effect of the action of the British Motor Corporation upon the employment situation in Birmingham and throughout the country;
    (2) how many vacancies there are for employment in the Birmingham area for skilled and unskilled workers, respectively; and the occupations he is able to offer the displaced motor car workers and those likely to be displaced in the near future.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many vacancies exist in comparable employment for the 5,600 men being dismissed by the British Motor Corporation in the Birmingham area; and what emergency facilities he is providing at Longbridge to enable men to register for and be informed about other employment;
    (2) whether he is aware that there was no prior consultation with workers before the announcement by the British Motor Corporation of 6,000 dismissals; and whether he will now use his good offices to invite both sides together to explore the possibilities of withdrawal of the notices and to avoid an industrial dispute.
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the British Motor Corporation has now dismissed 6,000 men, the majority of whom were employed in Birmingham; and what action he proposes to take to deal with this situation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: On 11th June there were 4,008 wholly unemployed persons in the Birmingham area, and in the week ended 30th June it is estimated that there were about 15,000 persons on short time. In addition on 29th June the British Motor Corporation discharged 4,800 workers in Birmingham and are putting a further number on short time this week.
    Vacancies for men in Birmingham and within reasonable daily travelling distance totalled about 11,900 at 27th June. About 10,000 of these were for skilled and semi-skilled workers. Occupations in which vacancies are available are mainly engineering, road and rail transport and coal mining.
    The qualifications of the dismissed men are becoming known as they register, and it is not yet possible to say how these compare with the outstanding vacancies. As I informed the House on Thursday last, my employment exchanges will place as many men as possible in vacancies which have been notified or which my officers will find for them. I have made arrangements to speed up the engagement of those who can be placed in transport or coal mining.
    As regards Question No. 17, I am aware of the position, but there is in the engineering industry an agreed procedure for dealing with differences, and I am informed that a conference between union

    1137
    officials, the firm and the employers' association has been fixed for tomorrow.
    Mr. Yates: May I ask the Minister two questions? First, this grave situation at Birmingham is one the possibility of which was brought to his attention on 6th March. I am referring to the Austin Motor Company thinking of discharging several thousand workers. Therefore, the Minister has had three months. I want to ask him whether he is aware now that a number of other firms, motor car accessory firms in Birmingham, including Joseph Lucas Ltd., have given notice, and that they employ very many workers in the motor car accessory industry? I want to ask the Minister if he will now make some survey in Birmingham of all these accessory firms, so that he can be aware of the situation which is developing before we are engulfed in an industrial catastrophe in Birmingham. My second question——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very long supplementary question; I think it is quite enough for one.
    Mr. Shurmer rose——
    Mr. Yates: I have put two Questions to the Minister, and one of them related to vacancies——
    Mr. Speaker: Let us have one question at a time. The hon. Member has been on his feet for a very long time.
    Mr. Macleod: If I may answer the question which has been put, it is, of course, true that there are, and will be, repercussions in the very complicated system of accessory and component firms which serve the motor car industry, and we have always tried to keep closely in touch with that; but the figures of unemployment in that respect have not in fact climbed, or only by a very tiny amount, in the four or five months of this year. The figure in the whole of the accessory industry is, I think, rather under one-half of 1 per cent.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that, despite the statement which he makes regarding vacancies in Birmingham—of which many people are sceptical—one of his officials said yesterday that, whilst it might be easy to place skilled men, it would not be so easy to place semi-skilled men, and it would be harder to place unskilled men? Further, as a number of firms have already indicated
    1138
    in the Press this morning that they are going to make workers redundant in the very near future, where is this all going to lead?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course it is true, as I said last week, there is very little problem in relation to skilled men, and a much more serious problem in relation to semi-skilled and unskilled men. We do know that. But the great number of the vacancies to which I have referred are precisely in those categories.
    Mr. Chapman: Referring to last week, what happened between Monday and Wednesday? The Minister said he was privately informed that the dismissals were going to take place. Did he just sit and wait for them to happen without trying to get the employers to give adequate notice? Did he sit on his behind and hope—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Oh, yes—leaving Sir Leonard Lord to carry the Government's can for them?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must confine themselves to questions, and not make speeches.
    Mr. Yates: The second question I want to ask the Minister is whether he is aware that it has been stated officially in Birmingham that it will take ten days before the displaced workers can be interviewed? Is not that a grave situation to have developed in Birmingham? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some action, although I realise the difficulty, to see if this matter can be speeded up?
    Mr. Macleod: As I think my Answer indicated, we will do and we are doing everything we can to speed it up. A very substantial number of men have already been interviewed and a high percentage have already been submitted to employment.
    Mr. Lee: Will the Minister consider asking firms now indicating that they are getting into difficulties to define the numbers and types of workers liable to be rendered redundant in future, in order that there may be some pre-arrangement made by the Ministry to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree that that is enormously important. The overwhelming majority of firms have done and will do the best they can to keep my officials in touch. The more information I can have on the future composition of the labour force the better.

    South Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour to make a statement on the present level of employment in South Wales; and his estimate of future prospects.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The estimated number of employees in civil employment in the Counties of Brecon, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Monmouth and Pembroke was approximately 700,000 in June, 1956, while the number unemployed on 11th June was about 13,500. There has been a slight increase in unemployment in recent months, but the general employment position is good and there seems no reason to expect any substantial change in the future.

  SCOTLAND

    Fishing Industry (Training)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the conference held in Aberdeen on 21st May, 1956, to devise plans for according practical training to new recruits for the trawling and fishing industry generally; that the conference was attended by representatives of the Scottish Education Department as well as by representatives of many sides of the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement on its aims and plans and the aid which his Department will give this work.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): This conference was convened by Aberdeen education authority to explore the possibility of setting up a course of the pre-apprenticeship type to give practical training to boys entering the trawling side of the fishing industry. It recommended that further examination of the problems should be carried out by a working party. My right hon. Friend's Departments will continue to give any assistance that may be required in planning a course and any expenditure on such a course would receive the usual 60 per cent. grant.
    Mr. Hughes: Whilst thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he realises that this was a con-
    1140
    structive and realistic attempt to solve urgent problems relating to the fishing industry? Will he specify what help he is giving to implement the decisions arrived at at that conference?
    Mr. Stewart: As I said, the conference decided to set up a working party to examine the details. We shall help in any way we can.

    Slaughterhouses
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to announce the policy of the Government on slaughterhouses.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement before the summer Recess.

    Peel of Drumry
    Sir J. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed demolition of the Peel of Drumry; and whether he will take steps to prevent the demolishing of this historic building.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the proposed demolition. The Historic Buildings Council for Scotland has just advised him that the tower comes within the category of a building of special architectural or historic interest but that it is of local rather than of national importance. He proposes to take up with Glasgow Corporation the possibility of retaining the tower as a feature of their development scheme for the area.
    Sir J. Hutchison: Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend realise that, although this building is perhaps not in the first category of importance, it is nevertheless the only building of any historic interest which is completely surrounded by a new housing scheme and is invested with a special importance on that account?
    Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State assure me that this decision will not prevent the demolition of many of the historic buildings in my area?
    Mr. Browne: I should like notice of that question.

    Ferries
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in many parts of Scotland ferries are of special importance as a link between highways on either side of a waterway and that their absence retards the full development of the areas concerned; and how many of the recommendations applying to Scotland of the 1947 Committee on Ferries in Great Britain have been implemented.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of ferries in many parts of Scotland. The Ferries Committee's Report contained sixteen recommendations dealing specifically with Scottish ferries. He understands that improvements have since been carried out at most of the ferries in question.
    Mr. Rankin: I take it from that Answer that all the recommendations have not yet been implemented. Is the Minister aware that if he does not hurry and carry out all the provisions of this Report, he will have to meet heavy expenditure for bridges because many of the ferries will soon be out of date?
    Mr. Stewart: That is quite true. There is something to be done here yet.

    Road Junction, Glasgow (Accidents)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of accidents which have occurred at the junction of Kilmarnock Road and Merrylee and Netherauldhouse Roads in Glasgow during the last five years, and the number of people who as a result have been killed or injured.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Figures for the last five years are not readily available, but my right hon. Friend understands that from 1st January, 1953, to 31st May last, 43 accidents occurred at this junction, seven of which involved personal injury to 14 people.
    Mr. Rankin: The Minister did not say how many were killed. Is he aware that I live very near that area? Kilmarnock Road is one of the really dangerous roads in Glasgow, and accidents, as I have witnessed, arise mostly from the undue speed of motorists travelling along that road.
    1142
    Will the Minister take steps to ensure that, for a period at least, a special watch is put on this area?
    Mr. Stewart: Glasgow Corporation, of course, knows about this and has a responsibility. I think that the best answer I can give the hon. Member is that we shall gladly assist in any investigation which Glasgow Town Council may wish to make, such as the hon. Member suggests.

    Road Traffic, Lanark
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the construction of a by-pass road to reduce the volume of heavy long-distance traffic passing through the ancient Royal Burgh of Lanark with its narrow street junctions.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered this suggestion, but he is afraid that having regard to other claims on the roads programme he could not justify the substantial expenditure involved.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Burgh of Lanark represents quite a serious and cumulative hazard in regard to road safety? Has he had representations about it from the town council? Will he bear the matter in mind?
    Mr. Stewart: I will certainly bear the matter in mind. It is a matter of judgment and of one thing compared with another. The long-term programme we have in mind should be the best answer to this problem.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not the Joint Under-Secretary at any rate feel that the Government would very much wish to avoid by-elections in these two constituencies in present circumstances?

    Accidents in the Home (Death Rate)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which cities and large burghs in Scotland incur the highest death rate from accidents in the home.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Of the four cities Dundee, with 38 deaths per 100,000 population, and of the twenty large burghs Greenock, with 41 deaths per 100,000 had the highest death rates from accidents in the home in the year 1955
    Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether Dundee and Greenock are aware that the death rate is two deaths in the home to every one on the road? If they have not home safety committees, will the hon. Gentleman see that they set up such committees and undertake some propaganda in their burghs?
    Mr. Browne: Dundee has an accident prevention committee, but Greenock has not, although the local health authority distributes leaflets through the maternity and child welfare service and the health visitors. My right hon. Friend hopes that all local authorities which have not already done so will encourage the setting up of accident prevention committees and give them assistance through the local health organisation.
    Mr. Woodburn: As there have been very distressing accidents of this kind in recent times, would the hon. Gentleman consider a special effort being made in the schools to get children to realise the dangers which occur? I am quite sure that, with the holidays approaching, it would be a good idea to bring this matter to the notice of children, with some good illustrations.
    Mr. Browne: Yes, my right hon. Friend will try to do everything he can to help to publicise these accidents at home. Falls constitute the largest single cause of fatal accidents, and they occur mainly among elderly people. Of the 1,120 accidents in 1955, accidental falls accounted for 48 per cent., and out of those 535 there were 479 amongst people aged 65 years or over.
    Captain Duncan: Can my hon. Friend tell me where he gets those figures from? Do they come from the Inter-Departmental Committee? If so, are they published?
    Mr. Browne: The reports are not published; and we gather statistics wherever we can from the local authorities concerned.

    Forth Road Bridge
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for not announcing a firm date for the starting of the Forth road bridge; and whether he will give an assurance that the scheme will not be subject to toll charges.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: As my right hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. GommeDuncan) on 19th June, the Government intend to authorise a start within the first four years of the road programme announced in February, 1955. The precise date of starting will be decided having regard to general economic circumstances.
    As regards the second part of the Question, I would remind the hon. Member that the Forth Road Bridge Order, 1947, provides for tolls to be levied.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where the Secretary of State is? Is he making some other statement in the country today. Is it not a fact that that Written Answer by the Secretary of State indicated a complete lack of confidence in the economic policy of the Government formed by his own party? The inference is that we shall not get the bridge because the economic situation is getting progressively worse.
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is in attendance on Her Majesty in Edinburgh today. As to the second part of the supplementary question, we have said—and we have never altered the pledge—that we shall begin this scheme before the end of the four-year period. The precise moment of starting clearly must depend on a number of items, some of which are mentioned in the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, that we have to consider the best way of financing it and to consider the technical details of the bridge.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: So far as tolls are concerned, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the great majority of people who have to pay to get across the Forth by boat would be only too glad to pay the same fare to get across the Forth by bridge?
    Mr. Hamilton: That is not so.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that there will be no cuts in, or slowing down of, the school building programme as part of the current national economy campaign.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No project which is essential to provide for the

    1145
    increase in the school roll, for the movement of population to new housing areas, or for the development of technical education is being postponed, but my right hon. Friend has asked education authorities to defer certain projects which do not fall into any of these categories.
    Mr. Hamilton: That, again, is being less than frank with the House. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that this continual niggling at the education Estimates is causing concern among people who are genuinely interested in education? If it is a fact, as the English Minister of Education says, that our competitors are putting their shirts on education, should not the Secretary of State for Scotland do at least as much?
    Mr. Stewart: We are putting a great deal more than our shirts on: we are putting on all we can possibly put. Last year, the starts on new schools were a record, £11·4 million worth. This year the figure will be higher still. That is the best answer I can give to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hoy: The Joint Under-Secretary of State last year gave the commencing date for most school building in Scotland as well as announcing the date for the Forth road bridge. Can we take it that neither of those dates has been altered, and that the recent announcements of the Government do not alter the original starting dates?
    Mr. Stewart: The matter of the Forth road bridge does not arise on this Question. There was, on the starts for schools, a certain lag over from last year, on schools that the authorities hoped to start but found they could not. Adding those to this year's programme, we shall this year make more starts than ever before in Scottish history.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools, included in the 1955–56 programme but not started in that period, have now been started; and what effect these arrears is expected to have on the 1956–57 programme.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Three schools were started in the period from 1st April to 31st May one of which the education
    1146
    authority concerned had expected to start in the year 1955–56. It is my right hon. Friend's aim to ensure that all essential projects which education authorities are ready to start in 1956–57, whether they had expected to start them in the previous year or not, will go ahead as soon as they are ready.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister not aware that that is not an answer to the Question on the Order Paper? Is he aware, from the figures which he gave in answer to a previous Question, that 40 per cent. of the proposed programme for 1955–56 did not begin, and can he say what effect that will have on the 1956–57 programme?
    Mr. Stewart: Forty-seven schools which the local authorities had hoped to start last year were not started. [Interruption.] They were unable to make a start; we hope that they will start this year. As I have already stated, the total effect of that is that we shall start building more schools this year than ever before.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that it is very evident in Scotland that the Government are doing everything they can to sabotage the building of public buildings while at the same time encouraging all kinds of luxury building?
    Mr. Stewart: The facts are that the present Government are doing more by far in the way of school starts—[Laughter]. Well, that is the Question. They are doing, in the way of total amounts spent in any year on building and in the way of completed schools, far more than the Opposition ever dreamt of doing.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate that now.

    Glenrothes (Policy)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Fife County Council and the Glenrothes Development Corporation on future policy in the new town.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend is now considering the views put forward by the development corporation and the county council at their recent meeting with my noble Friend the

    1147
    Minister of State, Scottish Office, and hopes to make an announcement at an early date.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the early announcement will be made before the Recess and in this House? Would he not agree that a powerful case was put up by the spokesmen of the development corporation, and does not that statement make the Government thoroughly ashamed of their short-sighted policy that they are now carrying out?
    Mr. Browne: The answer to the first two parts of the supplementary question is "Yes". The Government have nothing to be ashamed of. We welcome the signs of greater activity. In the last six months 149 miners from other areas have been housed, compared with 13 in the previous six months and a total of 85 in the eight years 1948–55.

    Vegetables (Prices)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the price of tomatoes, onions, brussels sprouts and fresh vegetables is invariably about 4d. per lb. more in Scotland than in England; and, as this increase cannot wholly be attributed to freight charges, if he will take steps to control the price in Scotland.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Because of various factors affecting production, distribution, supplies and demand, prices have never been uniform throughout the country. It is the Government's policy in general to remove controls, not to impose them. In any case it would not be practicable to control the price in Scotland alone, nor would it be likely to result in more vegetables being available to the Scottish household.
    Mrs. Mann: If it is too much to expect that there should be controls, would it be reasonable to expect some survey, or some consideration of these differences, because they have continued for years? Any time that I have questioned the English Minister he has told me that he has no responsibility in the matter, and that I ought to buy my onions in London. Does the Joint Under-Secretary not think that some consideration could be given, particularly on things which are grown
    1148
    in Lanarkshire? Surely, we ought to be able to buy them there much cheaper than in London?
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady is aware, I think, that the Runciman Committee is at present looking into the organisation of marketing. I think that may help her to some extent.

    School Uniforms
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the complaints made by parents concerning poor quality of school blazers and shrinkage of school caps provided for schools under his control; if he is aware that parents are directed to where these should be purchased; and if he will take steps to give parents freedom to choose what they consider to be the best value, commensurate with school colours, &c., from retailers who provide such.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend is not aware that any such complaints have been made by parents in Scotland. So far as is known, the parents of pupils attending public schools are free to buy school uniforms at any shops which stock them.
    Mrs. Mann: It is really surprising to hear that reply. The British Standards Institution survey contains pages full of complaints from Scotland, and particularly from Edinburgh. It is a well-known practice of schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—to insist that blazers, caps, and so on, must be purchased——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has not yet asked a question. She is making a statement.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to inform the schools that the parents are not to be obliged to buy from any firm in particular?
    Mr. Stewart: This is a matter for the schools. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State at all. In most cases, as in the hon. Lady's county, the authorities pass on the entire responsibility to the headmasters. I do not think that this is a Government responsibility.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would appear

    1149
    from the hon. Lady's statements on her two Questions that it is right to control tomatoes and wrong to control school caps?

    Town Planning Conference, Vienna (Glasgow Corporation Delegate)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused to allow Glasgow Corporation to send more than one delegate to the Town Planning Conference in Vienna next month.
    Mr. N. Browne: The view was taken that in present economic circumstances the attendance of one member of the Corporation at this Conference, along with any appropriate officers, would adequately represent the corporation's interests.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely this is an element of dictation which is completely wrong when applied to local government in this way? Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that Baillie Millar, the Convenor of the Planning Committee, regards the conference as being so important that he is going to Vienna at his own expense? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is wrong, and that it is a wrong way to treat a great municipal corporation like that of Glasgow, which has so many responsibilities for town planning?
    Mr. Browne: It is, however, true that one member with any of the necessary officials can adequately represent the interests of any local authority at the Conference. The hon. Member may know that Edinburgh applied for authority to send one member only.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is it in order to suggest that Glasgow should follow Edinburgh's example?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, perfectly in order.

    Potatoes (Imports from Cyprus)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the concern of Scottish potato growers over recent imports of new potatoes from Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is some concern in Scotland regarding imports of potatoes from Cyprus due in the main to their somewhat later arrival than usual. Another factor is that according to information at present available production
    1150
    of new potatoes in Scotland has been higher than last year.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Ayrshire potato growers have lost £500,000 in ten days? Is he aware that the troubles caused in Cyprus were due to a curfew in Cyprus? What reason can the hon. Gentleman give for inflicting collective punishment on Ayrshire farmers as well as in Cyprus?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Housing Scheme, Chryston
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when Lanark County Council will be given his decision on the proposed new housing site at Chryston.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Discussions are proceeding. As I informed the hon. Lady on 18th June in a letter, a decision will be made as soon as possible.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that this housing scheme at Chryston has to cover a very wide area of Lanarkshire, as building cannot take place elsewhere because of the mineral position? Is he aware that a letter was sent from the local authority on 24th April on this matter, to which no reply was made and a further letter on 1st May, a mere acknowledgement of which was received? Is he aware that the dates for housing subtenants in the area is 1947, and that not a single sub-tenant has been housed whose marriage took place after July, 1947. Surely the Secretary of State has had plenty of time to make his decision known.
    Mr. Browne: As the hon. Lady knows, this has not been a straightforward case. We still have to get clearance on the stability of the area and to consider the claims of agriculture. We hope to give an answer by about the end of the month.

    School Children (Eyesight Testing)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to improve the facilities for examining the eyesight of children in schools.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: While my right hon. Friend does not accept that these facilities are generally inadequate he is seeking, in consultation with the education authorities, to assess the practicability and value of testing the eyesight of children at an earlier age than at present adopted.
    Miss Herbison: Would the hon. Gentleman not consider carrying out the recommendations that have been made to him by opticians in Scotland? Is he aware that there are many people who through school sight-testing were never found to need spectacles and yet were in great need of them? Would the hon. Gentleman give some consideration to the recommendations made to him?
    Mr. Browne: Yes, indeed. These matters are under active consideration.

    Afforestation
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now use his compulsory powers to ensure that a greater area of felled and derelict woodland is used for afforestation.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Although my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider the use of compulsory purchase powers in any individual case where the national interest would justify it, it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that the best way of increasing the area of land available for afforestation lies in a general policy of compulsion.
    Mr. Hannan: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent Answer I was informed that there are 340,000 acres of such land in Scotland under the jurisdiction of 3,000 owners? Is it not the Minister's plain duty to the future welfare of Scotland to see that where owners refuse either to develop the land themselves or to allow others to do it he should act and take over the land for the Forestry Commission?
    Mr. Macpherson: Over half of that acreage of land has already either been acquired by the Commission or is covered by management plans already arranged. As to the rest of the land while my right hon. Friend replied to the hon. Member that it would be suitable for forestry, it does not follow that it is not suitable for anything else, and it is being used for other purposes in many cases.
    Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has spoken only of the part that is covered. He has not said what is to happen to the other part. Is it not the case that a great deal of this land has been lying derelict for 10 to 12 years, an eyesore to the general public and desperately needing to be replanted, while land is taken which the Department itself admits is suitable for agriculture? Is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to see that the Forestry Commission does not, for economic reasons, take land which is suitable for agriculture, and does not take up the more onerous job of planting all this felled land?
    Mr. Macpherson: Some of this land is suitable for other uses and, as I have said, is being put to other uses. The rest of the land is under continuous examination and review by the acquisition officers of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is it not true to say that of the remaining part a very large area of woodland was blown down by the gale three years ago, and that the owners cannot yet replant because there has not been time for the vermin to die down and for fencing to be carried out?
    Mr. Macpherson: That is true. A certain time has to elapse.

    Economy Circular (Savings)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the total savings effected following the issue of his economy circular in February of this year.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The effects of the circular will inevitably take a Title time to show themselves, and any comparisons must be treated with reserve owing to the incidence of expenditure on large projects. Borrowing consents issued by my Department to local authorities in respect of all services except housing and roads during the first six months of this year amounted to £11,150,000, which I estimate is a reduction of about £1,500,000 on the corresponding figure for the first half of 1955.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of the figure he mentioned will fall upon education, and since his hon. Friend referred earlier to starts which had fallen through, and now we

    1153
    are to have more starts, are there not more fits than starts under the present Government?
    Mr. Browne: I should require notice of the hon. Member's question.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Orangery, Kensington Palace (Statues)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Works what response he has received to his appeal for the loan of classical statues and busts to occupy the niches of the Orangery at Kensington Palace.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): I have received about forty offers of busts and statues, some of which may be suitable for the Orangery. I have not yet, however, obtained sufficient pieces for a satisfactory display. I am very grateful to all those who have made offers.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his appeal has received sufficient publicity?
    Mr. Bechan-Hepburn: Yes, I think so.

  BRITISH ARMY

    National Service Men, Cyprus
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now review the policy under which National Service men with 12 weeks' basic training are posted for duty in Cyprus.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I am satisfied with the present system, which has been substantially unchanged since 1947 and proved itself adequate by experience and results.
    Mr. Beswick: But is the Secretary of State aware that the Home Secretary has told the House that he will not allow a policeman to go on duty in the streets of London until he has had at least 19 weeks' training? In view of the fact that the young lads going out to Cyprus are on duty whenever they go on the street, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in this kind of warfare there ought to be more training than is given to these young men?
    Mr. Head: It is not for me to try to compare the relative duties of the police and the Army in this respect, but I would point out that these men are within units under the command of an N.C.O., that this system has been carefully gone into, both from the point of view of length of period of the National Service and the training required, and I believe that it works.

    Boys, Cyprus
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War why he is sending more 16-year-old boys to serve in Cyprus, in view of the present serious position there.
    Mr. Head: I am satisfied that proper arrangements exist in Cyprus for the care and education of bandboys.
    Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that no useful purpose can be served by sending lads of that age into the atmosphere which prevails in Cyprus at present, and will he not respect the anxieties of people about the fact that boys of that age are being sent there? Will he please do something about stopping further boys being sent?
    Mr. Head: Those boys are with their bands. They go with the band and with the rest of the boys there: they have education and musical instruction. They do not do operational duties, and although I do not want to say that there is no risk, I think that the risk, so far as they are concerned, is a reasonable one.
    Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for War the number of 16-year-old boy soldiers now serving in Cyprus; and how many are now under orders in this country to be sent there.
    Mr. Head: Fourteen and six respectively.
    Mr. Hunter: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the serious objections expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House against exposing these 16-year-old boy soldiers to danger in Cyprus, why he continues to send any boys there, thus exposing more boys to risk of danger when, from inquiries I have made, they serve no useful purpose there and are a worry to their commanders?
    Mr. Head: I think they do serve a useful purpose, and I have to some extent

    1155
    answered that question. All these boys are going to the same unit and will train with their bands, both educationally and musically, while they are there.

    Medical Category 3 Reservists (Annual Training)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent men in medical category 3 will in future be recalled for annual training.
    Mr. Head: None after 14th July.
    Mr. Collins: Has that decision just been made or has it been communicated to units? If it has just been made, will the right hon. Gentleman take all possible steps to make it as widely known as possible?
    Mr. Head: The delay between the announcement and the actual date is due to administrative arrangements for getting notices out to all those men cancelling their original call-up notices.
    Mr. Chetwynd: In view of this decision not to call up grade 3 people, will the Minister reconsider now the fate of those grade 3 people already in the Service?
    Mr. Head: We have been into that question. I think that a Question was answered in the House about it, but there are good reasons why these men should continue to serve.

    Married Quarters
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for War what effect the reduction of £1,500,000 in the expenditure on works, buildings and lands, under the economies in Government expenditure, will have on the programme for the provision of new married quarters or for the modernisation of married quarters, at home or overseas.
    Mr. Head: None, Sir.
    Mr. Collins: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to maintain the standard of the answers that he has given to me this afternoon?

    Regular Recruitment
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War the number of men who enlisted on Regular engagements of three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve during the period 1st April, 1953, to 31st May, 1953; the
    1156
    number of such men transferred to the Army Reserve during the period 1st April, 1956, to 31st May, 1956; and the percentage who prolonged their Colour service.
    Mr. Head: The answer to the first and third parts of the hon. Member's Question is 3,376 and 5·1 per cent. respectively. That to the second part is not readily available, and I do not think that the clerical work required to obtain it would be justified.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his figure of long engagements is most disappointing, in view of the increase in pay? Would he tell the House whether it will be possible to maintain the existing establishments if this trend continues, or whether the numbers of men serving on Regular engagements will continue to fall from this high mark?
    Mr. Head: The answer superficially may be slightly misleading because it does not include the 22/3 year engagement, which includes most of the men who meant to be Regulars. If they were included, the percentage would go up to about nine. Whether this is disappointing or otherwise after the increase in pay, the fact is that these are the men who were coming to the end of their three years' service, who had joined always intending to go out. I do not think that pay has had much effect on those joining for the lesser period. Therefore, I do not think it would be wise to make a firm deduction about the trend at this stage.
    Mr. Wigg: Does the Minister still hold to the idea that compulsory military service can be abolished if this trend continues?
    Mr. Head: It is a hypothetical question, but if National Service were to be abolished then ipso facto the number of three-year men would fall off steeply, and there would be a reduction in the number of three-year men and thus in the Regular Army.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Freight Charges (North of Scotland)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that high rates of freight charges

    1157
    from the north of Scotland to the large consuming centres of southern Scotland and to England make it difficult for Scottish industries whose products are heavy to compete with similar and comparable industries in southern Scotland and England; and if he will take steps to foster in the north of Scotland scientific and precision instrument industries whose ratio of money value to freight charges is more favourable than it is in heavy industries.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): As the hon. and learned Member knows, the Transport Tribunal is considering a new railway freight charges scheme. The answer to the second part of the Question is that the Government will continue to encourage all suitable industrial development. I am glad to say that a number of new projects have recently been secured for the Highland Development Area and the BuckiePeterhead area.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that it is noteworthy that so little has been done on the lines indicated in the last part of the Question since the present Government came into power? Do the Government intend to do anything on these lines before the next General Election, and if so, what?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot accept the implication in the first part of the supplementary question. Three new projects have been secured in the last year or two for the Highland Development Area and three for the Buckie-Peterhead area. As to the future, I think that the evidence would be best read in the light of what has happened in the past.

    Prices (Stabilisation)
    Mr. Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade which industries, other than the nationalised industries, have informed the Government of their intention not to increase their prices.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Four trade associations had, at the end of June, informed the Government of their members' intention not to increase their prices for certain periods.
    Mr. Lee: But is the Minister aware that the whole of the effort to try to keep
    1158
    the nationalised industries from increasing their prices stemmed from an attack made upon them by the Federation of British Industries and the British Employers' Confederation, and that unless the Government can now get an assurance from a wide number of heavy industries, it will be obvious that the Government are victimising the nationalised industries whilst permitting those in private industry to use this standstill to increase their profits?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's Question was a factual one, as to which industries other than the nationalised industries had taken this step. I have informed him in regard to the associations. In addition to them, certain individual firms have notified their intention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"]—and in any event there is no obligation on any firm which is going to stabilise its prices to notify the Government about it.
    Mr. Lee: Can I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give the House the name of one private industry which has agreed to stabilise its prices?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: There are four associations. There is the Cement Makers' Federation, the Metal Windows Association, The English Joinery Manufacturers Association, and the Glass Manufacturers' Federation. As the House knows, the Cement Makers' Federation has made a new stabilisation proposal to last until June next year.

    Development Areas (Factory Building)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the President of the Board of Trade what more stringent criteria are being adopted for new factory building in Development Areas.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: As I explained in answer to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 5th June, all applications have been deferred except for a very few of special importance and urgency.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the fact that the Estimate itself is already considerably reduced compared with those of previous years, does this not amount to a further example of the refusal of the Government to take any direction at all towards encouraging industry m the Development Areas?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I explained to the House on 5th June the principles on which the Government were proceeding in regard to the applications for Government-financed factories in the Development Areas. I explained then that there was a separation into these two categories. In regard to those of special urgency, we have now decided in seven out of the eight cases to go ahead.

    Motor Cars (Exports to United States)
    Mr. C. Pannellasked the President of the Board of Trade to state the volume of exports of motor cars to the United States of America for the years 1951 until the last available return, expressed as a percentage of British production.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): The number of cars exported to the United States between 1951 and May, 1956, was about 4 per cent. of the total number produced in that period.
    Mr. Pannell: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the figures again? My computation shows a diminution with each year.
    Mr. Low: I have given the hon. Gentleman the average over the whole period, which is what I thought he required. If he would like the figures broken down, I am certainly prepared to do that. I am not trying to say that the figures have remained constant throughout; they have not. This year, although they are higher than they were last year, they are, I understand, as a percentage of production, below what they were in 1951.
    Mr. Pannell: It is a misleading reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

LEGITIMATION (RE-REGISTRATION OF BIRTH) (No. 2)
Mr. John Howard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the operation of section fourteen and paragraph (d) of section thirty-six of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, and of the Schedule to the Legitimacy Act, 1926; and for purposes connected with that matter.
I feel sure that this modest Motion, which seeks to remedy a defect in the law which oppresses a small section of the community, will be supported on all sides of the House. The purpose of the Bill which I am asking the House for leave to introduce is to extend the right to re-register a birth, as the birth of a legitimated person, to all persons born out of wedlock whose parents were free to marry at the time of their birth and who subsequently married.
As the law stands at present, certain people are legitimated by common law and others by statute law, under the Legitimacy Act, 1926. Children recognised as legitimated under common law are those who are legitimated by their parents' subsequent marriage under the laws of the country—other than England and Wales—whose laws permit legitimation when the father has his domicile in that country both at the time of the child's birth and at the time of his marriage to the child's mother.
The odd thing is that those people who are legitimated under common law are not within the categories covered by statute law, and, in consequence, they cannot be issued with a birth certificate showing them to be legitimated. Thus, they cannot obtain a birth certificate showing the same surnames for both parents. I think hon. Members will agree that this is a hardship which was never intended by the law, and that the stigma should be removed with all possible speed.
This is a difficult matter to explain to hon. Members who, like myself, are not learned in the law, and it may help the House if I give an example to show that the mere accident of the domicile of the father can have a far-reaching effect on the future happiness of the child.

1161
I will take the case of a G.I. bride who marries the father of her child after its birth. If the father was domiciled in, say, the State of Oregon, where the law permits or confers legitimation as a result of the subsequent marriage of the parents, and if he was domiciled there both when the child was born and when he married the child's mother, the child will be recognised here under common law as a legitimated person. Strangely enough, however, the registrar is not able to re-register the birth, or issue a certificate showing that the child is legitimate, since the circumstances of the birth are not covered by statute law.
On the other hand, if, when the child was born, the father was domiciled in a State where the law did not provide for legitimation by subsequent marriage, but he had become domiciled in, say, again, the State of Oregon when he married the mother, the child would be recognised in England as a legitimated person, and, since the circumstances happen to fall within statute law, the Registrar-General could re-register the birth and issue the appropriate birth certificate.
This shows the anomaly between the two sections of common law and statute law. These are, of course, merely examples. It happens that in almost every case where the father has his domi-
1162
cite outside England and Wales, his domicile, possibly a Scottish one, is the same both at the time of the child's birth and at the time of his marriage to the mother. These children are for the most part recognised as legitimated under common law, but, at the same time, they cannot receive the appropriate birth certificate.
Those are the children that the Bill seeks to help. If it goes through, it will be retrospective and cover all children born under the circumstances that I have described. I hope that the House will give me permission to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Howard, Mr. Cronin, Mr. Freeth, Mr. Gower, Mrs. McLaughlin, Mr. Tiley, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Grimond, and Mr. Fienburgh.

LEGITIMATION (RE-REGISTRATION OF BIRTH) (No. 2)
Bill to extend the operation of section fourteen and paragraph (d) of section thirty-six of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953, and of the Schedule to the Legitimacy Act, 1926; and for purposes connected with that matter, presented accordingly and read the First time; to he read a Second time upon Friday, 13th July, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1956–57

  CLASS I

    Vote 4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £2,046,237, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury and subordinate departments, the additional salary payable to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the salary and expenses of the Minister without Portfolio.—[£1,350,000 has been voted on account.]
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Heath],—put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (ECONOMIES)
  3.39 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move,
  That this House considers that the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government as indicated in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement on 26th June and in other recent statements provide no solution for the economic problems facing the nation.
  When the Chancellor made his statement last week and the House had an opportunity of studying the details in HANSARD, it was obvious that we should want to debate it, but since that statement, only seven days ago, the position has now been overshadowed by a series of rapid developments.
  The first was the announcement by the British Motor Corporation that it was sacking, out of hand, 6,000 workers. This has been followed by anxieties as to how far repercussions would spread more widely in the industries supplying the
  1164
  motor car firms. Then we had the Treasury announcement that industrial production has taken a sharp down turn. Last week, we had a fall in sterling below the par figures and, only a few minutes ago, what the Chancellor will agree to be extremely disappointing gold and dollar figures for June. We had the announcement of new and menacing cuts in the imports into Australia, which is this country's biggest customer and on Friday we had the Government announcement that we were to pay in gold £16 million more than they have estimated for the privilege of keeping troops in Germany.
  The skies are indeed dark and I do not need to tell the House that they are dark with the shadows of Tory chickens coming home to roost. I begin with the Chancellor's statement. First, I must draw attention to the entirely unusual procedure which the Chancellor has followed. We had the Estimates for the year at the normal time. We had the statement on 17th February when he announced the cuts in bread and milk subsidies, and then, between that statement and the Budget, there was a big pressure campaign on the Government to axe Government expenditure. Even Sir Bernard Docker lent the unique weight of his authority to a campaign for austerity.
  In due course we had the Budget. The Chancellor announced a Budget surplus above the line, a public saving, of £460 million. He had previously been saying why public savings were quite wrong and why we should not have them, and then he said that we should have £460 million this year, after taking credit for the cuts in the bread and milk subsidies and, of course, the tax changes. He felt that that was not enough, so he announced an economy drive. There was to be a cut of no less than £100 million in the current year.
  There has been some doubt whether the cuts he had previously announced in January were to be included in that £100 million. The Chancellor hedged a little in his Budget speech, as we have now found. He referred to a cut in "the Estimates as published" but he also said that the £460 million surplus did take full account of the cuts in food subsidies and needed "further reinforcement" by the £100 million cuts in expenditure. Certainly, that is how the Chancellor's statement was generally interpreted. The City

  1165
  reacted favourably to the Budget for a day or two and Press commentators universally regarded his pledge as being a pledge to cut Government expenditure by £100 million, with new economies additional to those already announced.
  Sterling, largely on the strength of the promised £100 million cut, went up, I think to 2·81 dollars. Even Sir Bernard Docker was satisfied, and the country was much reassured when he did not carry out his threat to leave the country permanently. That, of course, would have been the coward's way out. Instead, he wound up his tax reduction campaign and transferred the assets which he had collected for those purposes to a new organisation formed to fight the class war against the trade union movement.
  I must confess that, despite that almost universal satisfaction, on this side of the House we had our doubts about the Chancellor's proposals. In the Budget debate I hazarded the view that all we should get would be under-spending of the Defence Estimates. That, after all, is what we have had every year. The Government invariably announce defence Estimates, more to impress themselves and encourage their allies than with any idea of spending them and at the end of the year we find that they are underspent to the tune of about £100 million each year.
  We were very doubtful about the feasibility of making those cuts without major changes in policy. We had heard the Lord Privy Seal, year in year out, reiterating that no economies were possible without a major change in policy. The Chancellor, of course, knew better than his predecessor and he went into action with vigour and energy. With his keen operatic flair, he now cast himself for a new rôle, that of "Mack the Knife" in the Government's "Threepenny Opera." Now that a quarter of the financial year has gone, we have had the results of this announcement—and what a disappointment it has been, for hon. Members opposite, who expected a Geddes Axe and who got, instead, these quite small, but some of them very vicious, cuts.
  We have been presented with an account of a total saving of £76 million. Nearly half of that, of course, represents a running down of stocks, once for all saving, perhaps not even that, because
  1166
  much will need replacement next year, perhaps at higher prices. Of the so-called civil economies £25½ million were not new at all. They were the bread and milk subsidy cuts of two Budgets ago. That has, naturally, caused some comment. The Economist said:
  "Mr. Macmillan did not make it clear in April that he was going to take credit for these in his £100 million; in fact, some may now suppose that he made it deliberately unclear, so that he could include or exclude them according to the difficulty or ease of his search for genuine new economies."
  Anxious as I always am to acquit the Chancellor of deliberate deception, I am prepared to accept that rather charitable interpretation which the Economist has put on his action.
  Let us turn to the detailed cuts. On the defence side, we have £36½ million of nominal savings, although to that we should add £1½ million from the Ministry of Supply, making a total of £38 million on the military side. Of course—and the Chancellor fairly made this clear last week—that is in no sense a re-appraisal of the nation's defence effort and expenditure. I must tell the Government that we shall want very shortly to debate that whole subject. I will confine myself today, not going into what the Chancellor might have achieved, but commenting very briefly on the piffling reductions announced by the Chancellor in the statement which he did make. A large part of it is running down of stocks. In some cases he has announced a quicker rate of disposal of surpluses, a decision which will have been received with warm satisfaction by the criminal classes who operate on the fringe of the Ministry of Supply's disposal system.
  There are then some reductions in what the statement called "manpower adjustments". That is the euphemism by which the Government describe the failure of their recruiting policy. Even the present Government, who have spent so much on aircraft which will not fly, cannot spend money on soldiers and airmen who are not there. For the rest all we have is a clear and decisive announcement that the Government will not place certain orders which, on past form at any rate, they never intended to place anyway. There is nothing disinflationary about refraining from spending money which one never intended to spend. So much for the defence cuts.

  1167
  Now I turn to the savings in the Civil Estimates. Here the nominal saving was £39½ million, or £38 million after the transfer to the defence side of the Ministry of Supply figures. Of that £38 million, a major item is represented by Civil Defence and a running down of strategic stocks of food and raw materials. Indeed, of that £38 million, £13·4 million is on Civil Defence, or running down of strategic stocks.
  Again, I have no comments on the policy involved, because they would be more appropriate to a defence debate, of which I have given the Government warning, but these reductions accord very ill with the high priority which, last year, we were told was to be given to Civil Defence. When we remember the lofty rebukes which the Home Secretary gave to the Coventry City Council, one feels, in the light of the Chancellor's statement, that he should go to Coventry, or be sent there, to apologise. Now we have our £38 million whittled down to £24½ million.
  The net effect of the alterations in the agricultural and food grants and subsidies, price reviews, family allowances, and so on—all previously announced and taken credit for in the Chancellor's above the line surplus—amounts to a saving of £13½ million. Our real saving is, therefore, now down to about £11 million. I hope to show later that this includes some normal underspending, and that in any case the whole amount is more than swallowed up in the additional £16 million German support costs. So it is a case of "and then there was none". We see the savings disappear, and the Lord Privy Seal's honour is vindicated, which is very reassuring if this morning's Daily Mail story, that he is shortly to go to another place, is true.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that a man can have no greater honour than to be Leader of the House of Commons. There is no truth in this story whatsoever.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sure that all Members of the House of Commons will express their relief at that announcement. True or not, however, it is a very good thing that the Lord Privy Seal's honour has been vindicated, vis-a-vis the attacks
  1168
  which the Chancellor has made upon him, by implication.
  Within this £11 million—although, economically, as I have said, it is entirely wiped out and has no disinflationary effect—there are some rather damaging and vicious little cuts. There is a reduction of £2½ million in overseas aid. Included in this is a reduction of £80,000 in Colombo Plan expenditure, which was mentioned with great effect in the Government's Election programmes both of 1951 and 1955. Upon the very eve of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, and with the future of the world hanging upon competitive co-existence in Asia, the Government cut their Colombo Plan expenditure. Only last October they announced a seven-year programme of £1 million a year for the technical co-operation scheme, and now it is to be cut.
  There is a reduction of £1 million in the loan to Kenya for rehabilitation and reconstruction. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us whether this is a cut, a reappraisal of the Government's Kenya policy, or just another case where they think that they would not be spending it any way, so that they may as well take credit for it as a real cut. Then there is a reduction of £70,000 for the Commonwealth Relations Office. If this is merely to economise in some of the Secretary of State's costly speeches, including the one in Canada, we shall welcome it. Then there is a further cut of over £800,000 in colonial development and welfare.
  What kind of philosophy do the Government think they are putting over? They are prepared to make these penny wise economies in colonial development now when, all too often, they have to ask the House for millions of pounds in military support costs which are needed years later in respect of Colonies where hardship is being experienced. There is a reduction of £525,000 in grants and loans to international organisations, but that is not as serious as I first thought. It is not a cut in the grossly inadequate sums that we pay to the United Nations Specialised Agencies; it is a reduction in the grant to the Agency dealing with relief and rehabilitation, and I gather that the cut is being made because the money was not likely to be spent, anyway. But, here again, it is not a saving. It is carried forward to next year under the

  1169
  special arrangements of that Agency so we have another item of underspending for which the Chancellor is taking credit.
  I now turn to economies at home. There is to be a cut of £1·2 million in school meals. Here is our "Britain Strong and Free". This is the "Prosperity Plus" upon which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been fighting recent by-elections, with marked lack of success. Eleven years after the war the strength of sterling apparently depends upon cuts of this kind. There are minor but harmful little cuts in the Ministry of Health Vote, as revealed at Question Time yesterday.
  Then there is a cut of £750,000 in the Vote for the Development Areas. We are told that there are to be more stringent criteria for new building. This is a financial reflection of the change in Development Area policy, which we managed to extract from a very reluctant Government spokesman some weeks ago, at Question Time. I then gave an example of the way in which these new criteria prevented the building of an important factory extension, with a great potential in dollar export markets. The whole House knows that the Government have never had their heart in their Development Area policy. They have created one new Development Area in Lancashire, and built one factory there—which they have never stopped talking about—and that is all. The Development Area policy offends against all the Government's most cherished notions of laissez faire. Now, apparently, to judge from Government statements, including the one made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade this afternoon, the Government are abandoning the whole policy at the very moment when they are doing their best to create new Development Areas in the Midlands.
  Then we have economies in the agricultural and food services; the Agricultural Research Council, and the Forestry Commission. We should like to know what those services are. Various economies, amounting to £106,000, are to be made in relation to the fisheries and herring industry. Many of my hon. Friends will want to know about that. Just before the Election we heard a lot about the roads. Now there is to be a cut of £180,000 in economies in maintenance expenditure. That is, roughly, £1,500
  1170
  for each authority. Even last year the expenditure upon road maintenance was running at less than three-quarters of what it was pre-war, although we now have a vastly greater number of cars and lorries on the roads.
  Then there is the most extraordinary cut of £150,000, by way of general economy, on the D.S.I.R. Vote. What a moment to choose to make this cut. According to the expensive week-end speeches which Ministers keep making the country is facing a new battle for survival—the battle of export markets—which is to be fought out in the factories and the laboratories, upon the benches and the drawing boards. The Government choose this moment to slash the D.S.I.R. Estimate.
  I would remind the House that in its last Report the D.S.I.R. made it plain that from almost every corner of the country demands had been brought to its notice for further resources and further expenditure. The Report said that the resources available were inadequate, or likely soon to be inadequate. It listed the Industrial Grants Committee; the Scientific Grants Committee and the Nuclear Physics Committee as having asked for more money. The D.S.I.R. did not think that it could give them the money, and now the Government make a further cut.
  We then come to the list of administrative economies. I must tell the Chancellor that my hon. Friends are very suspicious about the proposed cut in the administration of the National Assistance Board. We should like to know what that means. Many of us are already becoming aware, or feel that there is strong evidence to suggest, that for some time the Assistance Board has been tightening up in the exercise of some of its discretionary decisions. It is now being forced to take a further cut in way of administrative economies.
  Only today we read that the Minister of Education has instructed the London County Council to treble its fees for advanced education. How does he tie all this up with his drive for increased technological education, and the rest? As far as I know, the Ministry of Labour has recently been sacking unestablished factory inspectors—men specially recruited during the war, who have industrial experience, and have had about 10 or 12 years on the job since then. Yet, in the

  1171
  debate upon the Whitsuntide Adjournment, the Parliamentary Secretary complained that between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of our factories had no adequate fire warning system. We now understand that the inspectors are being discharged.
  I hope that the Chancellor will tell us whether it is a fact that the economies set out in this statement in relation to the Ministry of Labour will fall upon the employment exchange service and the Government training centres, at the very moment when the credit squeeze and automation are creating a new need for the Ministry's services not only in placing but in training labour.
  So one could go on all through this miserable list. It is not the price of economic progress; it is the price of the right hon. Gentleman's vanity. It is the price of his attempt at the time of the Budget to show that he could do something which the Lord Privy Seal failed to do. Because, what does it all come to? An assortment, as I have said, of these vicious little cuts whose economic effect, whose disinflationary effect—if there is one—is entirely wiped out by one bad Agreement negotiated last week in Germany.
  I know, of course, that the Chancellor, with the peculiar method of accountancy that he has, is not prepared to include any increases in Government expenditure. Since the Budget there have been increases in teachers' salaries and the salaries of civil servants and the Bonn Agreement. I do not know what these all add up to—perhaps £30 million or £40 million a year. The Chancellor says that these must not be offset against the £100 million, they will be cancelled out by normal underspending. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The so-called economies, as I have shown, include a lot of normal underspending.
  It is now seven or eight months since the Estimates were first prepared. We are half-way through the annual financial cycle of the Government and evidence of some underspending is already emerging. Instead of allowing it to accumulate and offset the Supplementary Estimates, which is what normally happens, the Chancellor—when he has passed his cap round the Depart-
  1172
  ments, which he has been doing for the last two months—is asking them to put in any accumulated underspending that they already know about.
  We had a case in the House only yesterday, when all of us were shocked at the proposal to cut prison building. Yesterday the Home Secretary said, "This is not a cut." He could not have spent it this year, he could not get the sites in time, so it will have to be postponed until next year. That is another example. Therefore, I say to the Chancellor that if he proposes to take credit for this underspending he must add on the overspending, the Supplementary Estimates, the Bonn Agreement and the rest of it, the need for which is already apparent.
  This statement, of course, marks the end of a long road, the end of a great illusion. For years, under a Labour Government, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite told us how they would solve all the country's problems; how they were going to bring down the cost of living by reducing Government expenditure. It was all to be painless—no one would suffer. It was all to be done by administrative efficiency, by sound business methods.
  The Lord Privy Seal told us during the debate on the Finance Bill, in 1949, how easy it would be to reduce Government expenditure by 5 per cent. He asked, why not 10 per cent.? Just by administrative economies 5 per cent. would save £330 million and 10 per cent. would save £660 million. The Minister of Education, in that much publicised article in The Times went even further in 1951, and there was all the rest of it.
  Now we are in a position to measure performance against promise. This year, after allowing for the Chancellor's cuts, Government expenditure is running at a rate of £1,500 million more than in the last year of the Labour Government; and let us remember that this year the Government are running down stocks while we were building them up. In 1950–51, total Government ordinary expenditure was £3,246 million. This year, it is running at £4,758 million. I know that hon. Gentlemen may say that this is an increase in defence expenditure. There is an increase in defence expenditure, but if we take the total expenditure net of defence, the increase is from

  1173
  £2,469 million to £3,259 million, an increase of £790 million exclusive of defence, or just under one-third.
  The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Almost entirely on the social services.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister of Labour and National Service says, "Almost entirely on social services." Even to maintain the level of the social services where they have tried to do so, right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had to spend a great deal more, to keep up with their own inflation. So I hope that we shall hear little more about the success of the Chancellor in cutting Government expenditure. Meanwhile, as the autumn draws on, the right hon. Gentleman goes forward to meet the Conservative Party Conference on this matter—a treat that he has not had before in his present capacity.
  The trouble is that, once again, we have to make the charge which we have repeatedly made against the Chancellor, that he has been fiddling with trivialities while the economic situation has been worsening. I said that the week had been darkened by the shadow of dismissals in the motor car industry. I do not intend to say anything this afternoon about the lesson we have had in the past week on how not to conduct industrial relations. I will leave that matter to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), if he is successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. But what a commentary this is on the Government's handling of the situation.
  In March, we warned the Government of the rapidly deteriorating position in the motor car industry, and we got from the Minister of Labour a classical exposition of the doctrine of laissez faire. During the debate on 20th March he said:
  "… the Government believe that it is essential for employers to decide themselves upon their future labour requirements. I do not believe that that is the task of Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 1036.]
  The President of the Board of Trade—fresh from his triumphs in Lancashire—stood at the Dispatch Box week after week answering Questions about the motor car industry. He said that the motor car industry was no affair of the Government. Export markets, the home
  1174
  market, the size of the industry—these were matters for the employers, and only the employers, to decide. That is the doctrine of hon. Gentlemen opposite—"The gentleman in Longbridge" knows best. But this is the pay-off, in more senses than one, for the Government's policy towards this industry.
  I do not think I need remind the House of the history of the motor car industry immediately after the war; how the late Sir Stafford Cripps was howled down by the motor manufacturers when he suggested that they should increase exports to 50 per cent. of their total output. And the manufacturers were supported by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. By the limitations placed on the home market and the sheet steel allocation, this industry's exports were raised to record levels. In 1951, 77 per cent. of the production was exported; in 1955, the proportion had fallen to 43 per cent.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: But conditions were different then.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member has taken my point with more than his usual speed.
  Production has increased by 88 per cent. and exports by only 7 per cent. Year by year we warned the Government that the nation could not afford it. The Minister of Supply, who was then responsible for the motor car industry, said in a debate on the Election Budget on 21st April last year:
  "We were told … that the main increase in production has been in motor cars. Why not? I am delighted to see the increase taking place in production by the British motor industry, which really is a magnificent achievement. It is already selling abroad as much as British ingenuity and enterprise can enable it to sell. Why should the manufacturers not use enterprise to produce more cars for the home market?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 358–9.]
  That was on the eve of the Election. Immediately after the Election we had the President of the Board of Trade, fresh from the hustings, with his imperishable statement of Tory faith. He said:
  "What about consumption? Do not let us be too afraid of our people consuming things."
  Referring to a speech which I had made, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Sometimes, to hear the right hon. Gentleman, one would think it was terribly shocking for our people to be consuming things which ought to be all going into the export market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1955; Vol. 542, c. 162.]

  1175
  Thus encouraged, the motor manufacturers roared ahead with expansion plans. In 1955, capital investment in building by the industry was two-and-a-half times that of 1954. A sum of £52 million was spent on industrial expansion, a 77 per cent. increase on 1954. A further £67 million was planned for this year as part of a total programme of £250 million. In the investment boom which took the Government by suprise last year, the motor car industry led the field. There was no Government planning, no regulation, no controls, and the biggest expansion took place in the industry where it was least needed, in the motor car industry.
  I am sorry if the Minister of Education does not agree with this statement. These are the Government's own figures—I know that the Minister of Education always likes to have his own private figures which do not commit the Government—but these are the Government's
  own figures. The rest of the story the House knows. The Economic Survey said:
  "It became clear that a considerable upsurge in the capital expenditure of industry was being superimposed on the buoyant level of consumers' expenditure—a check to the expansion of investment was necessary."
  And so we had the weary round of increased Bank Rate, increased Purchase Tax, restrictions on hire purchase.
  The measures forced on the Government by the reckless and uncontrolled expansion of this and other industries have had, as their first effect, the creation of unemployment in the industry that sought to expand. The credit squeeze is the price of industrial expansion in the motorcar industry and other industries and it has had to be pushed to the point where it now forces contraction in that very industry. Meanwhile, the investment programme goes on, and the motor car industry continues to expand in its investments.
  That is not economic planning; that is the economics of Bedlam. I know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say. He will say that there is nothing that we can do about expansion in the motor car industry investment programme; that would mean controls and building licensing, and although we note that the Chancellor is getting a little more receptive to the idea of building licensing, his colleagues will not let him introduce it.
  1176
  In a speech that the Chancellor made at Leeds a few days ago—a less expensive speech than the one which he gave at Newcastle because it did not cost the country any dollars at all—he said then that he had an open mind on this question, but, of course, building licensing could not work in time. In time for what? It could not work in time for the economic crisis this year. I agree, but we were suggesting this to him last year. It is no good his using the argument about not closing the stable door because the horse has gone, if there are more horses in the stable. He should introduce building licensing this year to avoid next year's crisis. It is no good his saying that the thing works too slowly. After all, his Premium Bonds will work very slowly indeed, and yet he thinks that they will solve the economic problem.
  It was the same with imports. Time and time again, we warned the Government that we could not afford the import of dollar sheet steel for an industry that had lost the momentum of its export drive. But no control was exercised by the President of the Board of Trade, so last year 450,000 tons of sheet steel were imported into this country, half of which was for the motor industry. Now the economic realities have caught up with the industry and with the Government. They are seen in the shape of 6,000 men queuing this week at the employment exchanges. Short-time working is spreading. We saw on the ticker tape today that it has even spread to the Prime Minister's constituency and that the night shift has been taken off at the Lockheed brake works, at Leamington.
  As the House knows, the satellite empire surrounding the motor car industry is enormous and no one can say where this will end. What is the position of the Government on this? Apart from an impressive display of short temper about the short notice given last week, they are not in a position to have any feelings about this matter. This is what they wanted. This is what they have sought to create. The President of the Board of Trade admitted that the Government policies were, at any rate, partially to blame. On 15th March, he said:
  "I do not stand here in any way to apologise for the measures introduced by Her Majesty's Government which I think are

  1177
  entirely appropriate to the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 533.]
  Does he still think that they are "entirely appropriate"? He appears to be nodding, so apparently he does.
  I hope that the Chancellor will tell us this: has this unemployment gone far enough in the Midlands to achieve his ends? Does he need more? Is he yet satisfied with his handiwork? We are told that this is the credit squeeze biting. This is what is needed to secure the right distribution of the labour force in the right jobs. What hypocrisy this is. If the motor car industry is not the right industry—if we have to have this uprooting—why did the Government allow the industry to expand so much last year? Because they put private profit and party dogmas above human values and above the national interest. Do they believe that this will secure the right redeployment of the labour force? What machinery have they to secure it?
  To dismiss people from the wrong industry does not guarantee re-employment in the right one. We have heard a lot from hon. Members opposite about the need to cut down the Civil Service, and we were told that they would all be redeployed in work of national importance. In four years, the Civil Service has been cut by 57,000 men and women, but they have not gone to the coal mines or the factories; they have gone into advertising, the speculative commodity markets, and trade associations; and, while there has been this reduction of 57,000, there has been an increase of 176,000 in employment in the miscellaneous professional and financial services.
  I make this suggestion to the Minister of Labour. This is supposed to be the kernel of the Government's economic policy—the redeployment of the men who are being put out of work. I ask him to keep records of these 6,000 and to tell the House, after the Recess, where he has placed them, if he has placed them. We shall be able to judge then the effectiveness of this instrument. We may see, for instance, how many are in distribution or in industries no more important than the one they have been driven out of. I say—and I am sure that both sides of the House agree—that we stand, as Sir Stafford Cripps did, by the doctrine that full employment does not mean a guarantee to every man of permanent security in
  1178
  his own job. But we believe in economic planning, and not in the blind forces of the market, as the means of influencing the final outcome. That is the difference between us.
  No man knows where all this will end. The motor industry is at the centre of a vast economic complex, and in the very week of this grave announcement we heard the news that Australia has cut her imports once again—a 50 per cent. cut in motor vehicles. But it is no good the Government wringing their hands about this. This is not an act of God; this is another Government chicken coming home to roost. We cannot sacrifice the interests of Australian producers to the free policy of the speculative commodity markets and expect them to be able to go on buying from us at the same rate.
  The Government abolished bulk buying of primary produce from Australia and elsewhere. It may suit Mr. Rank to buy his grain in dollar markets and others to buy in the Argentine. This Government have severed one by one the economic links of the Commonwealth and our export industries pay the price.
  I do not propose to refer to the decline in production in any detail. Last week we had confirmation of what most of us suspected, that production is now falling compared with last year. This is a direct result of the Government's policy. During the Budget debate, I asked the Chancellor what was his policy about production. Did he want production to increase, decrease or stay the same? He was very shy; he did not know. The Economic Secretary was not so coy; he told us that he was counting on an increase of production this year. When I asked the Chancellor, a week or two ago, about this, he said that he was sure that what the Economic Secretary had said was very wise.
  This is not good enough. The Government's economic policies seem to us to be deliberately aimed at a reduction in national production—unless the Chancellor reassures us on this point this afternoon. We must warn the right hon. Gentleman that our production was already lagging behind that of almost every other country. We shall not solve our economic problems on the basis of declining production.
  The House will want time to study the gold and dollar figures for June which

  1179
  are 16 million dollars up, I understand. That is exactly equalled by the 16 million dollars we received from E.P.U. on the previous month's trading, but in June this year we were in deficit to E.P.U., which means heavy gold payments next month. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is the time of year when we should still be in surplus. We have to face the difficult months that lie ahead.
  I do not know to what extent temporary factors are at work. The Chancellor's Newcastle speech cost us a great deal, we were told, which perhaps might flow back in the course of time. We are approaching the difficult months of the autumn with far too small a margin. There are factors on our side. As a nation, we can afford to run down our stocks of imported materials for one year, but not for more than one. Invisible imports ought to improve over last year's showing, while exports are slowly, painfully, rising. We must all hope that these measures will work in time.
  The Chancellor knows that the testing time is getting near. When we hear him at that Dispatch Box week after week we are worried about his frivolity, the irrelevance and the irresponsibility of his approach to these dangerous economic problems. He has told us that he stands or falls by the fight against inflation and national bankruptcy; in that fight he must get away from playing with words and get back to first principles. The first principle is that all expenditure is potentially inflationary. Nothing is sacred of itself, whether it is public expenditure or private expenditure. The test should be, not "Is it public or private?", but "How essential is it?"
  This is why the economic cuts are a statistical irrelevance. What is the merit in cutting £50,000 on this or that social service if millions arc spent on some industrial expansion scheme which the Government, by their actions, condemn as frivolous? The Government have slashed the school-building programme and cut back on the maternity and health centres, as we were told yesterday. Perhaps the Chancellor will explain why a school and a health centre are inflationary while a vast block of offices is not inflationary.
  1180
  Why is it not inflationary for the oil companies to spend millions on their distribution facilities when the Minister of Housing and Local Government stands at the Box week by week and tells us that the country would be ruined if he were to sanction expenditure of £1,000 upon a public convenience or a sewerage scheme? Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us why a dollar export factory in a Development Area is inflationary whereas a private factory producing frivolities for the home market is not inflationary.
  Why is it essential, under "Boyle's law," to charge more for bread, milk, pots and pans, passports, county-court fees, house rents and telephone services, while, at the same time, in the name of stabilisation, nationalised industries are to be compelled, in defiance of statute law and economic sense, to price their services below cost? These are the things that the Chancellor should tell us.
  How much longer will the right hon. Gentleman cling to this doctrinaire reliance on monetary policies which no longer serve the interests of the nation? How much longer will he cling to the notion of sterling as an international currency when Commonwealth countries cannot borrow here and are being driven to foreign money markets to meet their requirements? When will he stop passing the buck to the trade union movement and accept responsibility for the economic destiny of the country? When, in short, are the Government going to govern and not stand on one side in a posture of economic abdication? These are questions which the Government ought to be answering this afternoon.
  The Chancellor knows this, because I have warned him already. The day of reckoning for him and his Government may be very near. Let him realise that the strength of the £ and all that goes with it are not a party asset, but a national asset. Indeed, they are more than that. On our economic strength rests far more than our material wellbeing, our employment, or our standard of living; more, even, than the maintenance of the Commonwealth as an economic unit.
  The nations are now moving from the negative postures of the cold war into an active era of competitive coexistence. The Soviet Union, which has been transformed in less than 40 years from an

  1181
  illiterate peasant economy into an advanced industrial nation, is flexing its muscles for its first entry into world markets for industrial goods. The warning is there for all of us. I remember giving the House a warning in a debate on German rearmaments nearly two and a half years ago. I had just come back from Moscow and I said:
  "I wonder if we are not arming against the wrong danger and if, ten years from now, hon. Members will be saying that the danger is not Russian military power but German military power, and not German industrial power but Russian industrial power. The Soviet Union is expanding her economic production at such a rate that it is a very real danger of which we in this House have to be aware. We have to be aware of weakening ourselves too much economically in order to meet the Russian military danger and then find in the end that we are defeated by the Russian economic potential which has been rising all that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORY, 25th February, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 601.]
  It is two and a half years since I said that. The Government, slowly, haltingly, are coming to realise that this is a much bigger and more incalculable danger than anything they have yet recognised. Therefore, as I have said, more than economic issues are at stake, so let the Government and the Chancellor, before it is too late, give the nation the lead that it is seeking or if, as we believe, they have not that lead to give, let them make way for those who have.
  4.28 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the interim statement on economies in public expenditure made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th June as further proof of the determination of Her Majesty's Government to conquer the dangers of inflation, and pledges its support for all measures designed to maintain our competitive position in the world on which the living standards of our people depend."
  This Amendment stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[An HON. MEMBER "Where is the Prime Minister?"] At the Commonwealth Conference, as are other of my right hon. Friends.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) moved his Motion in a speech of his usual versatility and talent, and as a performance it was very enjoyable. How far it was helpful to the solution of the problems which we have to
  1182
  face, it is for him to judge. I do not think that it was worthy of the situation. That is not to deny that I am very tempted to make some retorts in the same vein, for the last sentence uttered by the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me a very dangerous one coming from him
  Much as the right hon. Gentleman would like the House to forget it and much as he would like his party to forget it, we remember the record of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends during the six years in which they conducted our affairs, culminating in one of the most spectacular and shameful collapses of Government. However, except for the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence I would not have been provoked into saying more than that these arc serious questions with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt seriously during some parts of his speech. That I admit, and I shall try to reply to the points he has made.
  The Motion was originally planned to cover only a narrow part of the broad economic field. When I heard of it first, it was to cover only the interim administrative and policy economies which I announced a week ago; and I will say a word about that in its proper place. But the terms of the Motion, and so, therefore, of the Amendment, have been widened, and I am glad of it, for it affords us an opportunity and a challenge, an opportunity to review the general economic situation and a challenge to be resolute in our duty.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I try to give an up-to-date picture of the general economic situation as we see it, for it is against this background, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that we must take the decisions as to the handling of particular and local problems.
  During the debates earlier this year, both before the Budget, on the two-day economic debate, and during the Budget debates, there was, I think, general agreement on all sides of the House as to what should be the objectives of Government policy. They must surely be twofold: first, to remove the excess of home demand which has shown itself in the constant upward pressure of prices and, therefore, in a balance of payments deficit, with consequential losses on the reserves; and, secondly, to bring about some shift of resources from consumption to support

  1183
  a high level of investment and to increase exports. "To increase exports" means, in a phrase, to move from the production of goods which cannot be sold abroad to those which can. Those aims, I think, met with general approval and I do not think they have been criticised as such.
  Some of our critics, in the Press and in the House, have said that we have been approaching our aims too slowly. Others say that we are going too fast. Some say that we ought to rely entirely on material means, leaving out altogether the psychological approach. Restraint, say these critics, must be enforced and not preached. Some say that we ought to rely entirely upon monetary, fiscal and budgetary influences, and others that we ought to employ more direct administrative controls. In all this, however, there is much less difference than we try to make out.
  We have powerful controls in many different spheres—over imports, where one-fifth of our imports are under control; over capital issues, through the very strict operation of the Capital Issues Committee; and over the terms of retail trade, such as hire purchase. Anyway, if the purpose is the same, and I assume that it is—to bring about a movement of materials, resources and labour—I do not see much difference from the human point of view. It is not less painful to lose one's job because one's firm has been deprived of its steel supplies by a direct allocation than it is because the firm finds it harder to sell its products.
  It is in pursuance of this task which I set myself, and since all our policies are challenged, that I should like to go through it again. I set myself a Budget surplus. I added to it both by direct and by indirect taxation. I made no tax remissions at all except in savings. I conferred no benefits except in the sphere of family allowances and in the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill. Those were the only benefits we gave.
  I drastically curtailed — virtually abolished—the investment allowances and all through the Finance Bill debates, as hon. Members will remember, I resisted one proposal after another which, had I not obtained the loyal support of my hon. Friends in the Committee, would have cut deep into the Budget surplus. I had
  1184
  an estimate made of the cost of implementing the new Clauses had the Committee adopted them. Those from Members of my own party would have cost about £150 million. Those moved by the party opposite would have cost at least £650 million. I hope this will bring comfort to those who voted so steadily and loyally through the long afternoons and nights.
  There was one piece of austerity which, in spite of its attractions from a purely logical point of view, I did resist, and I must confess it. The Opposition pressed me strongly to withdraw the initial allowance on the purchase of motor cars. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), as one might expect, was particularly insistent on this. He spoke, or claimed to speak, for his whole party, and perhaps I may recall the exchange that took place between us. In the debate on the initial allowances for motor cars, hon. Members opposite said how wrong the allowances were. I said:
  "I take it that the party opposite would support the exclusion of private motor cars from the benefit of the initial allowances, although not, of course, from being charged as part of business expenses."
  The right hon. Gentleman answered:
  "Certainly, and as it is not in the power of the Opposition to put down an Amendment on Report, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do so to this effect",
  to which I replied:
  "I should like to know, because it is a very interesting decision … in present conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 286.]
  I must confess that in present conditions I am ready to be guilty of some degree of inconsistency and even of backsliding. I feel that to propose such a Clause as the right hon. Gentleman invited me to propose next week on the Report stage of the Finance Bill would really be pushing logic a bit too far. It would not be economic rectitude; it would be something like economic sadism.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that if the Government had taken our advice and done this three years ago, the motor industry might never have become so heavily involved in the home market and we might have avoided some of the present troubles?
  Mr. Macmillan: That might have been a very good reply if the right hon. Gentleman had not suggested that we should take his advice on 12th June.
  To return to the main argument, first we have a large Budget surplus, fortified by increased taxation and successfully protected from any erosion during the Finance Bill. Next we have the first instalment of the £100 million savings, which I announced at the time of the Budget; and since the right hon. Member for Huyton conformed sufficiently to the Amendment to say something about this, I will say a few words about it. I announced exactly what I would do and what were the terms of the remit which I had given to myself; and I kept to them absolutely fairly and honestly. I said that I would deal with the Estimates as published and propose savings in those Estimates, and I made it quite clear what were the conditions of the undertakings I made.
  It is very easy to sneer at the £76 million—much easier, incidentally, than it is to find them. It is not a trivial result. On the civil side, if one excludes statutory and other commitments amounting to over £1,000 million and refrains from making any significant cuts in the Estimates for the rest of the social services, amounting to over £900 million, there is not a large field; and I must accept the fact, which the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that in our time of office the cost of the social services has risen very considerably. Nevertheless, we have made, if a limited, in my view a valuable, operation.
  Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's assertion, these cuts are not based on and do not include any anticipation of under-spending. They result from deliberate decisions which we have made with the Departments. The defence savings result from deferment and in some cases—just as many cases—from actual abandonment of orders, and also from reduction in stocks. I will come to stocks in a moment. On home defence, we have taken our decisions in the light of the new strategic assessment which we felt able to take on our own responsibility.
  On the Civil Estimates, the main contribution arises from the abolition of the bread subsidy and the reduction in the milk subsidy with, of course, countervailing expenditure which I had also to take into account in the Estimates—the
  1186
  larger contribution in the Farm Price Review. I know that in some quarters today not to pay a subsidy is regarded as equal to imposing a tax; and I think that only shows with what economic confusion and contradiction we have entangled ourselves in recent years.
  It has been widely argued—and the right hon. Gentleman repeated the argument—that the savings are mainly reductions in stocks, but in fact this is not so. The reductions in stocks, in the sense of using up stocks for current consumption, account for 22 per cent. of the defence savings, none at all of the home defence savings and 3 per cent. of the civil savings. That, I think, answers that argument which the right hon. Gentleman deployed.
  Of course, it is perfectly true that these economies reflect no new change in the size and shape of British Forces. That review is proceeding, but I think that every hon. Member, whatever his view of the treaties into which we have entered and the obligations which we have undertaken, would surely accept that such a review must be conducted in consultation with our partners in the Commonwealth and with our allies.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: Why was it not done three years ago?
  Mr. Macmillan: It has been said, and the right hon. Member for Huyton said it again today with an air of triumphant logic, "Still your savings will be offset by new expenses; there will be the cost of the Army in Germany and the cost of teachers' salaries." But what is the point of that argument? Are we never, in private or in public affairs, to curtail our present commitments because we foresee new liabilities? That way indeed is the road to bankruptcy. I am sorry to spend so much time on the £76 million, but it was to have been the sole, and is still a main, item in this confused Motion which has been moved.
  Let me sum up what has been achieved in the £76 million. It is equivalent to nearly 6d. on the standard rate of Income Tax, to more than half the whole yield of Surtax, to nearly one-third of the beer duty, to twice the whole Entertainments Duty about which we talked so long the other day, to more than all the stamps revenue. I therefore say that, however much right hon. Gentlemen opposite may turn up their sensitive noses at it, it is not to be sneezed at.

  1187
  In addition, the 5½ per cent. Bank Rate, the pressure on advances, the restrictive operation of the Capital Issues Committee, the holding back or spacing out of Government expenditure, the pressure on local authority expenditure, all these have been operating on the economy in various ways. It is too early to give any firm estimate of the position which we have reached. One can give only a kind of impression.
  At the beginning of April, I felt that we were uneasily balanced between the forces of inflation and the forces of restraint. I felt that we might be at the turning point but that any relaxation might result in the upward pressures regaining their ascendancy. Since then we have had the experience of three months, which is not a very long time; but, quite apart from the question of the motor industry, about which I shall speak separately, there are signs of weakening in the full intensity of the boom.
  Let me run over the normal indicators. The first is employment. The peak of unfilled but notified vacancies was reached in July last year—473,000; and vacancies, as we all know, are not always notified. Sometimes, when there is no hope of getting labour, employers cease to ask for it. Nevertheless, I will give comparable figures, on the same basis. What was 473,000 a year ago was 397,000 on 30th May. There were still, perhaps, 100,000 workers on short time.
  Still the formal unemployment figure remains nearer to 1 per cent. than the 3 per cent. which even respectable authorities used to regard as something to be taken as tolerable. Incidentally, the figure of unemployment under our Administration has been running at the lowest in the whole of our peace-time history. What is still more significant is that we still have, over the whole country, one and a half vacancies for each person unemployed.
  The next normal indicator is investment. I think there is sometimes a little confusion about what our investment policy should be. Of course we want the maximum investment which our economy can sustain, for we know that our future depends upon renewing old plants and building new plants. Last year investment in manufacturing industry rose to a very high figure, about 20 per cent. above previous years. This year it is forecast
  1188
  to run still higher—about another 15 per cent. on top of that 20 per cent.
  In a country like ours investment must be so operated as not to throw an undue strain upon the balance of payments. Countries which have their own resources can take risks which we cannot take. We must keep the volume of exports sufficient to pay for our raw materials, out of which those very investments are built. Moreover, investment must not be financed by inflationary bidding for resources competitively, thus pushing up prices; and this has been taking place to some extent. In any case, investment remains very strong. Actual investment in the first quarter of this year was well above the 1955 level.
  Mr. Austen Albu: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of that investment is taking place in the motor car industry?
  Mr. Macmillan: I cannot give the exact proportions, but I am sure the hon. Member will agree that over the whole economy what I have tried to give is a fair picture, as supplied to me by the authorities on which I rely. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does not mean a thing."] Private manufacturers gave us a forecast of their investment intentions for 1956 and, rather to my surprise, they have revised these estimates upwards, not downwards, in the latest returns which we have received. That is not much of a sign of a slump.
  Orders in the machine tool industry—and this is perhaps the most significant figure of all—are still rising; they are 20 per cent. by value above their level at this time last year. I think that the machine tool industry is the best indicator of all. There are signs, all the same, of some slackening. Approvals for industrial building have been falling off in recent months. There, the position is balanced; it is too early to tell quite what will happen in the immediate future.
  Thirdly, stocks. Last year the inflationary position was largely due to a very high level of stocks. We expected relief this year and there are signs that it has begun. Raw materials other than steel were, in the first quarter, run down by more than the normal seasonal amount. Stocks of finished goods in the hands of retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers have been rising and this, of

  1189
  course, is usual when the boom is beginning to pass its peak. It may be a sign that some stability will follow.
  Finally, consumption. In the first four months of 1956, making allowance for price changes and seasonal factors, consumption has been maintained at about the same level as in the second half of 1955. Real incomes have been rising, so that, in spite of a marked fall in motor cars and household goods, consumption may still rise. I am hoping to check it to some extent through the success of our new efforts for savings, but if consumption can be kept within moderate bounds, then stocks can be kept at a moderate level, and imports may not be drawn in so heavily to meet industrial needs. It is hard yet to be certain what will happen to consumption. Perhaps that is the most uncertain of the factors in the economic field.
  Some further light is thrown on the position by the balance of payments—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, though not, I thought, very helpfully—the reserves, and the position of sterling, on which he is always facetious. He twitted me last week on the low value of the £—the lowest, he said, for a long time. It was, perfectly true, one and five-sixteenths cents below the April peak, but I think the right hon. Gentleman must not talk too much about the fall of sterling. Surely, he has not forgotten that summer afternoon a few years hack when it fell from four dollars to 2·80 dollars at one blow? Oh, what a fall was that. But that, I suppose, was the result of taking complete control of the whole economy. That was planning; that was authority.
  As a matter of fact, the short-term fluctuations of sterling are not the results of my speeches. I wish it was as easy as that. If so, I should be a very good operator of the market. I could put them up or put them down. Of course, it results, as the right hon. Gentleman knows when he is serious and is not being merely frivolous, from a great variety of causes. The recent dip in the rate was not due, as a matter of fact, to confidence matters or speculation, but was due to the fact that a series of heavy commercial demands for grain, oil, tobacco, aluminium, sugar and cotton happened to coincide rather earlier than normal in the season. That resulted in an exceptionally heavy
  1190
  demand for dollars which was made more difficult by the great strength of the Deutschmark. What matters much more than chance moves up and down are the trade figures and the reserves, and these, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, are the real indication and final sign.
  Let us start with the trade figures. In the first five months of 1956, exports were 6½ per cent. above the 1955 figure, and if we allow for the effect of the dock stoppage, I am informed that the true increase would be about 10 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "By volume or by value?"] The total of exports is up in value by that percentage; I am talking of value on both sides. Imports, on the other hand, were up by only 1½ per cent., and that is the real point in the balance of payments. I am talking about the balance of payments. If exports were up by 6½ per cent., and if we make the correction to allow for the docks stoppage, it would be about 10 per cent., while imports are only up 1½ per cent. I think that is a healthy figure.
  How will the first six months turn out? It takes a little time to make a complete calculation, but I think that—perhaps I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, because he asked me these questions and I am trying to answer them—the overall current surplus, including the invisibles, on the balance of payments will certainly not be less than £100 million. It may well be more, but it is not enough. All the same it is very encouraging, and here again, as usual, I am torn between the conflicting dangers of undue pessimism or undue optimism, but this is the estimate that I give to the House.
  Now for the gold and dollar reserves. We have regained reserves every month so far this year. At the end of June, we had £94 million more than at the end of December. We would have liked more, but it is an achievement. As for the future, I can only say that our exports are encouraging. Imports may, of course, rise; we cannot tell, but the invisible balance should be distinctly better in the second half of 1956 than in the corresponding period for 1955. We are now approaching the period when the reserves are seasonally under special pressure, and I expect that our reserves will fall and that the trade figures, in comparison with those of recent months, will not look so

  1191
  good. I hope these events will be judged against the background of what we expect to happen over the year as a whole in our trading accounts, which really is the decisive factor.
  Mr. Shinwell: If everything is all right, if everything is encouraging, and all is lovely in the garden, why is the right hon. Gentleman trying to save £20 million?
  Mr. Macmillan: Because we need a better surplus. We are approaching a more difficult period of the year, and what I am trying to do is to give, without undue optimism or undue pessimism, a fair picture of the position.
  I ought to add this warning to complete the picture. Apart from the need not to relax our efforts, we must face in future some difficulties in the balance of payments of the rest of the sterling area countries. This is partly because some prices have fallen, on which they depend, of course, for their payments into the pool, and because some very big investment programmes are now under way. Of course, we have to face very large loan repayments—staggeringly large repayments of interest and capital—at the end of the year.
  I have given the House the best and most objective review of where we stand today, and it looks as if the economy is beginning to move towards the position of balance that we want. The increase in consumption is halted, the increase in investment continues, but a little less sharply, and an increase in exports is accelerating, and is accompanied by a check in imports which is clearly the result of the policies we have adopted, and all this without any increase in import controls, with their terrible dangers of retaliation, or any decrease in the liberalisation of trade throughout the world.
  What is wrong with that? Is not this the policy, or is it not, at any rate, the objective, which by one means or another every hon. Member on each side of the House has been putting forward? What I do not understand is the indignation because the policy has begun to be successful. Hon. Members opposite really cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the economy ought to be rigidly controlled and restrained, and then cry "Fire" at the very first sign of any restraint becoming operative. Against
  1192
  this background, what should be our general line and what should shape our future policy? These are the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked, and it is my duty to try to reply to them.
  I say, and I am conscious of it, that there is a very heavy responsibility on all of us—on Parliament and on the Government—and although we have our little jokes across the Table, which is, after all, an old tradition, I am conscious of the very heavy burden which lies on us all. There are very many human problems, as the right hon. Gentleman said. There are very many human problems involved in the switching of labour. A switch in materials is painless; a switch in manpower is not.
  I ought to say something here about the problem in the motor industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service will deal in greater detail with the position in the Midlands, but I think it would be tragic if, faced with the difficulties of temporary unemployment or under-employment in certain industries, we should prematurely and recklessly abandon a broad policy which is calculated to avoid that long-term and massive unemployment which would follow inevitably upon the failure to grasp firmly and courageously with the inflationary problem. Because there are one or two weak spots, it would be very wrong to think that we were in danger of a general recession. On the contrary, if we relax too soon we shall be jeopardising the welfare of the 99 per cent. of our people who are fully employed. The danger to them and too all of us, if inflation cannot be held, lies in our means to pay for our imports. If those are secure, our base is secure.
  There are one or two things I would venture to say about the motor industry generally. In the first place, I think that it would be very unfair not to recognise the very remarkable performance which the motor industry has put up since the war. I was very glad that in the debate we had earlier in the year the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) paid tribute to the skill and energy of the management. But the industry, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, could not expect to retain the proportion of world trade in motor cars which it obtained, let us say, in 1950. The proportion was then more than half, but at

  1193
  that time there were dollar restrictions in very many parts of the world and, of course, competition from Germany, France and Italy was negligible.
  That situation, obviously, could not last. Nevertheless, it would be very wrong not to recognise that, although the production of motor cars has fallen, an export performance of over 40 per cent. of production is a very good effort by the industry and compares very favourably with many of our exporting industries as a whole. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, cars do not tell the whole story. In the last four years the volume and value of commercial vehicle exports have been steadily increasing. This year, in spite of all the difficulties, it is running at a much higher rate than last. In addition, there is the very big export business in parts and components.
  I am sure the House would feel that it would be an injury to the men employed in the motor industry and to the whole of our national interest if recent readjustments were represented as anything like a catastrophic collapse. That is certainly not true. At the same time, it would be a mistake to believe that the industry has any other choice but to continue the improvement and modernisation of plant and production methods. We must really face these facts. In recent years it is quite true that almost the whole of the expanded output of motor cars has gone to the home market. It is obviously necessary in the national interest that there should be some shifting of resources from the motor industry to others, at any rate until that industry can extend its earning power in exports.
  It is well known that the most overloaded part of the economy has, for a variety of reasons, been the metal-using sector. This sector has to meet the huge demands of defence. It has to meet great demands of investment—by that I mean plant and machinery—and of some 40 per cent. of our export market. This overload had shown itself in a demand for steel beyond what the whole industry could meet, and the rise in the imports of steel helped substantially to worsen the balance of payments. It did so in two ways; by the cost of the imports directly and, of course, indirectly by forcing up freight rates. Therefore, by one means or another the demand for steel had to be reduced.
  1194
  But steel supplies are not the only resources, and not even the most important of the resources of which the motor industry is in present circumstances absorbing an undue share. There is manpower. At a time of acute labour shortage elsewhere the labour force in the motor industry has, by one means or another, grown by 40,000 men in the last two or three years. I am not saying that this in itself is wrong, but in present conditions such a situation is not in the general interest. It is clear, therefore, that we should avoid under-employment or concealed under-employment in the industries which have lost their market when, at the same time, there is a severe labour shortage in industries where markets are still expanding and where there is the mechanical capacity to produce more. If we did that it would reduce production in one field without giving us any compensating advantage in another.
  That is the real point of issue. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the May figures of production. He pointed out quite truly, that there was not only no increase but that there was a small fall. That is the crux of the problem, because if we run some industries at half speed we surely delay the time when production can rise in industries which bring us the benefit of full order books and make our export prospects strong. If we did not face this problem, as we are trying to do, we should be guilty of national ca' canny.
  Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, in these circumstances, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is allowing a new factory to be built for a motor car manufacturer in the Luton and Dunstable area, when the engineering employers in the new towns in that area are very short of labour at the present time?
  Mr. Macmillan: I have said that I think it would be a most defeatist view to say that because there are these difficulties in the motor industry they should not build modern plants and bring existing ones up to date. That would, indeed, condemn us to absolute frustration.
  I say, therefore, that although it is very painful, and although the problems involved in redeployment are painful, we must face them.
  Mr. Shinwell: Who must face them?
  Mr. Macmillan: Of course, they arouse great anxieties and great fears. For many men and for their families a change of job may be a great personal misfortune. It may mean taking a wage at which they may not be able, at any rate at first, to meet all the commitments into which they have entered. In some cases it may mean leaving a place they have chosen for a place which they would not so freely choose and would like less to live and work in. It may mean, of course, men leaving home earlier and getting back later or changing the work they have chosen for another type.
  No one likes that, and no one should underestimate the hardships and difficulties involved. It is for that reason that I think that the maximum consultation and discussion should take place between all concerned. Every practicable method should be used to alleviate hardships. These methods should include reasonable notice and measures to release labour gradually. I certainly feel that it is on these matters that the two sides of industry should get together.
  However, we really must not exaggerate any more than we ought to underestimate this problem. After all, a vast amount of mobility takes place all the time in industry and commerce without Government assistance or interference. Men and women change their jobs, and even their places of employment all the time. Even in the time of fullest employment that we have known in our lifetime—in 1955—the changes in jobs amounted to 2½ million. I must repeat the famous statement which Sir Stafford Cripps made on this subject. In 1949 he said:
  "Full employment does not, and can never mean that every individual job is guaranteed for as long as the present occupant wishes to stay in it. That would be industrial stagnation. The aim of a full employment policy is to ensure that everyone who can contribute to a national output of goods and services gets a chance to do so in one way or another."
  That was not just a statement of opinion by Sir Stafford Cripps. It was the foundation of policy at the time. In the Economic Survey of 1948 there was envisaged an unemployment figure of 450,000. That figure was accepted as a necessary condition of flexibility and mobility, but it was twice the present number. Whether we proceed by licensing or rationing—and we can argue that
  1196
  point—or whether by restriction of credit, the impact on labour is very much the same. What is important to the nation is to take up the slack quickly, to make the movement of labour rapid and effective and so to increase exports where the demand is strong and the market bouyant. Hence, in spite of all the criticisms which have been made against us, I have no doubt at all where our duty lies.
  It is, naturally, of no particular pleasure to me to continue a high Bank Rate, to ask the bankers to continue their policy of restraint, to continue hire-purchase restrictions, high taxation, and all the rest. When I feel that it is right to do so, I shall be the first to propose measures of relaxation, but I hope that when that day comes, as I hope it will come, I shall not be accused of courting popularity by taking risks. Meanwhile, I have no doubt at all as to what we should do. We should persist in the policies which my predecessor initiated and which I have pursued with increasing vigour.
  Mr. Jay rose——
  Mr. Macmillan: Yes, I know there is the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause, but I shall not have that. The right hon. Gentleman should sit down; he has had enough to say already.
  Mr. Jay: Though all this may be true, can the Chancellor explain why the Government allowed and encouraged this expansion in sales of motor cars at home, when they now think they ought to be cut down?
  Mr. Macmillan: Conditions change. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that he, with his wisdom, thinks that gentleman in Whitehall would plan production better. I do not think so. We know the old theme. His remedy is to put a fresh imposition upon us.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: The Chancellor is absolutely scared to answer.
  Mr. Macmillan: There is one other answer which I would venture to give.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: Some of us in the motor car cities really have not heard an answer to a most important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). He asked the Chancellor

  1197
  whether, in his view, unemployment had gone far enough for Government policy. We are not making party points. [Interruption.] The only conclusion to draw from the attitude of hon. Members opposite is that anybody who cares about unemployment in the motor car industry had better be a Socialist. I am asking the Chancellor this question. Can he give us a frank answer as to whether his policy of creating unemployment in our industry has gone far enough, or is he going to continue it? If the latter, up to what point will he continue it, and what does he want the size of the labour force left in the industry to be when he has finished? Further, will he say something else——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. The hon. Member's intervention at this stage should not develop into an argument.
  Mr. Crossman: May I just ask this further question? The Chancellor told us about a 40 per cent. increase in the number of men in the industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "40,000."] Will he tell us why he allows——
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Put it in the Daily Mirror.
  Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) wants to ask me another question, I am quite ready.
  Mr. Crossman: The question we are asking is this. If 40,000 men were allowed into the industry, is it really planning to blow it up with 40,000 men and then, when they have all streamed into Coventry, to say that we must plan to get them all out again?
  Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has asked me two questions. Of course, I have had a very long experience of him in this House, as have, I think, all hon. Members; and I have to be pretty careful in answering his questions because they are put in the well-known kind of phraseology—"Have you stopped beating your wife?" I have had about 32 years at answering that kind of question, and so, no doubt, have hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would say that the true answers to his questions are really these. First, he asks what kind of planning is it that
  1198
  allows an industry first to expand and then, perhaps, to have to contract.
  Mr. William Hamilton: There is no "perhaps" about it.
  Mr. Macmillan: Can anybody tell me how one plans the exports of a country, how one can demand that people shall buy what one makes? Does anyone really believe that experts, however good, or that Ministers on either side of the House advised by officials, however wise, can make better trade or industrial forecasts than those who are in industry itself?
  Surely, what we have to do—and this is my answer to the first part of the question—is to try to deal with the economy as a whole. I have given the House the indicators of what I see; the boom is on at almost full rate, there are certain signs of slowing down, certain adjustments taking place, but nothing like sufficient reduction in the general economic boom of the whole nation to allow the relaxation of the present restraint.
  I occasionally read a journal for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) writes, and I have heard it suggested that the Government are deliberately planning on creating a position of unemployment in order to break the power of the unions. If that were not such a palpably false charge, it would be a wounding one. My knowledge of the unemployment problem comes from what I knew of it in the past. I remember the days of the 1930's, and saw it very close at hand; I lived very close to it. All men and women of good will, on both sides of the House, tried and searched hard to find some solution. Those days have gone, I hope, for ever, but I still remember them and what I remember is to me an inspiration to do my duty. My whole job as Chancellor is to protect the country from those times coming back, or even from the threat of being repeated in present circumstances.
  From where does that threat of unemployment come? Not from deficiency in home demand over the whole country, not from any shortage of things to he done; there are more things to be done than we can get done. It does not come from any lack of will to find the means or the money. The threat of unemployment comes from one quarter and one

  1199
  quarter only, from our own unfitness to compete in the markets of the world. It is the whole object of my policy and that of my colleagues to do what we can to make us, and keep us, fit to compete.
  In spite of all the jeers and sneers of those in many quarters and of different parties to reject any method except that of the brute force of facts, I still think we should continue our faith in argument and persuasion. I am not at all ashamed of the appeals which I and my colleagues have made for restraint on all sides, on wages, prices, profits and dividends. This twofold approach seems to me to be appropriate in a democratic society, and nothing that has happened in the last six months has destroyed my confidence in its ultimate success.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I am well aware of the continuing anxiety in the Midlands over the motor car industry, and I make no apology for rising to speak about it. I represent a constituency outside that area, but at least I can claim its acquaintance, having worked as an engine fitter in Birmingham. Before I came to this House, I earned my living in the motor car industry.
  I want to deal with one or two of the things which have arisen from the present conditions in the motor car industry, and I have particularly in mind this question of consultation with the trade unions, or the lack of it, before these dismissals were launched. I will say straight away that no one who knew the tycoons in the motor car industry should have been at all surprised that they adopted the attitude they did. As a matter of fact, in 1955 I raised this very point of lack of consultation with the Minister of Labour, and I received the "brush-off" from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Transport, but who was then the Parliamentary Secretary, about the fears which I then expressed.
  Those fears have been completely borne out by events. I do not like to quote my speeches in this context, but they are worth recalling. I referred to the fact that the doctrine in the engineering industry about consultation is 58 years old. I said then that the policy laid down in the great strike of 1897 is still the rule today. This was the policy laid down by the
  1200
  engineering employers, from which they have never deviated. They said:
  "The Federated Employers' … will admit no interference with the management of their business, and reserve the right to introduce into any federated workshop at the option of the employer concerned, any conditions of labour under which any members of the trade unions here represented were working at the commencement of the dispute in any of the workshops of the Federated Employers."
  That doctrine lasted until the great dispute in 1922, and the A.E.U. is the only trade union which has fought a major battle, not on hours and conditions, but on the moral dignity and right of the individual engineer, fitter or turner to be consulted on the conditions at his works.
  What took place at Longbridge last week is not new. In 1926 and 1927, when Morris's went over from bullnose to flat-nose radiators, which was a big moment in British motor engineering, Nuffield put the whole of his works people out for two months without so much as a word, and no one who signed at the labour exchange for unemployment benefit got his job back. I warned the House at that time, because this question was raised in the inquiry which was held into the engineering industry. There are five volumes of evidence in the Library in which the point was brought out by Mr. Jack Tanner, then President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, that there existed no means by which employers and employees could get down to the effects of long-term economic planning. In effect, employers and employees in the engineering industry only come together in a head-on collision.
  I received a "brush off" by the Parliamentary Secretary at the time. I do not think he would mind my saying that I protested in correspondence with him. I sent him letters of considerable length to prove the point, and I think that privately he would admit I proved it. It is a fact that, in the engineering industry, there is a different morality among employers than in any of the nationalised industries. We would never tolerate what took place last week taking place in the nationalised industries. What is the reason for this sort of thing?
  The Manchester Guardian made the point that the British Motor Corporation had before it the example of Standard's in which there had been protracted negotiations on dismissals and the B.M.C. was

  1201
  not going to stand for that. It was not prepared to argue the toss about men's livelihoods and whether men should be put off or not. It was not prepared to argue on the order of redundancy and, consequently, cut through everything. We have the old arrogant lash of necessity. It reacted in the same way as the engineering employers have always reacted in my time.
  The policy of the Minister of Labour is the policy of the "master race". He got his reputation in this House with an attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). Although he attacked my right hon. Friend across the Floor of the House, he did not face up to the employers in the engineering industry.
  Mr. Chapman: He did nothing at all.
  Mr. Pannell: He did nothing at all. I am very angry about the whole thing. He knew very well that there were plenty of sanctions within Government Departments by which something could have been done. The whole question of lack of consultation is something to which we have grown accustomed in the engineering industry. I have no doubt that it is a precursor of things to come. Therefore, it is no use the Government snivelling about what took place last week and the Minister saying that he is shocked at the very short notice that was given. Nor is it any use hon. Members opposite signing Motions and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) getting indignant about this sort of thing. This is the engineering employers reacting in the way they have always reacted—they were true to character.
  I want to say a word or two about the merits of the question itself. I had an Answer this afternoon to a Question in which the right hon. Gentleman who manages overseas trade replied to me. I should have thought that a Government Department would understand the Question, which was:
  "To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the volume of exports of motor cars to the United States of America for the years 1951 until the last available return, expressed as a percentage of British production."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied that it was 4 per cent.
  I should have thought that everyone except the right hon. Gentleman who
  1202
  replied would have understood that I was asking for the figure to be broken down over the years. It was a most misleading reply. If we take the actual figures of the American market expressed in figures of production, we find that the amounts of exports to the United States in 1951 were 4·2 per cent. of home production, in 1952 the amount was 7 per cent., in 1953 4·3 per cent., in 1954 3·4 per cent., in 1955 2·2 per cent. and this year 2·7 per cent. That shows that there has been a steady diminution in the percentage of British motor cars exported to the United States.
  I also collected some of the larger figures used by Mr. Carron, President-elect of the Union, which he gave in an address to the Unions recently. For 1948, he gave the figure of 334,800 as the total produced, and the total exported was 226,000. The figures for last year were 897,562 produced and 365,846 exported, which again shows a diminution as a percentage.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I do not see what is surprising in that. No one ever thought in the whole history of the motor industry that a percentage figure of 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of exports would be kept up forever.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member never finds anything surprising about what his late employers did. I should have thought it was surprising, because anyone who knew the broad economic trend would have known full well that there must come a saturation point for motor cars for this country. The employers must have known that we needed a high export figure. There are certain fairly good social grounds preventing the flooding of British roads with motor cars.
  Neither side of the House can boast particularly about its road programme, which was the basis on which any expansion of the British motor car industry ought to have been planned; but we badly needed to export because the motor car industry was getting overbalanced and held a too significant place in the British economy. The only excuse for that would have been to export——
  Mr. Osborne rose——
  Mr. Pannell: I do not want to have too many interruptions. My complaint about the British motor car industry is

  1203
  that it rallied to the support of the Government. It was given a soft home market from 1951, and the controls were off. It was used as a façade by the Conservative Party. Conservatives said, "Look how the Tory Government help you. You can buy an Austin Seven now. You could not under the Labour Government." That was the sort of argument the Conservatives used.
  The motor car industry was allowed to expand and to bloat itself by sucking away men and materials from the trades and the regions which were developed in the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, from Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire. It thus reduced the exports of the great industries of Lancashire and the West Riding, sucking into itself many skilled men, drawing men and materials into the Midlands. We had to provide more schools and services in that region in consequence. The economy has become lopsided. That is the indictment of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are not planners. They completely failed to plan. They let this industry go its own way. The Minister himself has said that most of these matters are for the employers alone.
  How did the British motor car industry stand up to its responsibilities? I have just spent ten weeks in the United States. I would not attempt here to pontificate on that country, but I have been able to see the impact, or want of impact, of the British motor car industry on the American economy.
  Where does the challenge to the British motor car industry in the American import market come from? It comes from the Volkswagen. Of course, the American driver, particularly on the great speedways they have in America, drives with his foot flat on the floor board, and in the Volkswagen he can do that. The Volkswagen has many technical advantages. It can stand up to climate variations because it has an air-cooled engine. It has considerable weight ratio over the rear axle. It can get off to a good start in snow or frost. There are no freeze-ups. It has a wide bumper that is completely lacking on British cars, and in America bumpers are bumpers and meant to bump. One does not tow a car in America but pushes it. It has a bumper the width of the car. British cars have high revving engines that lack torque.
  1204
  The Volkswagen has a lower revving engine but larger torque, and those are very important considerations.
  All this has been known since 1951. What has the British motor car industry done about it? There are about 28 types of British cars circulating in America. I say nothing about the Rolls Royces, the Bentleys, the M.G.s and the Jaguars, cars which are meant to please the boys there just as they are meant to please the same sort of people here, people who want something stylish. I am concerned with the products of the British car industry that earn its bread and cheese, and the sort of impact that they can make on the American market.
  The main challenge should be by the Morris Minor, the Morris range, and the Austins, and it is these types which should have the answer to the Volkswagen in the United States. They have none of the selling points of the Volkswagen, but have failed ever since 1950 to produce alternatives for the American market. They are making no impact on the American market.
  They are not meeting the German challenge. The impact made by the Volkswagen might have been made by our people if they had adopted similar imaginative organisation and methods. The Volkswagen people insist that dealers in Volkswagen divide their businesses up with separate agencies for the Volkswagen. A dealer has to stock a certain proportion of spare parts, not only rear axles, king pins, brake shoes, but of spares of other rarer things that go wrong from time to time, and stock them in proportion to his sales. The Volkswagen people give the dealers technical advice. The Germans have brought something of their traditional discipline into their motor car industry.
  How do we compete against it? Rather than generalise, I should like to give some facts. I was in New Orleans on 7th June, and I have the card here of the International Auto Sales and Service Incorporated. That firm had an Austin Healey, which, after all, is a fairly expensive sports car. Its overdrive had gone. There was not an overdrive in America for an Austin Healey, not one. They telephoned to New York to have one flown down. This firm was very concerned about its prestige. It was a good dealer and its

  1205
  chief tried, with old-fashioned enterprise, to repair the overdrive in his own workshop in order to send the car on to San Francisco, whither it was going.
  In San Franciso there was a Triumph car and the windscreen had become cracked and distorted, and not one replacement had been received in twelve months. The owner did not want it repaired to drive it. He wanted it repaired to sell it, and who could blame him?
  The British motor car industry has had plenty of time since 1950 and 1951 to improve its export sales. Goodness knows, even the aircraft industry would have produced something in that time. The motor car industry has not in all that time met the challenge of the Volkswagen. It is no use sending out a dozen cars to be tried. The teething troubles of cars should be tried out at home.
  I have pleaded for East-West trade before, and I have done so because 80 per cent. of our exports of machine tools in the 'thirties went to countries which are now behind the Iron Curtain, and I cherish the idea of good East-West trade again. But you cannot satisfy every Chinese peasant with an Austin Seven. There are higher priorities than that.
  Let us consider the international background of the car industry. The Detroit Free Press stated:
  "The monthly survey of Automotive News showed today that on May 1 dealers throughout the country"—
  that is, in the United States—
  "had 902,270 new cars jammed in warehouses and storage lots or in transit from the factories. The total compares with an April 1 figure of 898,669 units and is only 1,519 units below the record total set March 1 this year."
  This was in Detroit, and the weakness of Detroit in the American economy is, as everyone in America agrees, that it is a one-industry city. At the same time as these figures were published Governor Williams of Michigan was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying that he had appealed to the American Government to declare Detroit a special area because there were 125,000 people unemployed in Detroit.
  I am bound to point out these kind of things. We must have our economy straight, but I hope that nobody will accuse me, with the experience I have
  1206
  had in engineering, of putting people out of work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made quite a point of this. He quoted Sir Stafford Cripps, but he did not quote the sneers which greeted Sir Stafford when he made the statement that our real salvation lay in pumping out cars into the export market. It ill becomes the present Chancellor to quote Sir Stafford Cripps.
  I have never said that full employment meant one job in one town in one lifetime, but in a time of recession we must consider the man who is compelled to seek a job and a home hundreds of miles away. Those of us who have been concerned with bringing up children, getting them educated, and securing special places for them in schools, and in preaching civic consciousness to the community, cannot be deaf to these claims. The people of the Midlands are full of civic pride.
  What about the questions of uprooting the family, disturbing a man's security, affecting his superannuation and his pension rights and that kind of thing? I have noticed in local government, and particularly in this House, that we always seem very sensitive about safeguarding those things in the case of people who are employed in the public sector. We must bring the same morality into private industry.
  It is true that we cannot be Luddites in the 20th Century. Automation must come, but if we are really civilised, automation must be fed into the economic screen at a rate at which the expanding economy can absorb it. And men are an end in themselves. They are not a means to an end. The Minister of Labour is doing less than his job unless he is prepared to do something more than he has done already and is prepared to say, "You are not going to put people off in this fashion in future. If you are going to behave like people behaved in the jungle of the hungry '30s, we in the Government, expressing the conscience of the country, will seek powers to see that you do not do this kind of thing." The Government should see that they do not do less for the people in the private sector than they do for the people in the public sector.
  Therefore, for the transition period we may have to turn over our ideas of unemployment benefit. We may have to pay transition wages and help people by

  1207
  paying their removal expenses. Why not? If their profits fall in a bad year, the big corporations expect some excusal of Income Tax. Why should we not help these workpeople in some similar way? I shall not claim that the mere return of a Labour Government will settle all these things. I would not deceive the people and would not wish to be returned on a suffrage which created an illusion of that kind. The return of a Labour Government would mean the return of 300 people who are politicians and who cannot be expected to create an alibi for every industrial question. Incidentally, some of the 300 or 400 people returned will probably be half-starved as long as hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not face the question of paying Members of Parliament properly.
  When the Government do not face the idea of proper remuneration for people whom they know and ought to respect and recognise as colleagues in the business of the nation, the reason why the Conservative Party has such contempt for the people on the factory floors is quite obvious. We can be very objective about people whom we do not know. When hon. Members opposite can see the amount of trouble there is even in this place among a community of 600 Members and can ignore it for the sake of selfish and cowardly party gains, I see very little hope for the people on the factory floors.
  Mr. Osborne: That is just absolute drivel.
  Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member is an authority on drivel.
  Mr. Osborne: I have been listening to it for a long time.
  Mr. Pannell: The trade unions also have a responsibility to tell their rank and file the facts of life and to see that there is as little pain and hardship as possible as we adjust ourselves to a changing economy. Our economy cannot be static. It must be dynamic, and my indictment against the Government is that they have allowed the motor car industry to go back to the old, static situation, and the Minister says, "This is the business of employers. This is not my business at all." That is what the Minister has said today.
  1208
  These are things to be thought over. This debate is important because we are taking stock of the economic situation of the nation, but the only tools with which we have to work are men and women. I say that we should be just as much moved by what happens to an engine fitter or a turner in Birmingham or Coventry as we are moved sometimes to great indignation on such a question as capital punishment and whether ten people are to be hanged in a year. I have steadily supported my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but the men for whom he pleaded are, in the main, completely unworthy people. If we considered the worth of individuals, we should go very much astray on that issue. But here we are concerned with our good men and women, with the people of the British nation, the people whom we ought to cherish. In the main, the trade unions have devoted their efforts to the lifting up of these people.
  I warn the Minister that next time the Government will not get away with it. What happened last week will cause great bitterness in the trade unions. Nobody has been more reluctant than the trade unions to damage the economy of the country, but unless the Government come out with great courage on this issue, this will be the precursor of real trouble. At present, the Government stand condemned on their record as a Government without the guts to govern or the grace to get out.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. Lawrence Turner: I want to follow one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). The hon. Member might like to know that in Oxford we arc down to 750 Morris Minors being manufactured this week against an average of 1,400 per week over the last two or three years. This whole matter naturally concerns us in Oxford just as much as it does the other end of the British Motor Corporation.
  We have just had 850 men dismissed at a week's notice and without any consultation from the Morris Motors division and a further 158 from the Morris Radiators branch, which leaves us with a balance of labour force in those two factories of about 5,000. Of these, nearly 4,000 will be working a 4-day week. Furthermore, this process is spreading to the large Pressed Steel factory which

  1209
  normally employs 11,000 men. Quite a lot of those will be receiving their dismissal notices this week. Quite a lot of them are being put on part-time as a direct result of policy in the motor industry.
  Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, West, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour or his Parliamentary Secretary will be winding up this debate. I say that because the point that is worrying most of us is not so much the redundancy, which has been known for some time, but the method of making the announcement. The first point that is worrying us is the question of joint consultation. The second point is, what will happen to those who are dismissed? The third point is the question of overall policy, which I shall not now embark upon, having done so in the autumn.
  Mr. Pannell: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, although I did not mention Oxford, I am sorry, because it so happened that I have a special feeling for it. I worked at Morris Motors during 1926 and 1927, when it was their custom to put people off for a couple of months without notice. I assume, therefore, that the animal is merely reverting to type.
  Mr. Turner: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has worked there. There is in Morris Motors a long tradition of happy labour relations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not very long."] There are incentive schemes, there is profit-sharing, there is a happy relationship at that end of the British Motor Corporation. No one in the motor industry will deny that Morris Motors, as such, has always been good, and that there is an extremely happy spirit there even today, though it is part of a much larger and seemingly more ruthless organisation.
  Without mentioning names, I must say that I think the management at Cowley is just as concerned as the representatives of labour, all of whom I saw on this issue at my request a day or two ago. The shock of instant dismissal in that group came all the more severely since it was done without consultation with the representatives of labour, either in the form of the five unions concerned or the shop stewards committee, all of whom have been to see me.
  1210
  It seems that only on Tuesday were the representatives of labour notified that they would be required to attend a meeting at 11 a.m. last Wednesday. They were then handed a printed notice from the British Motor Corporation notifying them merely as to the numbers who would be dismissed that week with one week's wages. Although ever since February there has been weekly consultation, certainly at Cowley, which has been valuable, between the representatives of the shop stewards committee, the five trade unions concerned and the management, at no stage, even up to last week's meeting, was there any indication that the dismissal would take the form it did. In a traditionally conservative area such as that—I say that not in the political sense—it came as a great shock to be dealt with in that way. The same thing is going to happen in the case of Pressed Steel.
  I want to pay a tribute to the Department of my right hon. Friend. I do not suppose that he or his Department were notified in advance of the decision——
  Mr. Chapman: Oh, yes. The Minister said so.
  Mr. Turner: Then all I can say is that the Department acted expeditiously A new branch of the Ministry was set up as a temporary arrangement in the Cowley Road, and the efficiency and courtesy of the staff in dealing with a difficult job at short notice has been admirable.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that there are 800 vacancies on the books of the local branch of his Ministry in Oxford, though many of them are perhaps not quite real, and that there are at present 950 people dismissed, with another 200 or 300 coming along this week. I hope very much, therefore, that my right hon. Friend and his Department will realise that in Oxford, at any rate, there is no real alternative occupation. And once we lose the key men from the motor industry in Oxford, because they will drift away to other industries, it is certain that Cowley will not be able to compete with the Volkswagen and with Italian and American cars.
  If my right hon. Friend believes, as I am sure he does, and as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor said this afternoon, that the relationship between management and labour is of vital importance for the future, will he use his great influence, even

  1211
  at this late hour, with the top four of the British Motor Corporation to get them to consult top representatives of the five main unions involved? I ask him that with all the sincerity I can command, because I believe that it is important.
  Will my right hon. Friend also please consider afresh, and from the unbiassed point of view he has always shown, the establishment of a quick-working, fact-finding committee for our entire motor industry? I believe that such a proposal has been put forward in the past and negatived, but it is urgently needed today. I should be happy to serve on such a committee. The facts ought to be made known, and if such a committee were set up by my right hon. Friend, he and his Department would be rendering a great service to an industry which is hard-hit after a long run of prosperity, an industry which is suffering from competition and policy. Such a committee, acting quickly, both on short- and long-term prospects, would be a great help to this country.
  5.57 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: By the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has moved, I am asked to welcome "the interim statement on economies in public expenditure" which was made by the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June—
  "as further proof of the determination of Her Majesty's Government to conquer the dangers of inflation. …"
  That is asking a great deal of one's imagination, quite apart from anything else. All the economies that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to suggest were economies of £70 million on a Budget of between £4,500 million and £5,000 million, and an economy on the expenditure on defence of £70 million out of an expenditure of between £1,400 million and £1,500 million.
  It does not seem to me that this shows a grim determination to deal with the dreaded inflation which has been with us since the beginning of the war. What is more, that statement was made and cheered by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June. Three days later, the Minister of Defence came down to the House and said, "We have saved £70 million, but, unfortunately, we have now had to give away about £30 million to Germany in respect of defence and
  1212
  maintenance of our Armed Forces in that country." So apparently in one week after this tremendous effort has been made, there is a net saving of about £40 million, and I am then asked to say that this is further proof of the determination of the Government to conquer the dangers of inflation. I want a great deal more proof of the determination to conquer inflation than a mere saving of £40 million.
  I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is difficult to make these small trimmings—that is what they really are. Once the amount has been voted by the House, there is a sort of vested interest in all Government Departments to maintain at least that amount, and, if possible, to increase it. What is more, in any effort that the Chancellor usually makes to cut down the expenditure, he gets very little assistance from hon. Members. The situation has changed completely from what it used to be in the old days when the House itself was the guardian of the public purse in keeping expenditure down. On the other hand, hon. Members now almost regularly move for something to be done which would involve considerably greater expenditure, and the true guardian of the public purse is the Chancellor. Therefore, one realises the difficulties which confront the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, all that has been presented to us is that, after a considerable amount of trouble, which I am sure had to be undertaken, we get a net saving of £40 million.
  I am anxious to know what is the real policy of Her Majesty's Government to deal with inflation. The problem has been with us now since 1945. It has almost become a regular feature of the life of the country that every year, or certainly every second year, the Government have found themselves face to face with some new economic crisis. Everyone says that it is absolutely necessary to conquer inflation. Everyone has given his own definition of inflation. One which has been generally accepted is "Too much money chasing too few goods". That will do as a working definition.
  What has happened is that during and since the war we have been unable to produce the quantity of goods needed in this country and also for exports so that

  1213
  we might pay for our very necessary imports in materials and food. This situation has arisen, first, from the immense sacrifices that we made during the war, and it has been due, secondly, to the enormous backlog that had to be made up in providing new buildings, new plant and new machinery to replace what had become out-of-date or had been destroyed by the enemy. In addition, we have also all along been short of technicians and those to lead them.
  What is our position? We are spending more than our production warrants. Time and time again one considers where one can effect savings, but savings as a general rule, apart from policy, are small. One can go through them and do the best one can, and ultimately one comes to the conclusion to which the Chancellor seems to have come, "That is the best I can do at the present moment to cut down expenditure, unless there is some change of policy."
  Where are our main expenditures? First, let me take the Welfare State. Nobody wants to cut down on that. Also, nobody wants to cut down on education. Both are necessary, and both are the best investments that the country can possibly make, not only for the present and for the general welfare of the people, but for the future of the country. It would be entirely wrong to cut down upon them.
  However, there is another item which is absorbing not only a large quantity of money year by year, but also a vast quantity of material and hundreds of thousands of young men, who, if the need was not there, could be much better and more usefully employed. I am referring to our defence. If it is necessary, we shall have to continue it, because the most precious of all our possessions is our freedom and our own way of life so that we may not be dominated by anybody else. I said, "If it is necessary." What I am anxious to know is what consideration the Government are today giving to the necessity for maintaining the vast expenditure on defence which is going on year by year.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not obvious that it is too great a strain on the country? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember how some of us took a stand on this when it was first suggested and how we were dealt with? Is it not now obvious
  1214
  that, in relation to our national income, we are spending more than other countries are? Has not the time arrived when we should inform the other countries that we can no longer stand it?
  Mr. Davies: That is really the point that I am making. I agree with the hon. Member. I do not want to go into great detail about it at the moment. I am anxious to know what thought the Government are giving to it at the moment. There is a general feeling that we are involved in a far greater expenditure per head of population than any of the other free countries. I believe that the amount being spent by all the free countries at the moment is about £40,000 million. That is merely expenditure of money without taking into account what is taken away from industry and from supplying the needs of people the world over. The result is that inflation is not confined to this country. It is felt in nearly all the free countries, and especially among the little countries, which find it very difficult to deal with this tremendous problem.
  So long as there is a threat to our liberty, the House will be unanimous that we must spare no effort and no expense in making ourselves safe. But is that the position today? From 1945 to the outbreak of the Korean War in June, 1950, I and my colleagues regularly opposed the continuation of conscription, for we felt that it was unnecessary. We could get no reply to our question why it was being continued. When the Korean trouble started, my colleagues and I felt that danger was so near that we withdrew our opposition and supported the continuation of conscription.
  Is it necessary today? Thousands of our best young men, at the best time of their lives, have been taken away from industry and production. How much could they not have done if they had been allowed to go straight into increasing the amount of our manufactured goods. They have been taken away at the time when they could best be trained, too. On addition, is it necessary today to have the vast quantities of materials which are being used in our supposed defence? The Chancellor of the Exchequer today emphasised that a vast quantity of necessary steel is in use. I very much doubt the necessity for it today.

  1215
  Something greater than a relief of tension has happened. I now think, and all of us hope, that it is true that the third world war has disappeared for ever. All of us hope and pray that that is the case. If that is so, the Government should be turning their attention to that situation. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we cannot do it alone, that it will have to be done with our fellow nations, for example, those who are members of N.A.T.O. However, it should not be confined even to those. It should be a matter of close study not only at Commonwealth Conferences, but day by day.
  If it turns out that I am right in my supposition and that it is not necessary to continue conscription, it is unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous to have vast armies and even a big navy which in these days does not afford the protection it once gave, because guided missiles can follow ships for vast distances. If I am right, we shall be relieved not only of an immense amount of taxation—perhaps in the neighbourhood of £1,000 million a year, or more—but we shall add to our industrial strength enormous numbers of men who now have to wait two years, and we shall also have the advantage of great quantities of material now being otherwise used.
  It is interesting to see the different approach which the Russians are now making to disarmament. Until recently the one thing for which they have asked at every disarmament conference was that we should do away with nuclear weapons, the atom and hydrogen bombs. Now they have come forward and said that they are prepared to begin by reducing their armed forces by one million men. Their critics have suggested that that may not be done, but I believe that that figure of one million is an underestimate.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that the danger to the free world today is not from a military war, but from an economic war. He said that two and a half years ago, and some of us were saying it much earlier. It has always been the Communist doctrine that the moment the Communists were in a position to carry out to the full the principles of their doctrine, they could defeat capitalist doctrine and defeat it economically. They are in an extraordinarily strong position. At
  1216
  present they have control of an area including about half of Germany and stretching to the China seas. One does not know how far they will be assisted by the 600 million Chinese, but they have political, social and economic control over those millions and over the raw materials of that area.
  What is our position? In the Brussels Treaty we agreed that we should go to the assistance of France, Belgium and Luxembourg, if they were attacked and we also agreed to co-operate with them socially and economically. We have not done a single thing about that, except that in the year following the Brussels Treaty we repeated those statements in the N.A.T.O. Agreement. While the Communists have those enormous forces concentrated in that great area—I am speaking now of the economic war—we are at sixes and sevens and quarelling amongst ourselves.
  The one good feature at present is that at the N.A.T.O. meeting in Paris it seems to have been realised that N.A.T.O. could be put to far better purposes than at present. Hitherto it has relied merely upon the military position. Now it seems to be realised that what is needed is help from one another and three men have been set the great task of considering those problems.
  I want to know Her Majesty's Government's policy on these matters. That is the way to conquer inflation. It is the way to have more and more material to meet the demands of our people and of exports. Those demands will not be met by action such as has already been taken, a mere cheeseparing and a trimming bringing in only £40 million net. That is not the way to conquer the problem which has been with us now for more than 11 years and which, unless something great is done, will continue with us until we are ground to death.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I do not think that any hon. Member will dissent from the hope expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that the third world war will never take place. I am bound to say—I may be open to a charge of being a man of little faith—that I find it difficult to support him when he says that he believes with

  1217
  confidence that the third world war will never take place. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member was a classical scholar, and although I was not a very good classical scholar, I am sure that he will remember si vis pacem pare bellum. Nature abhors a vacuum, and I believe that if we and the other Powers of N.A.T.O. allow our armed forces to fall to a dangerously low level, we shall find that third world war upon us and it will be too late to stop it.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also waxed sarcastic, as did the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), at the small amount of the interim economies announced last week by the Chancellor. The right hon. Member for Huyton criticised them also on other grounds. He said that in any case they largely consisted of running down stocks and he said that some were very mean. So far as meanness is concerned, it is worth while getting the facts on record, for example, in relation to the additional penny for school meals.
  I am sure that it will be within the right hon. Gentleman's recollection that in 1949 the Government of which he was a member increased the price of school meals from 5d. to 6d. At that time the food element of the meals cost 1s. 2d., so that the subsidy element was 8d. In 1951 the Government of which he was a member saw fit—quite properly in my view—to make a further increase of a 1d., from 6d. to 7d. and the cost price of the food element then was 1s. 3d. and so the subsidy remained at 8d. When my right hon. Friend, now the Lord Privy Seal, in 1953 put 2d. on the school meals, increasing the price from 7d. to 9d., the actual cost was 1s. 5½d. and so the effective subsidy was 8½d.—a ½d. more than the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to support. Prices have risen in the last few years and the food cost is now 11d., 9d., and with the increase from 9d. to 10d. the subsidy element is now 11d., which is 40 per cent. more than the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to support in years gone by.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic to rights by pointing out that three-quarters of the savings are genuine and are not due to a running down of stocks. In any case, the first thing that a prudent businessman does when he finds that he
  1218
  is getting short of cash and the credit squeeze is beginning to affect him is to look round to see whether he can economise upon his working capital. One of the first things he does is to look at his stocks with great care, to see if they are not unreasonably high. If they are he can cut them down and carry on with a smaller working capital than before. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done.
  Furthermore, as the world temperature has lowered we have heard cries from hon. Members on both sides of the House for a reduction in defence expenditure. What is the simplest and best way to start that reduction? Clearly it is to run down warlike stores of all kinds. Provided that it is justified, I should have thought that a running down of stocks was the wisest form of reduction in expenditure for the time being. Hon. Members opposite say that it is a once-for-all reduction——
  Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished accountant. If one of his clients were to run down his stocks and present it as a revenue saving, I fancy he would be in very serious trouble with the Chancellor.
  Mr. Stevens: How right the right hon. Member is. Perhaps he, in his wisdom, would dissent from the Report of the special Committee appointed by his own Government to consider the form of national accounts. One of the recommendations considered by that Committee was that we should keep our accounts as I should like to see them kept, but the Committee reported against such a course, and the Government accepted the Report. The right hon. Gentleman's sarcasm is somewhat misplaced.
  There has been a good deal of argument about the economy of £70 million. Expressed as a proportion of the total Budget it is very small, but that is a completely wrong way to consider the matter. During the last year there has been much argument as to the extent of the inflationary pressure existing in the system. My guess is as good as almost anybody else's, and the sort of figure that I have often heard quoted is about 2 per cent. of the gross national product. In 1955 the gross national product amounted to £16,000 million, and 2 per cent, of that sum is about £320 million,

  1219
  so that the sum of £70 million is just about one quarter of the amount of the inflationary pressure in the system at the present time.
  Seen in that context these economies are likely to have a much more real effect than has been suggested. Furthermore, they must be taken in conjunction with the slowing down of the Government's capital investment programme, the nationalised industries, the suspension of investment allowances in the private sector of industry, the tightening up of loan sanction to local authorities, and the increased exports induced by the credit squeeze and stiffer hire-purchase requirements. These steps should amount to at least £200 million or £225 million——
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Do not leave out the sacking of thousands of men.
  Mr. Stevens: I am unable to follow the hon. Member's interjection, but I hope that he has been able to follow my argument.
  A saving of about £320 million is necessary; £70 million has already been found by my right hon. Friend and £220 million by the methods which I have just referred to, leaving £25 million or £30 million more for my right hon. Friend to find.
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend gave some indication whether or not these measures are having the desired effect. The price index in May was the same as the April one. That is only one month following another, and I am well aware that one swallow does not make a summer. But it gives some indication that these methods are having the effect that we all want.
  I should like to say a few words about the situation in the motor car industry. For many years hon. Members on this side of the House have constantly preached that higher wages without correspondingly increased productivity would mean a loss of world markets in due course. It is quite true that the motor car industry has been handicapped, especially recently, by import restrictions imposed by other countries and by the construction of domestic assembly plants and factories, but in 1955 Germany was able to overcome those handicaps and overtake this country as the greatest world exporter of motor cars.
  Mr. Chapman: I should like to refer to one point upon which the hon. Member seems to be misinformed. Is he suggesting that within the motor car industry there has not been an increased output per worker in proportion to the increase in wages? If so, the contrary is the case. There has been an enormous increase in the output per worker corresponding to the increase in wages.
  Mr. Stevens: With the greatest possible respect, I suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Compared with our competitors in the world markets that is not the case; otherwise cars of equal size and quality could not be sold at prices which are more than competitive with ours.
  I want to be completely objective about this matter because it is far too serious for party bickering. There have undoubtedly been faults on the part of the manufacturers. There have been instances of poor after-sales service. We have also been extraordinarily slow to introduce as standard fittings such things as automatic gear boxes. It seems a tragedy that although this country saw the first car fitted with a self-changing gear box and a fluid flywheel, we use an American transmission system founded upon the same thing when we build a motor car with a two-pedal control. Powered steering is common in all motor cars in the United States, but not here.
  In the last four or five years the motor car industry has been too ready to meet an easy home demand rather than take some trouble in order to earn exports, and that is very natural and understandable. None the less, as has already been pointed out, the motor car and motor vehicle industry generally has a wonderful record of exports. It is also true that, year after year, the after-sales service has improved. I find great difficulty in believing the story about the Triumph motor car which was left in the United States for twelve months with an unrepaired windscreen. I wonder whether that speaks volumes for the efficiency of the American motor car repair organisation.
  But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Productivity has not increased sufficiently; the inevitable has occurred, and we are being priced out of world markets. The numbers of men being sacked at present are not large, but if

  1221
  the unemployment figure is only one, to the single person affected it may be a tragedy not only for himself but also for his wife and children. That is not likely to happen while we still have 400,000 jobs waiting to be filled. On more than one occasion I have been accused of being old-fashioned. When I was a boy it was commonly said that one should be willing to go wherever one's bread and butter could be earned, and we have heard that sentiment expressed in a different way this afternoon.
  We shall never compete successfully if we always try for the same kind of work in the same place and at an ever-increasing wage. Labour at every level, whether on the workshop floor or in the boardroom, has to be mobile and ready to move to the place where the pressure of demand is greatest. I am surprised that there has not yet been any quotation from the first leading article in today's issue of The Times. That may be because it knocks both sides of the House so hard.
  Mr. James Harrison: It knocks the hon. Member's side.
  Mr. Stevens: It knocks the Opposition as well. It is impartial. It doles out brickbats, and very few bouquets. It is headed, "The Rigid State", and at the end it states that we must have
  "a truly energetic and resilient economy"
  if we are to have our fortunes restored. I think that absolutely essential if we are to exist in a competitive world.
  Here I would put in yet another plea for the abandonment of that awful phrase, "the two sides of industry". That phrase does as much harm psychologically as almost anything does. There are three partners in industry—and the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who is laughing, knows that perfectly well.
  Mr. Chapman: I am thinking that in my constituency they know at the moment only two sides and no partners.
  Mr. Stevens: In that case there are certainly two sides to blame. I have not put my name to a Motion in the names of some of my hon. Friends blaming the British Motor Corporation for the summary dismissals which have taken place, because I am cautious by nature. I have only heard half the story and I would
  1222
  rather hear the whole story before taking any action of that kind. I would say that certainly in that case there are faults on both sides.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, there are three partners in industry—the Government, the employers, and the trade unions. In this connection I wish to commend strongly the good work of the joint productivity committees. To me it has been a source of pride to sit on the same platform with a Socialist Member of Parliament and a trade union leader and preach the same gospel. I wish more of that sort of thing could happen. Problems arising from automation and temporary unbalance in the economy can be met only by co-operation between the three partners in industry, and the joint productivity committees do good work in showing people how that co-operation can achieve the results which we desire.
  These economies and the credit squeeze have as their main objective a reduction of excessive demands for labour and of the home demand for exportable goods. Mechanical equilibrium may be calculated, and by craftsmen it may be achieved. Equilibrium in economic affairs, the equation of production with reasonable demand, cannot be calculated. Not by any means, whether rigid controls or otherwise, can it be steadily and consistently achieved. We on this side of the House believe in high and increasing real wages, but excess demand for labour forces up its price and threatens the very thing we all want, namely, economic equilibrium, that is, stable value for our money.
  These economies are small in relation to the total national expenditure, but large in relation to the marginal nature of our problem. I shall not be satisfied if my right hon. Friend is content to leave the economies at the amount which he has so far announced. But I have no reason to imagine that he will do so. I wish to congratulate him on tackling the problem of excessive Government expenditure, and I shall look forward at no distant date to congratulating him on the next instalment.
  6.32 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: The hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has come nearer than anyone who has yet spoken in this debate to the point of view

  1223
  which is being expressed at this very time in great conferences of miners and railway workers and, of course, by the motor car workers meeting in family conferences around their firesides and in more formal public conferences. The hon. Member has expressed a point of view which is very much in the minds of the workers, but he has put it from the opposite angle.
  The international cold war has receded, and I agree with what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) when he referred to defence cuts. But though the cold war internationally is receding, cold winds are beginning to blow with cruel force in our internal affairs. The hon. Member for Langstone quoted from to-day's leading article in The Times, which is headed, "A Rigid State". It is interesting to examine the proposals made in that article. Those proposals will not be read by the men who are now unemployed, because they do not buy The Times every morning, but they will hear about them from other sources, as will all other workers.
  The leading article is more outspoken than the Chancellor was. He committed his indiscretions in public speeches earlier. Government spokesmen have talked in general terms which may not be so easily understood. The Times article says bluntly that rents ought to be higher, that we should have what it calls realistic rents. It goes on to ask why we should pamper a man who is working half-time by giving him employment maintenance. That should be taken away from him, he should be brought down to a starvation level, then, The Times argues, he would be more mobile.
  I represent a constituency where there are labour vacancies in the coal mines. The hope of the Tories to make condition more difficult, create what is hoped will be controlled unemployment—just enough unemployment to make labour less rigid, so that men now working in Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and elsewhere will go back to the pits around Cannock or back to South Wales. They hope to obtain cheaper and more humble labour and, by having just enough unemployment, to force workers into the coal industry which is at present, admittedly, undermanned.
  There are many fallacies in that argument, but before dealing with them I wish
  1224
  to ask one or two questions about the motor industry. I do not pretend to be expert on the problems of that industry. Some of my hon. Friends who represent towns where the motor industry is carried on will, I hope, speak later in this debate. But this I know. We are operating in a world where the total market for cars is expanding. Last year the French market expanded by 10 per cent., the West German market by 25 per cent., and the Italian market is growing dramatically. I wish someone, therefore, would tell me why the British industry alone has not expanded. I hope I shall not receive the same old answer that it is because labour is too dear.
  The hon. Member for Langstone took that line. He referred to wages, hard earned wages, but he made no reference at all to profits. The British Motor Corporation announced last year profits of about £24 million.
  Mr. Osborne: It was £21 million.
  Miss Lee: We will split the difference: although, if I add undisclosed profits and personal allowances and expenses accounts, my figure of £24 million would prove an under-estimate. But on either figure over £20 million was, it is admitted, paid out in profits. On my reckoning the Corporation has been making at least £400 per worker in profit, and that is not reduced very much even though I accept the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). But we hear nothing about that side. Nor do we hear anything about the British Motor Corporation putting up the cost of their commodity, even at a time when their profits were mounting recklessly and in a way which is out of tune altogether with the appeal of the Government for economies and cuts. I should like an answer to these questions. It seems to me that the British motor industry——
  Mr. Osborne: Perhaps the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), while she is asking her questions, would care to bear in mind that of the £21 million trading profits, £9¾ million went in taxes to maintain the Welfare State; £8¼ million went to reserve, to maintain an efficient plant and £2½ million went in dividends. So that if the hon. Lady deducted the whole of the dividends it would not affect the selling price of the cars.
  Miss Lee: I will deduct all the dividends if the hon. Member will include all the expenses. I am not asking for gold-plated cars—or for gold-plated ladies to match.
  The hon. Member knows perfectly well that those living on the profits of the industry have been living very well indeed. They have been taking more than their share, and it is very unfair to try to centre a debate of this kind on the old argument that if we could only make the workers poorer and more amenable, all would be well.
  Coming now to the effect of these conditions on the mining industry, we see in today's Press that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers has been making a plea for a seven-hour working day for the miner. Will hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite tell me whether they think that demand is relevant to what they are discussing today? The leader of the miners tells us that if the miners can have a forty-hour week—and that is not asking much—and a seven-hour day, we can bring an additional 12,000 to 15,000 men back to the mining industry, many of them ex-miners. That is his reckoning.
  We have first, however, to see that we do not take men away from the motor industry if the present unemployment is due to the inefficiency of the employers in that industry. I should like to know if there is any reason why a single man should be unemployed in the motor industry if we were doing our export job properly. There is no sense in boasting about the overall capital investment figures, as the Chancellor did. They must be broken down so that we see what it is we are investing in. For instance, it is the economics of a madhouse to spend dollars, of which we are short, in bringing in steel for the making of motor cars which we cannot sell. In my view, it is equally the economics of a madhouse to import steel, coal and other raw materials in order to produce guns and planes for nations which do not want to buy them and which we cannot afford and ought not to be making.
  In this year, 1956, the people of Britain are afraid of two things more than anything else—more than the fear of war which, thank God, has receded for the moment. First, there is the fear caused by the rising cost of living; next the fear
  1226
  caused not only to those already unemployed, or on short time, but also to those who feel the threat of unemployment. Have we learned anything at all from our past experiences? Are we going to tackle these economic issues in the spirit of The Times leading article, that is, in cold war fashion? Are are to tackle them piecemeal, as we did in the days before the Second World War? I do not think that this generation will stand for that kind of treatment. The generation that has grown up during and since the war, and which has been used to full employment, will not allow any Government or any employer or groups of employers to take them back to the conditions that prevailed between the two world wars.
  I believe that our choice is simply this. Are we enlightened enough to help Britain forward with the minimum of industrial dislocation and the minimum of individual suffering, or have hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House to fight it out with one another; and, if we do not fight it out literally, fight it out, as will certainly happen, in strikes, industrial disputes and bitterness of every kind?
  I do not believe that the weekly wage is relevant any more to contemporary thinking. I do not believe that even the monthly wage is relevant. I know that it is something to feel, when threatened with unemployment, that one will at least get a month's notice. I see that the Manchester Guardian today suggested six months' notice. That is better, but are we not in danger in stopping at a half-way house? What are we really accomplishing by compelling employers to keep on workers that they cannot use while the basic dislocations of our economy remain unmended?
  Certainly let us do any first aid that we can. We have not prepared for this situation. The Government have obviously been taken by surprise. Therefore, let us see what we can do for the men immediately threatened with unemployment. What benefits can be given, and if these men have to go to other jobs, what travelling expenses can be given and what other first-aid? But all that is not enough. This morning I telephoned to my constituency to check on up-to-date happenings at our local employment exchanges and in our local government offices dealing with housing problems.

  1227
  We talk about encouraging men thrown out of work in Birmingham and Coventry to go into the coal mining areas, yet I find that the Cannock Urban Council—right in the heart of the West Midlands, on expanding coal fields, where we can assimilate many thousands of additional miners—has a waiting list for houses of 1,900 people, most of whom are miners or associated with coal getting. The rural council adjoining has a waiting list of 1,400, that is, 3,300 on the waiting lists for houses, and most of whom are miners.
  One of the most shocking things that have happened since 1945 is that responsible miners have been treated most shabbily in regard to housing accommodation. The man who cannot afford to build himself a house but has tried to keep his family in decent circumstances has had no chance of being at the top of the housing list. There is always someone in a worse house or whose family circumstances are worse. He has been kept waiting and waiting. How can we talk of bringing men into an area so short of houses without causing the most serious trouble? What is the sense of talking about the newcomers finding lodgings? If hon. Members tried to find lodgings around Cannock they would know what this problem means. There is no spare accommodation.
  I do not want men to come into an industry which my family has been associated with for generations, an industry which breeds proud men, in the spirit of refugees driven there by despair and poverty. I want them to come in because it is intrinsically worth their while, and because the work underground and the living conditions on the surface are such that, taken in toto, they make a good life.
  I am not talking about the working conditions underground. We cannot make them wholly safe or comfortable, and no one in a miner's family expects that, but I do say that we have made no provision whatsoever for absorbing additional labour. The Chancellor, when Minister of Housing, had a wonderful time building sub-standard houses in the wrong places. Tory Chancellors, past and present, have compelled councils in the industrial areas to cut back their building programmes. The Coal Board has begged the Government to help it produce more coal by building more houses
  1228
  for miners. All we now receive are driblets here and there, inadequate in number and without the necessary preparation.
  Economic situations have to be dealt with months, indeed years, ahead of events. We are caught in Britain at the present time in an unhappy transition stage. We must either go back to the disciplines of poverty, unemployment, and all that goes with these, or we must prepare to go forward with more controls, planning of our resources, and more nationalisation. We cannot have some industries nationalised, with the price of their goods controlled, and other great basic industries allowed to go free with the sky as the ceiling so far as profits are concerned.
  I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will give us a coherent picture of what the Government intend to do. This is not just a motor car problem or a mining problem; this is a national problem involving not only our capital expenditure in industry but our capital expenditure in arms. It is crazy for Great Britain to be spending £1,500 million a year on arms and yet finding that our old long-term export commodities in which we can build up our overseas markets are being lost to us. So I ask that attention be paid not only to the sentiments but to the mood that is now developing among working people, and which is being very strongly expressed at the great annual conferences of miners, railwaymen and others similarly held.
  It is quite unreasonable to ask men or women to withhold a demand for increased wages at a time when the cost of living is going up, and when they see so much selfishness and inefficiency on the employers' side and in the private sector of industry; and when they see a Government who so far have shown nothing but complacency and have not been so outspoken as The Times leader in what it said, but who have acted in the spirit that this is a cold war. I hope that the advice of The Times, for all our sakes, will be repudiated.
  6.50 p.m.
  Sir Robert Boothby: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has made a good speech, as she always does. I cannot

  1229
  say more than that. We have listened to it with great interest because she speaks with authority and knows what she is talking about, which cannot always be said of all of us. I shall come back to one or two specific points that she dealt with.
  I want first to refer to the basic cause of our economic problems, which is that the sum of our domestic consumption and investment exceeds our total production. That is what is wrong at the moment. We must get down to the guts of the thing. This has led inevitably to an excess of imports. Not only has the balance between imports and exports been adversely upset, but there is no longer a balance between social and industrial investment inside this country. We can all agree, on both sides of the House, that excessive Government expenditure is a primary cause of our troubles, and that without a really substantial reduction there can be little hope of releasing the necessary resources for productive investment.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised, in his Budget and since, that increased savings are of paramount importance. But, although he did the best he could, he and everybody else know that the cuts so far announced in expenditure are, to say the least, a little disappointing. When we get, on top of that, the further decrease in those cuts caused by our obtaining only £34 million for the upkeep of our forces in Germany, leaving £16 million to be made up very largely in gold, the disappointment is increased.
  I want to say, categorically, that we cannot afford this. These four divisions in Germany can neither prevent a major war, nor be sufficiently mobile to deal with the minor trouble-spots overseas which are the daily fare of international politics. In terms of expenditure and manpower we are now shouldering a heavier burden than our European Allies, with very little that is effective to show for it.
  I am certain that nobody sympathises more wholeheartedly than the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I make an appeal for a radical revision of strategic thought and policy which should have been undertaken by N.A.T.O. long ago. I am sorry that we did not raise the matter more forcibly at the last meeting of the Council
  1230
  of Ministers of N.A.T.O. We must have a token force in Europe for psychological reasons; and so, I hope, will the Americans. But our security today depends upon the deterrent effect of our retaliatory bombing power, and upon nothing else. Tomorrow it may well depend upon long-range missiles, of which at the moment we have none.
  The sooner we face up to this position, and ruthlessly scrap the obsolete weapons which are draining the economic lifeblood from our country and our national economy, the better. The Government, I believe, are in complete sympathy with this idea; and most of all, not unnaturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The time has come when we should make the most forcible representations to N.A.T.O. to do what should have been done two or three years ago.
  Hitherto, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has relied in the main upon monetary policy. I am the first to admit that it has its part to play; but in our modern society there are more effective methods of curbing the volume of money in circulation than an exorbitant Bank Rate which, at its present level, hits the small man rather than the big, and acts as a restraint on some productive investment which is desirable and necessary. We cannot get away from that fact.
  What I have in mind as a monetary policy which would be more effective is, first, a reduction of the amount of Treasury bills. I am sure this is constantly in the Chancellor's mind. The amount of Treasury Bills outstanding at any given time is undoubtedly the most persistent and damaging inflationary factor of the lot. Secondly, if necessary, an increase in the reserves of the joint stock banks expressed as a ratio of their deposit liabilities; at the same time giving the joint stock banks a greater discrimination in administering the credit squeeze than they have at present. The banks know best what is a good risk and what is a bad risk. They know better than the Treasury. Thirdly, funding part of the enormous short-term debt of the Government; and fourthly, reverting to the system of deposit receipts. That might not be very popular with the banks, but would be very effective.
  I am merely throwing out these ideas. We should not delude ourselves by thinking that a very high Bank Rate, sustained

  1231
  over a long period, is necessarily the best form of monetary policy, which admittedly has a pretty considerable part to play.
  This debate arises from the fact that the credit squeeze is now beginning to be felt. As was to be expected, the first of the major industries to be hit is the motor industry. It is not much use being indignant about that with anybody, not even with Sir Leonard Lord. One of the primary objectives of the credit squeeze was to increase the mobility of labour. The Manchester Guardian says, in its leading article this morning:
  "Mobility of labour is not a matter of making speeches; it requires the physical means of making wage-earners more mobile."
  That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cannock.
  I have always held that the Minister of Labour, whom I am very glad to see so close to me, should also be Minister of Production, in the sense that he should be in a position to estimate future industrial trends, and to encourage the right kind of productive enterprise and discourage wasteful activities. For this he requires far better statistical information than he has got, and much closer consultation with both sides of industry. I shall not make too much of this "both sides of industry" business; but I mean employers and trade unions.
  It astonishes me not a little that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour did not ask Sir Leonard Lord to come to see him a year ago, and ask him his opinion as to how things were going, telling him to keep in close touch about all developments. He might well have said, "We must plan a campaign together in order to deal with the situation". Equally with the trade unions. My right hon. Friend suggests that Sir Leonard Lord would not be too enthusiastic about coming to see him; but that is not necessarily the case. If a Minister asks any industrialist or trade unionist to come and discuss current problems, on the whole he comes; and it was obvious that the motor industry would be the first of the major industries to be hit by the credit squeeze.
  What action can be taken? As the hon. Member for Cannock suggested, perhaps the most important thing that the industrialist can do is to give longer-
  1232
  term contracts of service. The Manchester Guardian suggests six months. They have gone tip to six months already in the United States. Even if we had three months in this country, it would be a great advance; and infinitely better than a week.
  It has become customary to pay many people compensation for loss of office, and I do not see why this principle should not be extended to the workers as well as to everybody else. Here is something that industry could do, and I feel it to be of vital importance. It was advocated by Lord Chandos, in a powerful article about six months ago, in the Sunday Times. It therefore appears that at any rate some big industrialists are on the side of the angels in this matter.
  What can the Government do? I disagree with the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock about unemployment benefit being extended to short-time workers in such a way as to discourage all labour mobility. I do not think that the best assistance that the Government can give is to go on paying unemployment benefit to people who are working on short time, which only encourages them to stay in their jobs.
  Miss Lee: The hon. Member is compassionate enough to want at least three months' pay for those people, but when a man is thrown out of a job, with no other job available and no other home available elsewhere, he would immediately "dock" him of unemployment assistance and reduce the man to the minimum of short-time earnings.
  Sir R. Boothby: Only for a short time. I would give the man a three months' contract, and pay him full wages for three months after he had lost his job. I would only dock unemployment benefit for short-time workers; and I would replace it with other forms of financial assistance, which, I think, would be more beneficial to the national economy—such as, for example, the provision of houses, which are not at present available in Cannock but could be made available in other places, travelling expenses and lodging allowances. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech today, recognised all these as practical measures which might be taken. I hope that in winding up the debate tonight my right

  1233
  hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will have something to say about these things, because the State can do much to facilitate the redeployment of labour by mitigating the hardships involved.
  When we have dealt with all these specific human problems, the crux of the economic problem will remain the balance of payments. I believe that our economic survival depends on building up a substantial surplus. We have not got it, or anything like it, at the present time; and until we get it our situation will give cause for the gravest anxiety.
  There remains a considerable difference of opinion between those of us who would like to see a more purposive direction of the national economy, including capital investment; and those who cling to the outworn dogmas of a laissez-faire system which ignores the need for positive action to restore equilibrium. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I wish that hon. Members opposite would stop cheering. They are not the only people who believe in the strategic planning of the national economy at the top. It has been preached by my party for 500 years.
  Mr. Chapman: Why do they not do it?
  Sir R. Boothby: Because they have been infiltrated, temporarily and unfortunately, by a number of Whigs who have nowhere else to go.
  I believe, however, that the gap between us can be bridged; and I further believe that the power to exercise a flexible control over building, and over imports, is a minimum requirement. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ultimately be driven to it. Why not let him do it while things are fairly tranquil and calm? Nobody need get in a panic. He does not need to put anything into action at once. Let him just take these powers and, having got them, let him keep them and never give them up again. Our greatest mistake was that we gave them up, because in the final analysis it is the physical use of our resources that matters.
  Once those powers have been taken, they can be put away. If my right hon. Friend does not want to use them, there they can sit. Then one day, when a squall begins to blow, there they will be; and he can pick them up and put them into operation by an Order in Council before anybody has a chance to stock up
  1234
  or do anything anti-social. I shall not be happy until I see those powers on the Statute Book, and I believe I shall see them back there sooner than a lot of people think.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government really shocked me the other day when, in defending his decision to put up this ridiculous tower in Battersea Park, he said:
  "Planning controls were never intended by Parliament to be used for regulating capital investment …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 243.]
  My answer to that is that they should be used to regulate it, and the sooner the better.
  Our imports of coal, steel and feeding stuffs during the last few years have been nothing to make any of us proud. They are due to the shortcomings alike of the trade unions, the employers and the Government. The main reason why we have been obliged to import coal, steel and feeding stuffs to the extent that we have done from the dollar area is that ever since the war there has been a pervading spirit of restrictionism right through industry.
  That is one of the great troubles confronting this country at the present time. It is no use blaming anybody in particular; but one example of it is the resolute refusal of the miners, against the advice of their leaders, to accept any foreign labour to help us get the coal we so desperately need. I could quote a thousand examples from the other side of industry as well. It is a hangover from the 'thirties, and I am not surprised by it; but it underlay the decision not to set up another big strip mill for steel. When we set up the one in South Wales, we should have had another in the North. Had we done so, we would not have the present shortage of steel. These are things of the past, but it is well to remember them.
  There are certain questions that I want to put to the Government tonight, and to the House as a whole. Do they really think that we can go on indefinitely dishing out to the commodity markets dollars that we have not earned? Dollars that we have earned, yes; but dollars we have not earned—that is very dangerous, because it must affect the balance of payments. Do they think we can go on with

  1235
  absolutely unrestricted building in our present situation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer put the spring into building, he gave it a tremendous impetus at the right moment; but I do not think that it can be left absolutely unchecked so far as dwelling-houses are concerned. There must be some direction here.
  Can we go on importing unlimited quantities of cereals and meat, and at the same time subsidise our farmers in respect of the end products? I do not think we can do these things without national bankruptcy. I believe that we can produce a great deal more food in this country than we are now doing, but we shall not be able to do so without some control over imports—varying controls—because recent experience has proved conclusively that on a free market the level of imports has just as big a bearing on agricultural prices as the level of the Government's price guarantees. Any practical farmer will concur with this view.
  Therefore I say—and this is my last word on the subject of controls—that without the power to encourage productive investment and to discriminate in trade; without the power, therefore, to direct investment and control imports in various ways, we shall never be able to make the maximum use of our own resources. We shall not even be able to associate with the projected European market, which in this age of mass production is essential if we are not to be crushed by the continental economies of the Soviet Union in the East, and the United States of America in the West. We need not only the markets, we need the workers of Europe, if we are to remain a great industrial Power. If the countries of Western Europe do not get together economically, I do not see how they can survive during the remaining half of the century.
  Here is something that is near to the Chancellor's heart, for he has dealt with these matters at Strasbourg. I say to him that he will not get any effective economic co-ordination in Europe, first, unless we take the lead; and secondly, unless we have the necessary powers to discriminate in trade.
  Lord Keynes remains the greatest economist of the twentieth century; and
  1236
  I want to give the House two small quotations from him. After a weary sigh about how difficult it was to make progress against the weight of tradition, or to get people to consider economic problems afresh, he said, in 1939:
  "If higher earnings lead us to import more bananas than we can afford, this cannot be remedied by the Treasury chastising itself with a high rate of interest."
  We ought to think hard about that one. "Bananas" and "interest" are the operative words; and hon. Members can see the truth of it.
  In 1945, he said:
  "I do not suppose that the classical medicine will work by itself, or that we can depend on it. We need quicker and less painful aids, of which exchange variation and overall import control are the most important."
  We are deprived of the weapon of exchange variation by the Bretton Woods Agreement, which fixes our rate of exchange with the dollar and therefore with gold. One day, I hope, we shall get a more flexible international exchange system. But we are depriving ourselves of the second weapon—the overall control of imports—gratuitously, and I think quite unnecessarily.
  In conclusion, I agree absolutely with what the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), the Leader of the Liberal Party, said in his most powerful speech—that we now face by far the greatest and the most formidable Communist challenge. It is no longer a military offensive which they have launched against us. It is an economic and technical offensive, centrally directed, and it will succeed if we fail to match it with superior techniques and direction of our own.
  I am certain of this: our greatest danger lies not only in rigidity but in restriction and in obsolescence. As I said in the House on 3rd February, 1953:
  "If the preservation of the existing structure of industry, and of jobs people are already doing, becomes the primary objective of our domestic economic policy, then I believe that sooner or later we shall he sunk."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1738.]
  It is fortunate that at the very moment when our power is no longer based on orthodox naval and military forces, orthodox military and naval power has ceased to count in the world. In the field of nuclear energy we hold our own. Why only in that field? Why not in

  1237
  all the others? We built up our position in the world by courage, enterprise, energy, imagination and skill; and we shall hold it by the exercise of these qualities, or not at all.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: The theme of the few remarks which I shall make tonight is that the Government attitude of laissez faire is killing the motor industry and, a fortiori, the economy of the country. The House will therefore not be surprised if I do not disagree very much with the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). After all, he is a Socialist sporting a Tory configuration—or, perhaps, with a Tory configuration. He is one of the very few hon. Members opposite who believes in planning.
  Not long ago we had a debate on employment in the country, and it soon became very clear that not only were there two parties holding different views in the House but that the views expressed could be analysed into two quite clear, well-defined and conflicting positions. On the one side, there were my hon. Friends who believe in central planning and in using physical controls as instruments of planning and on the other side, as it emerged quite clearly, particularly from a speech by the Minister of Labour, there was the Government's attitude, which was evidently one of laissez faire.
  During that debate, we warned the Minister that if he persisted in this attitude of laissez faire, which was an underground encouragement to the motor manufacturers to do whatever they wanted, not only economically but also, as has recently been seen, socially, the result would be disastrous to the motor industry of the Midlands. As one of the Members for Coventry—and I know that I speak for my hon. Friends from the city—I say frankly that in the last six months or two a great fear has come upon those men, who during the last ten years have been accustomed not only to full employment but to a high standard of living.
  They came from the depressed areas of the country, from Clydeside, from South Wales, and from other parts of Britain which experienced considerable suffering during the great depression. They went to Coventry, where they found that they could exercise their talent and their skill.
  1238
  They were paid high wages and, in return for their high wages, they gave good work. Their good work was such that in the years after the war, when Sir Stafford Cripps, by his deliberate policy of stimulating the export trade, raised not only the level of production but the level of productivity as well and purposely directed it towards the export market, Coventry became a thriving city and the Midlands as a whole prospered from the energy, the initiative and the forays into the export market which were so successfully made by the industrialists of Coventry. That did not happen by chance. It happened because all the time the central intelligence of the Government was directing the energies of the city and directing the efforts of the industrialists towards the export market.
  It has often been stated in the House how gradually, from 1945 onwards, the level of exports rose. It rose because Sir Stafford Cripps, unpopular though he was with the motor car manufacturers, persisted in his policy. They suggested that it was impossible to reach the target which he recommended, and they made excuses to the hon. Members representing the city and to Sir Stafford Cripps, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that we could not have a thriving export market unless we had a very high level of domestic consumption. Nevertheless, the Chancellor persisted, and by means of physical controls, in which the allocation of steel was the principal instrument, he enabled the motor car industry steadily to push up its exports to approximately 73 per cent. of its total output.
  It was not easy. There was a certain amount of competition, and there was the inertia of the industry, which even then would have much preferred to meet the softer home demand than to meet the hazards and difficulties of the export market. Nevertheless, because the Government believed in planning and because that planning had a purpose, the motor industry became our leading export industry.
  Today we see a most extraordinary paradox. The point which the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, have been consistently making is that it is necessary to have mobility of labour; and that in order to get the men out of the industries which are serving the home market, and which have therefore

  1239
  become petrified in their labour resources, it is necessary to create such a position in those industries that there is a buying recession and ultimately the men move into the so-called export industries.
  All that sounds logical enough until we consider what is now happening. The motor industry is and has been our leading export industry, and the very men who today should be working to stimulate production, who should be turning out motor cars for the export market, are being driven out of their jobs. That is the extraordinary paradox, and I do not know how the Chancellor can explain it. How can the Chancellor say that his aim and object is to get men out of the home industries and, into the export industries when the very first industry from which he is driving men is the motor industry?
  I can see no rhyme or reason in that. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will explain. It is useless to say that we want to enlarge our export market and encourage our export industries in view of the fact that the motor industry, which for ten years has cultivated one of our most successful export trades, is in this difficulty. By their action, by their credit restrictions and their indifference to that industry, the Government are permitting the slow decadence of what has been our leading export industry in the past and should be our leading industry in the future.
  One of the most serious points is that we have at the head of the industry both men who are looking back to the bad old days and certain younger men who are looking forward to the recreation of those bad old days. We have heard a lot about Sir Leonard Lord, and I must say that he represents a brutal tradition which for many years certain employers have sought to revive but they have been prevented from doing so by the organised strength of the trade union movement, in association with the Labour Party. That has been true of the past. As long as there was a Labour Party, these people were extremely reluctant to show their true character.
  It is a fact that, whenever in the past there were some suggestions of action of the type which we have seen recently in Coventry and Birmingham, there was immediately a very powerful reaction by
  1240
  the trade union movement, sustained by the political wing of the Labour movement. Both in the House and in the country, there was resistance to that attitude, and the result was that those who would have liked to apply these strong-arm methods to the workers drew back because they knew they could not get away with it.
  Today, under the encouragement of a Tory Government, under the encouragement of the speech made by the Minister of Labour in the House during the employment debate, men like Sir Leonard Lord and Mr. Alick Dick, of the Standard Motor Company, have both in language and in their methods revived what was worst in the labour relations of the 1920s and 1930s. That is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: There is no truth in that.
  Mr. Edelman: Last week, when I asked the Minister of Labour at Question Time to request managements like Standard's, for example, to refrain from the use of the hectoring and bullying terms which they have used towards the trade unions a few days earlier, the Minister sat down silently and would not give any answer. Now I want to put this question to him, and I submit that this is a question of vital importance to the interests of the workers in the industry in the Midlands. I want to ask him whether he had any private information from his labour officers in Coventry and Birmingham, or from the industrialists there, of the sackings that were about to take place. The right hon. Gentleman can answer that now or later.
  Mr. Chapman: Yes, he had.
  Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but perhaps the Minister of Labour would speak for himself. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any advance information that the sackings were to take place, and if so, if he will say what action he himself took to impress upon the industrialists the effect, not only economically but in personal and social hardship, which these sackings would create. Perhaps, if he will not answer now, he may answer later on.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: The hon. Member can make his own speech and his own

  1241
  misrepresentations if he wishes. He must be the only Member of the House who is not aware that I told the House last Thursday afternoon that I knew on Monday about this. Whatever the hon. Member may say about it, I told that to the House then.
  Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but surely that makes his position even worse. If he knew in advance about it, why did he not give warnings to the people concerned to take action to mitigate the hardship that would be caused to the workers? If he did not do these things, he had no right to sit there silently while all around him heads were nodding while the British Motor Corporation was being condemned for its ruthlessness. He adopted a sanctimonious attitude in putting the blame elsewhere, or in allowing it to appear by default that he himself had been energetic and active in preventing the motor manufacturers from exercising this arbitary and harsh method which they have recently revived.
  All these are very serious matters, and I can assure the House that in Coventry today there is very grave anxiety. There are many people who are wondering, as the Bishop of Coventry said only the other day, how the houses they have bought, how the television sets in their homes which they bought on hire purchase are to be paid for, and they want to know what the future will bring them. If the Government follow out their policy of laissez-faire to its logical conclusion, it is obviously quite useless to expect from the Minister of Labour any coherent answer, because if he washes his hands of the whole thing and says that his responsibility is merely confined to the setting up of labour officers inside the factories whose only function is trying to fit men into alternative jobs, it is useless to put questions on any economic matters to him at all. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Cabinet and has a responsibiilty for Government policy.
  Here, I want to ask the Minister some specific questions. What have the Government done about the Australian import cuts? I want to deal with that point, because Australia is the market on which the motor industry relies in the winter. It is specifically the winter market of the motor industry. Here we
  1242
  have 6,000 men who are being sacked from B.M.C.—and some more may be sacked tomorrow—in Coventry, and we shall be deluding ourselves if we do not take into account the fact that, when the effect of the Australian import cuts becomes felt, there will be even more dismissals than have taken place in the last few days.
  I would have thought, first of all, that the Government would have had some advance notice of the Australian import cuts, and that, secondly, either the President of the Board of Trade or whatever other Minister is responsible would have made representations at the very highest level to the Australian Government in order to see what could be done to mitigate the hardships produced by the situation. If I had been asked what I would propose, I would have said that long ago our own Government, seeing the way things were going, should have tried to achieve some sort of division of labour between the British motor industry and the industries of Australia. Something could be done in a direct way, whether through the manufacture of components or whatever else it may be. Instead of that, to go on in the same course, knowing that ultimately the Australians would have to cut their imports because they were faced with similar problems to our own, seems to me to be the depth of foolishness.
  Now I come to my last main point. It is no use now merely dealing with the symptoms of a slump which is threatening in the motor industry, because there is no doubt that there will be a real slump unless something is done. While six months ago it might have been an exaggeration to compare Coventry, a single industry city, with Clydeside in the past, I say that today it is no wild comparison to say that, unless drastic, radical and structural action is taken to recast the motor industry for the markets which are available or can be made available, Coventry today will become a Clydeside of tomorrow. These are serious matters, and I should like to make a few firm suggestions about what should be done to stimulate the motor industry and to secure full employment for the workers in the industry.
  In parenthesis, I would say how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the hon.

  1243
  Member for East Aberdeenshire about the needs for compensation payments for those who, in the meantime, will be rendered redundant. The only way to diminish the bitterness which is felt by workers in Coventry who are turned off, perhaps at a few hours' or a week's notice, is to give them compensation payments, not out of general taxation, but out of the profits of the companies to which they themselves have contributed so much for so many years.
  The proposals which I should like to make are simply these. It is perfectly clear that no amount of exhortation will drive the motor manufacturers into the export markets while they still have any hope that they can fall back on a profitable home market. When the Tory Chancellor gave them the lead, they went ahead and allowed their export organisations, such as they were, to run down, and concentrated on the market for home consumption. I am not one of those who advocate an expansion of the domestic market. I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends who, in the Finance Bill debate, urged some stimulation of the domestic market at the present time. I think that nationally that would be a bad thing, however good it might be for a short time and from a local or regional point of view. Considered nationally, it would be a bad thing.
  The crux of the whole matter is to turn the attention of the motor industry towards the export market, and the only way in which the motor manufacturers can be forced into the export market is to tell them that unless they export a certain quota of their total production, they will not get the steel. Of course, that involves steel control, but at this moment, when there is a shortage of steel, when we are importing from America millions of pounds worth of dollar steel which, certainly in the last few months, has been going to the home market, when we are spending dollars we can ill afford, I would say that, if the sanction of steel allocation were applied to motor manufacturers, their energies could he successfully directed to export markets as they were in the time of Sir Stafford Cripps.
  I refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said, when he spoke about the difficulty of selling British motor cars in the United
  1244
  States. I can well believe what he said, but I would assure him, much as I agree with what he said about developing a proper servicing organisation, that the difficulties of selling to the American market, great though they have been in the past, will be greater in the future, the reason being that the American motor industry is in process of contraction. A great nightmare to me, though perhaps it is a nightmare not many people have, is that all of a sudden the American motor manufacturers may decide that they will export 2 per cent. more of their production. We can be quite sure, if they do export another 2 per cent. of their production, that with one shrug of its shoulders the American giant can jostle the British motor industry out of the export market.
  That reinforces my second point, which is that in order that we should have successful export markets we must have a directing Government policy. This is a matter on which the Government can talk to the Americans. I believe the time has come when we should turn our attention to the possibility of trade with the East. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West referred to this also, and he made sympathetic reference to it. I think that if we try to force our exports into the already congested markets of the United States and Western Europe, into the corral of Western Europe, we shall have very great difficulties.
  There is one great structural weakness in the car industry, and that is that it has not been rationalised. There is a multiplicity of models and a tremendous amount of internecine competition. As long as that lasts the country will have a motor industry which, however active it may appear to be, will not be serving the country as well as it could. I think the future of the industry lies in the country having a Government who will turn their back on the laissez-faire policies practised by the present Government, and the only way to ensure that is a rapid return of a Labour Government.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: I shall refrain from dealing with the many aspects of the subject which could be covered in view of the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friends, and, indeed, by some hon. Members on the other side. I want, in

  1245
  particular, to mention the burning question of the motor car industry, since it affects Birmingham more than most areas, and my own constituency is next to that in which the Austin works are situated.
  It is common knowledge, I believe, that I object very strongly to the treatment by the British Motor Corporation of the workers who have, after all, served them well. That treatment is certainly not in line with Conservative Party policy as I know it and on which I fought the last Election. The British Motor Corporation has ignored the advice the Conservative Party has given to it and the need for collaboration between management and men. I claim to represent all my constituents, whether or not they voted for me, and many of them must be employed at the Austin works. I do not hesitate to blame the employers in this case, and I cannot say too strongly what I have to say.
  I think that at least they might have given the workers some prior knowledge of their intentions, even if they did not want to make them known nationally. I think they might have taken the workers into consultation a very long time ago. The directors of the British Motor Corporation must have known enough about the situation months ago to have been able to have told the workers that there must he some redundancy. If it was to be as serious as it is, affecting 6,000 workers, then the directors certainly evaded their duties.
  As others have said, this is a problem of the motor car industry having priced itself out of some of the world's markets. Those of us who have been abroad recently, and many in this House must have been on the Continent, must be struck by the noticeable lack of English cars in France, for instance. What on earth France is doing buying practically all German cars, I do not know. I speak without import-export figures, but I speak from what I have seen on the roads of France.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend may like to know that the French do not allow any more than a purely nominal quota of British cars into France.
  Mr. Gurden: I think that helps very considerably in stressing the point I am making. My right hon. Friends may
  1246
  know more about this than I do, but it does not seem right to me that the French are excluding British cars.
  Mr. Julian Snow: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to correct his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) by saying that German exports to France are almost mathematically double. The French import restriction is in terms of horsepower and category of car. There is a market for a substantial element of our own industry, if our sales organisation is efficient.
  Mr. Gurden: That is as may be, but we can compete in the small car market, taking horsepower into consideration, since we have from the B.M.C. works some of the smallest cars produced in this country.
  As I was saying, if we have priced ourselves out of the motor car market abroad, let the workers understand as well as the management that both sides have contributed to this, and not only the workers in the motor car industry, but the workers in the other industries, too, particularly the nationalised industries. I saw quite recently that the miners were talking about another wage increase. Let us make no mistake about it, that will be another blow to the motor car industry if they get it. Those people who are increasing their profits are also contributing to this trouble.
  I wonder whether the workers realise the tremendous amount of taxation which flows in from the profits of those industries upon which we depend if we are to maintain the social services at their present level.
  Mr. Herbert Butler: And to pay unemployment benefit.
  Mr. Gurden: Yes, although, strictly speaking, that comes out of a separate fund. We should not forget to remind the workers where the money comes from for the social services and to subsidise the nationalised industries which contributed a great deal in taxation out of their profits before they were nationalised.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Member explain how the coal industry under private ownership managed to make a large contribution?
  Mr. Gurden: The nationalised industries used to contribute to taxation out of their profits, and at the moment the money is going the other way. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Furthermore, we are having to pay far too great a price for their products. [HON. MEMBERS: "And compensation."] What is paid in compensation is the business of hon. Members opposite. It was not fixed by my party. There would have been no compensation for me to defend, because I should not have nationalised the industries anyway. When old-age pensioners are thinking in terms of an increase in pensions, with which we often have great sympathy, and when the National Health Service is being discussed, I say that the workers must realise that any demands for higher wages and, unquestionably, for higher profits in industry, will jeopardise, more seriously perhaps than we and the workers realise, the possibility of a continuance at their present level of the social services and the other things which we all praise so much.
  Those who blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor for this situation are not very realistic, because, short of fixing prices, wages and profits, this problem could not have been averted. There may be other contributory factors, but, short of doing those things that I have mentioned, of applying controls to industry generally and of not doing one of those things without doing all the others, this terrible catastrophe in the motor car industry could not have been averted. As to the extent of the trouble, I am sure that Birmingham, at the moment, fortunately, can absorb the redundant labour, provided that it is given time.
  Mr. Chapman: How long?
  Mr. Gurden: We must realise that there is a waiting list of as long as three years for export orders in the machine-tool industry and in some other industries, and it is high time that employers in those industries obtained the labour they require in order to compete in world markets.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) began his speech, which contained a large number of very remarkable judgments, by saying that a number
  1248
  of things had happened in Birmingham recently which had not played any part in the election programme which the Tory Party put forward at the last two General Elections. There is nothing unique in that, because many things have happened in the country recently which did not play a part in those programmes. I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in an unconvincing mood this afternoon. [An HON. MEMBER: "He generally is."] He was, if anything, a little more unconvincing that usual. I thought that that was largely because he insisted upon being most vehement about those parts of Government policy which are clearly quite indefensible.
  When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the balance-of-payment figures for the first half of the year he was quite reasonable and moderate but, when he was defending the past record of the Government in the motor industry, he was extremely violent. I thought that I saw coming through his speech a slight sign of strained loyalty to the Leader of the House. I almost thought that he was going to say that the Leader of the House was the best Lord Privy Seal that we have got. But these signs of strained loyalty seemed to be entirely understandable, because the Chancellor at present wishes to present himself to the House and to the country as being what one might describe as a semi-planner.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been saying, "Do not believe that we are not depending on planning mechanisms at all. We have the Capital Issues Committee, I have strengthened hire-purchase controls and some import controls. We have quite a lot of important devices which we can use and intend to use". If the right hon. Gentleman takes this position as a semi-planner, having in his control a number of important planning devices, I should like to know how he can possibly defend the attitude of the Government towards developments in the motor industry over the past three years, because it is the most extraordinary story.
  I thought that the weakness of the Chancellor's case was illustrated by the fact that he had to rest himself upon the cheap cry to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), "I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is again saying that the gentleman in Whitehall always knows best". But

  1249
  judging from what has happened to the motor car industry in the past few years, the gentleman in Whitehall, whoever he might be—even if he were the President of the Board of Trade acting on advice—could hardly have done worse.
  It is not a case of people being wise after the event. There were a great number of people in the House and outside who were extremely worried about the very rapid expansion in the motor car industry and were very anxious not to allow it to go on in a completely uncontrolled way. If the Chancellor says that the Capital Issues Committee is an extremely effective planning device, how does he defend its use towards the motor car industry in the past few years? Did the Committee sit down and, under instructions from the Chancellor, pass all these schemes of expansion because, taking all the circumstances, it decided that the schemes were justified, or did it not?
  There is no doubt that at least some of the leaders of the motor industry have proved extremely bad counsellors over the past years. A great deal has been said in the course of the debate about Sir Leonard Lord. One of the issues raised by his behaviour over the past week or ten days is the general question of responsibility in industry. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would say that the head of a great concern like the British Motor Corporation has a certain responsibility towards the shareholders and the workers and the community as a whole. Here we have a situation where, without doubt, Sir Leonard Lord has taken a decision of very great importance not only from the point of view of the workers, but of the country as a whole, in a most brusque way, yet, as far as we can see, he is out of communication with everybody concerned.
  Mr. Denis Howell: He has disappeared.
  Mr. Jenkins: This, no doubt, raises in very sharp form the whole question of responsibility in industry.
  As I understand it, the Chancellor says, "Of course, this great industry, because it is under competition, must modernise itself, must put in new plant and replace old plant." Do not let us forget, however, that all that has been happening and is still happening is not
  1250
  only the improvement and modernisation of plant. There are great schemes of expansion which have been going ahead and which are still going ahead.
  I understand that the Chancellor also said that export markets are difficult things and that it is not easy to predict what will happen. I find that point of view a little in contradiction to that put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), and by some other Government spokesman, namely, that anyone could have told from 1950 that the percentage of exports of the industry was bound to decline steadily because of the factors in the world situation which could clearly be foreseen. Therefore, I find it a little difficult to reconcile those two statements, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham, if he speaks, will give his comments upon the matter.
  It is extremely important that we should realise what has been the attitude of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) pointed out, in an intervention in the speech of the Chancellor, there is a test case at the present time. The motor industry is about to erect a new factory in the Dunstable area. Admittedly it is for lorries, not for passenger cars, but it is in an area where no houses are available, no labour is available; and it is likely that most hon. Members who have knowledge of the Midlands will agree that there will be surplus factory capacity in the motor industry there in the future.
  Despite all these circumstances, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has given permission for General Motors to erect that factory in the Dunstable area. It seems to me that this is a test case as to whether the Chancellor is even a semi-planner. If the right hon. Gentleman is a semi-planner, and if he has the power which he wishes us to believe he has, he should look at that project again, whatever the Minister of Housing and Local Government has decided, to see whether the decision is a sensible one in the present circumstances.
  There is one other point to bear in mind. In defending what had happened to the motor industry the Chancellor did not, as some of his hon. Friends have done, and as the Minister of Labour did in our debate in the early spring, say that

  1251
  it is all a question of what the market is like from time to time, that the Government have very little responsibility, and that we must let the industry accommodate itself to a particular demand at a particular time. The Chancellor did not say that. He said that one of the main reasons why it is necessary for the Government to limit the demand for the products of the industry on the home market was that the industry was swallowing too much labour and too much steel.
  Once one gets on to those grounds one is getting into a position in which the Chancellor is not leaving it to the market but is making a decision himself as to what he thinks should happen. When we put questions to the Chancellor as to how he views the future, how far he thinks the shrinkage should go, what rundown in the labour force there should be, it is intolerable that the Government or the Minister of Labour should shrug their shoulders and say, "We do not know. It is not our responsibility. The industry must accommodate itself to circumstances as they develop."
  But, of course, circumstances as they will develop in the industry are largely the concern of the Government and of the Ministry of Labour. I fully agree that the future size of the motor industry in this country must be geared closely to the future export prospects of the industry. I do not for a moment believe that we can have a huge motor industry without a large percentage of exports. But if one is dealing with future export prospects, a certain amount depends on the competitive performance of the individual manufacturers.
  I am far from convinced, in spite of the number of rather platitudinous tributes paid to the motor manufacturers this afternoon, that their performance in certain cases is by any means all that it should be. Of course a certain amount depends on that, but a great deal more depends on general commercial conditions in the world, which are to some extent within the control of the Government, and which in any event can, or should, be foreseen by the Government to a far greater extent than is possible for even the best informed and most farsighted person in that industry. We are concerned about the present position of the Australian market, as my hon. Friend
  1252
  the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) said. That is something on which the President of the Board of Trade ought to have a better view than Sir Leonard Lord or anyone else in the industry.
  Another big problem which faces the industry, and British economy as a whole, was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby), who referred to the plans for a common market in Western Europe. I feel sure that the president of the Board of Trade will not disagree with me when I say that the Western European plan amongst the six Powers in middle Europe presents us with a great dilemma. So far as I can see, we have the choice between remaining outside the scheme, and seeing German exports, including German motor exports, having a preference over ours throughout Western Europe—which I should have thought would mean pretty well the end of British exports to Western Europe—or we can go into the scheme and, quite apart from Imperial Preference, the British motor industry would lose its substantial 33⅓ per cent. preference in the home market.
  It may be possible that a compromise solution will be worked out, but it is a grave dilemma for the country, for the motor industry and for a number of other industries. I raise the matter here partly to mention the subject as such, but also partly to illustrate what I think is the indisputable fact that the future prospects of the industry depend to a large extent on matters which are far more the concern of Her Majesty's Government than they are of anyone directly concerned with the industry. It is a disgraceful shelving of responsibility, on any view of economic policy, for the Government to say that they cannot predict the future, and that they do not know what is likely to happen.
  Mr. Gurden: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said about the position in Western Europe, but he did not offer any solution. What would he do about such a position?
  Mr. Jenkins: I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman, as I began my comment on this passage, that I believe the plan, which for a variety of reasons I do not think we can or should sabotage, places us from the point of view of trade policy in a difficult position. It may be possible for us

  1253
  to work out a compromise solution, by which we associate ourselves with the arrangement. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would seriously argue that because I cannot, in the course of one sentence in reply to an interruption, frame a policy for dealing with these complicated trade problems, that is a reason why the Government should have no policy at all about it and should offer the motor industry no guidance.
  Now I want to turn for a few minutes from the position of the motor industry to one or two more general questions. In his speech today the Chancellor tried to give us a rosy picture of what was happening, and of course there are one or two features which are slightly encouraging. Certainly the trade figures for the first six months fall into that category. However, they must be considered in conjunction with another consideration; that is, that 1956 may be going to be a better year for the United Kingdom than was 1955, but is it going to be a better year for the sterling area? That seems to me to be extremely problematical, and if, as may prove to be the case, 1956 is a bad year for the sterling area then, because we frittered away our resources in the easy year of 1955, when we had no excuse for not building up our reserves, we shall be in grave difficulties.
  We also have to consider one other important aspect of the policy of the Government, as I understand it, which is to achieve some sort of price stability. We are not seeing much result here yet, and one reason is that the Government's thinking on this matter is extraordinarily muddled. One can approach the problem of getting price stability by taking inflation out of the economy either by, as it were, trying to deal with cost inflation and hold prices steady, or by trying to deal with demand inflation so that prices are not pulled up through an excess of purchasing power.
  If one takes the view that it is demand inflation pulling up prices through an excess of purchasing power with which one must deal most urgently, it may sometimes be sensible to apply what I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) refers to as "Boyle's Law", and push up prices in order to bring down the cost of living, because, by doing that, one can argue
  1254
  that one syphons off purchasing power from places where it might otherwise be spent.
  But one must have a consistent line. I find it completely impossible to understand what possible diagnosis can lead the Government at one and the same time to decide, presumably justifying their action by saying that by this means one is syphoning off purchasing power from other places where it might be spent, to put up the cost of school meals, bread and milk and impose the policy of price stabilisation on nationalised industry.
  Those two policies, taken in conjunction, make no sense at all. The greater the extent to which one allows one's costs to be pushed up in that way, the more general disinflation one must have if one is to have even a hope of getting anywhere near the Chancellor's long awaited plateau.
  Do not let us deceive ourselves. We are already paying a fairly heavy price for what may be described as the Government's attempt at general disinflation. We have not heard much today about the question of production in this country. Let us be in no doubt that this is one plateau that the Chancellor has attained. We may be a long way off his price stabilisation plateau, but we are certainly already in a situation in which production is not going up and may be coming down very slightly.
  Even before this situation was achieved, one could easily make extremely disturbing comparisons and say that, even on conservative estimates, the rate of growth of the Russian economy at 6–7 per cent. was at least three times that of ours, and we could draw extremely disturbing conclusions from that. At the present time, we cannot measure the rate of growth of the Russian or any other economy against ours because ours is not growing at all. The Russian economy is growing an infinite number of times faster than ours. We are paying that price.
  There is another price that we are paying which should be borne in mind.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Surely the rate of growth is measured best by the rate of production in the investment goods industries? Production in the investment

  1255
  goods industries has been rising appreciably this year. The fall in production has come only in the consumable durable industries.
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not consider the major test to be production in the investment goods industries. It may be production in the investment goods industries which governs the rate of growth, always provided that one's investment goods industries are not devoted to useless investment. After our experience in the motor industry, about which we have been talking, we may be getting a little doubtful on that point.
  The other price that we are paying for the Government's general deflationary measures is that we have now had an extremely long period of dear money. One can argue that there may be something to be said for a short, sharp burst of dear money, but we have had sixteen months of it. It is doing very grave harm, without question, to the sterling area and to London, as its centre. As I understand it, one of the arguments for the Government's monetary policy is that it is necessary in order to make sterling strong and to build it up into a world currency. However, curiously and paradoxically, in the course of doing it we are making all sorts of other markets very much more attractive to members of the sterling area as a source of borrowing than London is, and some of them are taking advantage of it. It would be strange if, in pursuing a policy of liberalisation combined with monetary discipline, we damaged the unity of the sterling area.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has challenged me about my view on the exports of the motor industry over the last few years. I have always held that the export percentage, as such, was bound to go down, because one could not keep the home markets starved of motor cars, but, at the same time, I had every hope that the overall number of cars exported would be maintained. Indeed, that has, generally speaking, been the case.
  If one looks back to the beginning of 1955 and looks at the background to the present troubles in the motor industry,
  1256
  it is instructive. There was a general expectation 18 months ago that production would increase by about 10 per cent. in 1956 and that exports might increase by about the same ratio. Within this general expectation, I suppose the British Motor Corporation was the most ambitious of all, hoping for a production rise from 9,000 to about 12,500 per week.
  What has happened? In 1955 production rose, and exports also did slightly, but in the first six months of 1956—these are the interesting events—the home market went back by about 5 per cent. The Labour Party cannot complain about that. It has all the time been asking that dollar steel should not be used for putting motor cars on the home market. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has said many times, and said it again today, that the nation cannot afford to use steel in this way. He cannot complain about any fall in the home market.
  It is a very interesting reflection that the fall in the sale of cars on the home market has just about been made up by the rise in the sale of commercial vehicles. Therefore, broadly speaking, the home market has not been very greatly altered for firms which make both cars and commercial vehicles. Thus, there has been no catastrophic fall there.
  Where there has been a fall has been in the export of cars, while commercial vehicles have maintained their own. This has meant that there has been a fall in production of about 8 per cent. overall in the first few months of this year. No motor manufacturer wanted a fall in the export of motor cars. No motor manufacturer wants his turnover to go down. I am convinced that the motor manufacturers have been trying all they can; but there have been a large number of world difficulties, such as the extra troubles in America and the troubles in Australia.
  Within the general figure of a fall of 8 per cent. in production, there has been a good deal of straightforward old-fashioned competition. Some companies have gone down more than others, and one or two may even have gone up. I cannot see hon. Members opposite complaining about that. I sat many days during the proceedings on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, and I heard hon.

  1257
  Members opposite, the champions of competition, saying, "Sweep away these restrictive practices in industry. Take away all these collective agreements. Let the sweet air of competition blow in." Now they are getting exactly what they asked for. They are getting a lot of competition, with the results that we have seen.
  The intellectual hard core of the Socialist Party opposite—and I refer, of course, to the Members who represent Coventry; I am sorry that they are not here—always said, "Let the big boys in the motor industry get together. Let there be more rationalisation." They said a few years ago, "Let Morris and Austin combine." Now Sir Leonard Lord did exactly that. He brought about rationalisation and this combine. How delighted our intellectual friends must have been with Sir Leonard Lord. But now the chosen darling of the Socialist intellectuals is hardest hit by the fall in production.
  No one in the motor industry, least of all the trade unions, has been surprised at the dismissals. Perhaps there has been surprise at the scale and perhaps at the delay, but I do not think that fundamentally it was thought that the position in Birmingham could remain as it was for ever and ever. The lessons which hon. Members and industry generally should learn from this are that we cannot expect firms to retain the same share of the home market as they had in 1946. Some firms have to go up and some down. One cannot expect a nation to remain static. Employers have been saying for a long time that, if wage increases went on and on, we should eventually price ourselves out of the export market, and that, I am afraid, is now happening. We have led ourselves into trouble, particularly over the last increases in March.
  Over the week-end, I made some inquiries about the differences in wage rates for ourselves and for our biggest competitor, which is Germany. I know that rates of exchange may be difficult to correlate, but I find that a piece-rate worker in Germany earns about 5s. 2d. an hour and in the United Kingdom 6s. 11d. an hour. A skilled toolmaker in Germany earns 4s. 8d. an hour and a skilled toolmaker in this country 6s. 8d. There is, therefore, a real differential in labour costs to begin with. I was interested to see that last year there was
  1258
  very little difference in the hours of work in the two countries. Germany had an average of 47·4 hours and in the United Kingdom the average was 46·9 hours, which does something to dispel the sort of criticism often made, that we do not work hard in this country.
  A further lesson which we have to learn, as hon. Members have so frequently said, is concerned with the complaints about finish and about the detail preparation of cars as they leave the works. The men must share some part of the blame for that, because I have always understood that in the Midlands there has been a good deal of resistance to tightening up inspection of the final delivery of motor cars. As we all know, dealers have had to do a good deal of work in what is called preparation for delivery. They have had to do a good deal of work in putting right cars which have come out of the works in an incomplete and imperfect condition.
  I am not defending Sir Leonard Lord's methods of dealing with the men. He is perfectly capable of defending himself, if need be. I am bound to say that I do not think that the experience of the consultation over redundancy in the motor company was very conducive to putting Sir Leonard Lord in a good frame of mind for consultation with the trade union. I know Mr. Alick Dick of Standard's very well. He is one of the modern type of employers and is a very reasonable man. Standard's have got on very well with labour in the last two years, but I have always felt that Mr. Dick was met with extreme rudeness when he tried to discuss redundancy with the trade unions. They never got past the first item on the agenda at any meeting at which redundancy was discussed, and his shop stewards said that they would not deal with the topic of redundancy at all. That kind of attitude has possibly rather encouraged Sir Leonard Lord, whom we all know to be an impetuous character, to take the line which he took.
  It is obvious that people must move from one firm to another and from one industry to another as opportunity offers. The other day I elicited from the Minister of Labour the fact that the male labour force in Coventry had increased by 10,000 in the last five years. It is obvious that a great number of those men must have come from towns other than Coventry,

  1259
  perhaps from Cannock, Leicester, Nottingham and so on. The principle is, "first in last out". Many of those men who have recently arrived must not be surprised if they have to go back to their own towns to find work in their original homes where work is at present being offered.
  Lastly, I suggest that the unions must face the problem of redundancy. They should have some programme to meet it and be willing to discuss with employers the difficulties which may be coming to this and other industries and how to deal with men and translate them to other parts of the country and to other work.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has made his rather expected apologia for the motor car industry, but he has not met the particular point which some of my hon. Friends have been stressing in this debate and for almost a year, the excessive concentration of steel and capital resources on development plans for this industry to the serious detriment of other industries, in particular, the industries in which some of us are interested in the North-East, the shipbuilding industry, where very large further contributions to our export trade could well have been made had steel been more freely available.
  I want to follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared himself to be a semi-planner, a rather curious phrase which brings in its train some very proper criticisms. It is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a semi-planner in the sense that he approves the use of physical as well as financial controls in the public sector of industry, while he does not approve the use in general terms of physical controls in the private sector.
  We have had some recent pertinent examples of how that works in practice. For example, we have recently heard of a great number of cases where various Ministries are either deferring or altogether rejecting various proposals for capital expenditure on public projects. One example raised in the House the other day at Question Time concerned the Minister of Health, who is now rejecting
  1260
  and postponing proposals for the erection of old people's homes of one form or another. That is the type of accommodation provided by local authorities under the National Assistance Act, 1948. Unquestionably such homes are urgently necessary, but apparently because they are being provided by public authorities, they are subjected not only to high costs but to high rates of interest for borrowing, and local government borrowing is subject to further restrictions and the schemes themselves are actually prohibited. That is a typical example, and I quote only one of very many which the Minister has turned down. Indeed, since April he has rejected schemes to a total value of nearly £1 million in this limited category of the provision of accommodation for the old and semi-infirm.
  I want to quote one example to reinforce the arguments which have been brought forward at Question Time and in this debate. It concerns the city of Newcastle, part of which I have the honour to represent. The corporation is following out the recommendation of the previous Minister of Health who, I understand, is to reply to this debate. In the early part of last year, he recommended that local authorities should concentrate upon schemes for housing the elderly and infirm. He told them to give more consideration to the needs of those people, and to build larger types of hostel accommodation for them.
  That was a very welcome proposal, and as a consequence the local welfare committee decided to scrap one of its original proposals for a smaller home and put up proposals which it felt would meet the Government's wishes. It proposed to provide accommodation for about 64 elderly and infirm persons, together with a certain amount of nursing care. The Ministry welcomed that proposal when it was made; it was approved in principle in October of last year, and it was thought that the scheme would go forward, because very much depends upon it. It provides an opportunity of making fresh use of old accommodation by converting the old public assistance institution into a hospital.
  All this hung upon the development of the new building to be provided on one of the new housing estates. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has to prepare his reply, but I am rather sorry that he is leaving the Chamber at this

  1261
  moment—because he bears a good deal of responsibility for what is happening.
  The present Minister of Health goes about the country calling upon local authorities to pay special attention to precisely this problem of the care of old people and the provision of accommodation for them outside hospital, but the astonishing fact is that, at the same time, he is being forced by the Chancellor to cancel many of these very schemes—no doubt with promises that at some time in the future they will be reconsidered.
  Schemes of this kind, which are of undoubted importance and value, and have been referred to by the Minister himself as priority cases, are now to be cut out—for the benefit of what? We could understand it if the Government were making an attempt to secure the flow of labour and materials into the most essential field. Past Administrations have had to adopt such methods. In Newcastle at the present time, however, private building of all kinds is going forward. Private building and development, in the alteration of shop fronts and the erection of large new office blocks, is going forward. None of these is subject to the form of control or check which is imposed in the case of local authority projects. What none of us on this side of the House can accept for one moment is a Ministry or a Government which says that, because work is being undertaken by a public authority, it has to be subject to much more strict control and check than work which is agreed to be of far less importance and is being carried on under private enterprise without any public sanctioning being required.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): The reason why the loan sanction for the Newcastle scheme—which is to cost over £60,000—has not been granted in this half year is to enable other Part III accommodation, which we believe will meet even more urgent and essential needs, to go forward. Over £900,000 has been sanctioned for this work in the half year, in addition to the other loan sanction given before April. No scheme has been cancelled, and all will be reconsidered at the end of the half year.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not a cancellation. Apparently he does not like that word. But how are we to know that
  1262
  this scheme will be allowed to go forward in October, or at some time later? We have no promise of any kind to that effect. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman's point is that this scheme is to be postponed in order that other work can go forward. That is plain nonsense.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the labour which would have been used for this job will be used for another comparable project? I can tell him that it will not. The other scheme put up by the Newcastle Corporation was withdrawn by it in favour of this one, so the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that the labour and materials which would have been used for this scheme will be used for any other scheme which he may care to mention. In fact, as he knows, the materials and labour which would have been used may well go into one of the schemes for development or the alteration of shop fronts which are going on in the city at the moment—or into a multitude of other private projects. The building of new public houses seems to be a quite active occupation at present.
  Those are the alternative schemes which are going forward at the moment; those are the other fields into which the labour and materials will no doubt go. It is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this practical example of what the Government are doing by pretending that the effort will be diverted into other valuable and equally vital projects. It is just not true, and he knows it. I wish to make clear that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford suggested that the Chancellor is a semi-planner he was absolutely correct. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to control, to limit, and even to postpone projects of vital public importance while taking no action, except that of a general high interest rate, to limit the development of private projects.
  We cannot hope to instil a sense of national urgency into people, or make them appreciate the urgent economic problems and the need for restriction on consumption and so on if, on the one hand, we hold back vital and acceptable schemes while actively encouraging a great deal of waste and extravagance such as the vast expenditure on advertising, for example, which the Government are, o some extent, subsidising. I cannot believe that the Minister of Health is happy about this position, and I ask him to

  1263
  make vigorous representations to the Chancellor to ensure that these delays, and the cancellations, as I prefer to call them, be rescinded as early as possible; and to impress upon his right hon. Friend the need to take effective action against the private sector of industry.
  Sir E. Boyle: Is it really the view of the hon. Member that it is socially desirable—to use his own phrase—that there should be no shop or other such building at all in the country at present?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I never said that, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should suggest it. I said that the private sector should be subject to effective control, and as much control as the Government are prepared to apply to the public sector.
  8.31 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I listened with some interest to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), and I think that he was hardly fair to the private sector of industry. It is just not true to say that, while the public sector is subjected to rigid restrictions by the Government, no applications are made to the private sector. In the first instance, there is the question of the rate of interest, which is a considerable one. In the second case, there is the squeeze on the banks, a very effective factor, and thirdly, there is the Capital Issues Committee. It would be quite improper to take the view that was voiced by the hon. Gentleman that the private sector is let off scot-free while the public sector is restricted.
  The hon. Gentleman may take the view that there should be more rigid restrictions on the private sector than there are at present. That is a debatable point, but it is not true to say that the public sector is chained while the private sector is allowed to go free.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, whereas the public sector has to suffer all the disabilities which he has mentioned, it has also to suffer the specific disabilities to which I have referred?
  Mr. Shepherd: There are plenty of people in the private sector of industry who would be happy to substitute some form of physical control for the various
  1264
  forms of control to which they are now subjected. I do not propose to enter into that argument, which is an extensive one, but it is not true to say that the private sector is left entirely uncontrolled.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument was interesting from the point of view that it typified the approach of the whole nation to the problem of inflation and excessive demand. We all know that the total demand upon goods and services in this country is more than we can meet. That is common knowledge. We know that it is the source of our present difficulties. Everyone says, "If you are proposing to cut, you must not cut something affecting me, or something in which I am interested."
  I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this matter, as indeed I am, and the provision of homes for aged persons is an urgent need. But it is impossible to deal with the situation if every sector of the community says in turn—as, indeed, they do—"Yes, we agree that the sum total of demand on goods and services is excessive, but if you are going to cut something, be certain that you do not cut anything in which I am interested." Certainly, it should be said that if there is to be a reduction in the overall demand on goods and services, the Government should make a contribution. Today the Government are very big spenders, and they must reduce their demand on goods and services. It is quite improper to say that it should all fall entirely upon the private sector, because the public sector must make some contribution.
  I have listened to as much of this debate as my duties outside the Chamber permitted, and I have been struck by an apparent reluctance on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the need for change. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite stop to consider how dramatic has been the change in the pattern of our trade, particularly our world trade, even during the past 15 years. Now the balance has swung from textiles and certain consumer goods violently in favour of the metal-using industries and engineering work. We have undergone a dramatic change in the pattern of our trade overseas. These changes in trade cannot be of the permanent nature of things. I often hear people making comparisons between the inefficiency of the United Kingdom and

  1265
  the efficiency of the United States. It is true that their productivity is higher for the basic reason that they can effect a greater degree of standardisation than we can.
  We have to supply myriads of overseas markets which demand different products, and if standard mass production methods were applied to try to meet those varying demands, we should end up with higher end costs of production than we have at present. It is also true to say that if we are to meet the varying demands of the export trade—and we have certainly to do that—we must face this change in the nature of our production. If people do not want to buy motor cars from us, we must sell them electric generators, and labour and brains must be used in following the export demand. We cannot say that because we have had a violent change that this is the end of a change in the pattern. The pattern will continuously change, and we must follow the change in demand if we are to survive.
  Many hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, have talked as though this issue affected only labour. They have talked about the effect of this situation resulting in employment or unemployment. That is really a misinterpretation of the facts. What we want to see is a general reduction in demand in relation to supply, and this will affect not only employees but employers. The idea that only the workers suffer as a result of employment or unemployment is sheer nonsense. The evils of over-employment and over-demand are visited as much upon the employers as upon the workers.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: Not in the B.M.C.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman says "not in B.M.C." But if there had been less demand for British motor cars than there has been consistently, we would not have the situation in B.M.C. that we have today. Excess of demand is damaging to the employer as well as to the employee.
  Mr. Shurmer: The directors do not have to go on public assistance.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not think that is a very effective intervention.
  Mr. Shurmer: Does the hon. Member suggest that some of the directors and
  1266
  shareholders of the Austin motor works will have to foreclose on their mortgages or have to sell some of their goods, or have to seek public assistance? Has he seen that the successor of Sir Bernard Docker is in conflict with the Income Tax authorities, who found that he had just deposited £2 million in a deposit account in one of the Birmingham banks?
  Mr. Shepherd: I only wish that I had. I do not know the personal circumstances of the directors of the Austin Motor Company or the British Motor Corporation. All I feel is that, on the whole, they will not be as happy now as they were 12 months ago. I want to make the point that excessive demand is damaging all round to industry. People are apt to say that it affects only the workers, but it damages the employers too. Two industries which we know a good deal about, the textile industry and the motor car industry, would be today in a much better competitive position had they not had their fat years. Fat years of excessive demand are bad for industry, and we have to recognise that fact.
  Over-demand for goods and services means lower quality. One of my hon. Friends said that it was difficult to maintain inspection standards in Coventry under existing circumstances, but one German firm, the Mercedes company, spends 13 per cent. of the total cost on inspection, a situation which we could not conceive of as existing here. Excessive demand lowers quality and reduces the desire to improve design. It certainly lowers output. It may well be that we would get a higher output with 98 per cent. of our population employed than we get from the employment of 99 per cent., and we would have greater flexibility.
  Therefore, I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not interpret this situation solely in terms of employment and unemployment. This is the effect of excessive demand, which is damaging and harmful throughout the entire range of industry. It certainly increases our costs. We have been trying to get new ideas over in industry, but the change-over from one industry to another was hampered at every turn by the excessive demand for goods and services, of which the demand for labour is only an effect. Some of our supporters in the country talk about high wages and excessively good conditions in

  1267
  industry as being a cause of our present difficulties. I think they are merely an effect.
  If we have an excessive demand for goods and services, we shall get the situation that we now have. Nowhere is it better highlighted than in the motor industry, which has had years of extreme prosperity in which Britain has led the field in world exports. Yet we now find that we are being overtaken by the Germans, not only in Central European markets where they enjoy a geographical advantage, but also in countries like the United States, with cars that we would not have dreamed would have got away with it. The Volkswagen is a gimmick. We have motor cars that ought to sell as well as the Volkswagen in the United States. We ought to look at our sales policies to see whether they are right or wrong.
  The disturbing thing is that we are not merely being outdone in novelty of design, as in the past three or four years, but are now being undersold by German cars. The answer is very simple; we pay unskilled and semi-skilled labour excessively high wages in our motor factories. Excessive demand has built up wages for semi-skilled persons to an absurdly high level in our motor factories. We have to get down to it in the British motor industry. I do not say with Mr. Lawrence Pomeroy, who is an expert in the motor field, that we are producing the wrong cars, giving the wrong service and producing at the wrong price. I think those are rather hard and heavy criticisms.
  It is nevertheless true that what we now have to do is not to think whether we can work four days a week, or stop men from being discharged; we have to think about our export market. We have to produce cars that have more novelty at lower prices. We can produce cars at lower prices. In our motor industry, we have a much better set-up than in Germany. We have at least as good engineers and our workers are just as good. They can work as long hours as the Germans. A large part of the unskilled and semi-skilled labour in the motor factories is being paid wage rates much higher than is economically justifiable. We must get down to selling cars more cheaply and making better cars, as I am convinced we can do.
  1268
  I want to turn for a moment to what was said about the apparent lack of control by the Government over the motor industry. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked why we allowed this industry to expand and now have to cause it to contract. It is not really as simple as that. Two years ago, I was discussing this very question because I had great fears as to the soundness of the motor car expansion programme. It had not been discussed individually among the firms, whose programmes had been conceived in isolation.
  Two years ago, who could have said or who could have confidently forecast that that expansion was misconceived? We may have had our doubts, but two years ago the motor industry was the pride of Britain. It was exporting at an unparalleled rate. It had built itself up in a most exemplary manner. Would any hon. Member in control of the country's economic affairs have said to the motor car industry, in the face of its efforts and its success in exports, "No, you must not expand"? I really do not think there is a case for saying that an economy can be controlled by central control with that form of exactitude.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said that she did not believe we could deal with today's problems by pre-war methods. Nobody is attempting to deal with the problems of the latter half of the twentieth century by the methods employed between the wars. No one really believes today in a policy of laissez faire or that the Government can divorce themselves entirely from concern for our industrial affairs. It is a question of how far we seek to influence the economy by one means or another. I hope that hon. Members, on both sides, will be open-minded about the methods which are to be used.
  I am well aware that a monetary policy and a fiscal policy have their disadvantages. It is not all advantage when high money rates or other fiscal measures are applied; there are disadvantages to weigh against them. There may be justification for bolstering up some of the measures we have applied by a limited form of strategic physical controls. It may be that, if we had some limited form of strategic controls of a physical nature, we might be able to limit the harshness

  1269
  of some of the monetary and fiscal measures. All these ideas today are in the melting pot because we are dealing with a situation unparalleled in our economic history.
  It would be wrong for any of us to take a dogmatic view on this question. All I can say is that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for all the criticism they have endured today, can be shown to be moving in the right direction. The economy is definitely on the mend. That is not to say that all is well, that some reverse might not take place next year or that there might not be dramatic changes in the export sphere—all these things are possible. All I say is that the measures which have been taken have had their effect and are bringing us in some degree towards our goal. Whether those measures should be bolstered by physical controls of some kind or other is a matter for consideration. At the moment, I do not think a definite decision could be taken. We are not far enough on with our existing policy to form a proper judgment.
  I urge hon. Members who have been highly critical of the Government to appreciate that, by means of these monetary and fiscal measures, we have succeeded in going along the lines we want to go in reducing the level of demand, in improving our investment side, in increasing our exports without corresponding increases in imports, and in improving our gold and dollar reserves. All these favourable changes have been brought about as a result of this policy.
  I feel sure that if we can get the response from people in industry, too, so that they re-orientate themselves to the new, changed circumstances and flow into the industries where labour is badly needed, and even give a little more than they have been giving in the last eighteen months; and if they realise that the need for change is the urgent need of a nation living on exports, as we do, then we have the capacity, I believe, to pull the country through, and I believe that we have the men and women to do the job.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) is more or less repeating and reflecting the complacency with which the Chancellor bemused the House earlier this
  1270
  afternoon. I should have been happier if the speech made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) had been made from the Government Front Bench, for he made what I think was the crucial point in a debate in which we are discussing how to get inflation out of the economy; he suggested that the only major sphere in which we can get swingeing economies is in defence, and there we have a greater measure of agreement inside and outside the House than in any other field which is open to us.
  I am not one of those who believe that there has been a large change of policy recently in the Soviet Union, but I nevertheless believe that, while we should retain our defences at their present strength, we can do that and still make serious inroads into the expenditure entailed.
  I asked a Question in the House about a fortnight ago about the cost to the country of military aircraft in the eight years from 1948 to the present time, and the Answer was that we spent £1,200 million on military aircraft alone in those eight years. That is an average of £150 million a year, or £500,000 every day for the eight years. I wonder how many of those aircraft can now be written off as obsolete?
  It is no use the Chancellor telling us, as he did last week, that we are making cuts amounting to £36 million in the defence programme. That is a derisory figure out of a total expenditure on defence of £1,500 million. The Government know very well that they will make these cuts in National Service and elsewhere, but they will make them at the politically strategic time.
  I was amazed at the Chancellor's complacency this afternoon. He talked about exports being "encouraging". Let us look at what his own Bulletin for Industry said in June, 1956—last month:
  "Last year the United Kingdom's share in world exports of manufactures fell again."
  In 1954 they were 20·4 per cent. of the world's exports of manufactures, and in 1955, 19·8 per cent. The Bulletin says that German exports in the first four months of this year were 16½ per cent. higher than a year earlier, while ours were only 6 per cent. higher; and surely the vital issue for us, fighting in a competitive world, is not the absolute

  1271
  improvement in our exports but the comparative improvement vis-à-vis our competitors overseas; and on that score we are obviously failing.
  The Chancellor talked about the gold and dollar reserves. The brutal truth is that from the middle of 1954 to the end of 1955 the gold and dollar reserves steadily drained away, and, again quoting the Bulletin for Industry for last month,
  "The gold and dollar reserves in the first five months of this year have recovered about two-fifths of last year's losses. Since the first half of the year is normally better than the second, it is only moderately encouraging."
  That is what the Treasury Bulletin says, and the Chancellor comes along today and says we have nothing to worry about, and that our gold and dollar reserves are fine.
  Mr. Shepherd rose——
  Mr. Hamilton: No, I cannot give way; I have not the time.
  If we consider the prospectus on which this Government were elected, this is what we find in the Tory Campaign Guide of 1955. It says—
  "Inflation has been curbed. Under Mr. Butler's firm direction, we have been rebuilding our reserves."
  They are lower now than they were in 1951, when the Government came in—considerably lower. Again—
  "World confidence in sterling has been restored."
  On the subject of inflation, if we take the Government's own Economic Survey for 1956, we find this:
  "At the beginning of 1956, the United Kingdom economy was still in an inflationary condition."
  The new Chancellor, after this great success story of his predecessor, comes in, and will obviously continue the policies which so signally failed in the previous four years. He comes in as a new broom to sweep clean, and what does he do? The Budget was introduced with a great fanfare of trumpets, and the Economist of the 21st April summed it up. This is what is said:
  "The only encouragement to production in this Budget"—
  and this is the vital point we are discussing today—
  "is that to the production of more children; the only politically possible incentives in the
  1272
  Conservative philosophy are incentives to gambling and procreation."
  That was the Economist immediately after the Budget. Then the Chancellor comes along and follows that up with another wonderful proposal for a £76 million cut—a derisory attempt at facing the situation we are now in.
  Let me now say a word on the question of the stabilisation of prices in the nationalised industries. The Times was quite right when it said that this, as a serious economic solution to our problem, is sheer nonsense, because the nationalised industries are under a statutory obligation to pay their way. If, by the stabilising of their prices for a year, deficits accumulate, all that we are doing is putting off the evil day. The Government should not feel that because they have introduced stabilisation, or have brought pressure to bear on the nationalised industries to stabilise their prices, that they are thereby bringing pressure to bear on the workers in those industries to stabilise their wages or to refrain from wage demands. So long as the Government put up the prices of milk and bread and the cost of school meals, etc., and permit rent decontrol, which is coming, no matter what the nationalised industries do about the stabilisation of prices, wage increases will come.
  If the Government combine that kind of policy of increasing prices in other spheres with an attempt to stabilise prices in the nationalised industries, that is the sure way to disaster, and it is bound to come unless the Government get down seriously to the problem of cutting back defence expenditure in a serious way instead of in the niggling way which the Chancellor indicated last week.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: We have had today a debate characterised by a clear distinction between the two sides of the House. On both sides of the House references have been made to the gravity of the situation and the unhappiness that people feel about it. On this side of the House there have been speeches calling for some action to be taken by the Government to reduce the gravity of the situation, to reduce the unhappiness. On the other side of the House there is, I think, the most frightening air of complacency about the whole business.

  1273
  Everybody over there, from the Chancellor downwards—I cannot speak yet about the Minister of Labour and National Service: we shall know about him in due course—makes all the right references to nobody wanting any unhappiness, but does not suggest that anything should be done about it.
  If anybody said that I was allergic to the charms of the Chancellor as an orator he would only be stretching the point a little. I find it a little difficult to put myself on the same wavelength as him. Maybe, he returns the compliment. However, I think he conveyed today a general air of complacency and of being in two minds that really was quite extraordinary even for what I have come to regard as normal for him. He did not seem really to worry either about our balance of payments situation or about the unemployment problem in the Midlands, in the car industry, one little bit. He certainly ended with a passage in which he told us how worried he was, and that he remembered the 'thirties, but I should have thought that any of us who really remembered the 'thirties and were deeply affected by the memory of them would have felt that the situation of today would have required some action, and not just the kind of posing that the right hon. Gentleman exhibited to us today.
  I thought that came out most clearly when he was telling us about the weakening of—what did he call it?—"the full intensity of the boom." He started by claiming that as a great success for Conservative Party policy, saying that the Government had weakened the full intensity of the boom, that there had been a bit of a drop in consumption, in employment, and so on; but halfway through the story in which he was proving that he had weakened the full intensity of the boom he started to explain to us that it was not, of course, very much, that it did not amount to anything, that it had not gone very far, and that if it had, he would have been upset by it.
  I think that this is really the Tory dilemma and the real issue that the Government have to face. One of the things everybody seems to regard here as slightly indecent is that anybody should score party points. If anybody wants to score a party point he starts by saying that he is not going to do so. However, we carry on our Government on a party
  1274
  basis, and we ought to have party political views, and I think the main dilemma of the Chancellor and the Government as a whole is that they really do not want to face the real political content of their own policy.
  The right hon. Gentleman stated the Government had weakened the full intensity of the boom. He said he would be wounded if anybody said this to him, nevertheless, I must risk it: he said they had to produce some slight unemployment, to weaken the power of the trade unions to resist attacks on them. Suddenly, halfway through the operation, realising that it is wounding to have this said of him, he says he has not succeeded in doing it. It is no use him saying that halfway through the operation. He has succeeded in doing it, and that is his curious dilemma, which showed itself in his speech.
  He told us that investment remains strong. When he was asked by one of my right hon. Friends to tell us what proportion of the investment remains strong, and whether it was only that in the motor car industry, he regarded that as a quite irrelevant question to ask, even at a moment when we are discussing that industry, which has already been inflated and expanded beyond capacity. The right hon. Gentleman appears to shake his head, but I should have thought that that was the whole point of the operation. He had no knowledge of the proportion of the investment at the moment in the motor industry. He had even less knowledge of the proportion of this investment, for which he was claiming credit, going into the distribution side of the business, the petrol stations, and the like. Yet that is information which we should expect any Chancellor of the Exchequer to have. It is no use saying that investment remains strong unless it is remaining strong where it matters most to us at the moment—unless it is relevant investment.
  We are entitled to ask the Minister of Labour, even though the right hon. Gentleman has set the pattern for him, to give us the figures about this, to give us some breakdown of the figures, to let us know what rate of investment is going on in the motor car industry, what the size of the industry ought to be, what the chances to export are, and what investment we are continuing to make. I should like to know how much is going into petrol stations, etc.

  1275
  The Chancellor attempted to make great play about this question of the man in Whitehall or the man in Longbridge knowing best. I should not have thought that the man in Longbridge did very well, but what the Chancellor does not seem to get into his mind, and I am trying to implant it there, is that the Government are a party to what is going on in the motor car industry, because the Government represent all the rest of us. There are about 52 million people in the country but only a very small proportion of us are represented by either the man in Longbridge or even by the trade union which represents the workers in Longbridge. The rest of the country suffers from the effect of what goes wrong in Longbridge, and in that respect the Chancellor represents the Government, who are our representatives, though a very poor lot of representatives at the moment. "The best that we have" is all one can say of the Prime Minister, and that goes for the rest.
  Therefore, one is entitled to press the point that the Government have a part to play, and that they cannot leave it to the man in Longbridge in that charming old-fashioned phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave his political philosophy so completely away the other day when he said that this was a matter for master and men. That is a phrase that went out when I was quite a young fellow. Since then, we have had departments, managements and workers—which shows how far away the Chancellor is from modern industry.
  This is not a matter for masters, and not even a matter for masters and men. This is a matter for the nation in which the worker and the management and the industry and the rest of us as taxpayers, as sufferers from the balance of payments position and as the recipients of industrial depression, if it gets under way, are all concerned. My theme will be that the Government have to take the lead, not in the sense that they know better and can tell other people but in the sense that they represent an important third party and therefore have to be a party to the decisions made.
  Then there are the Chancellor's references to savings. His references to the £76 million were less than convincing. He tried to criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)
  1276
  for his comments on the subject, but it seems to me that the Chancellor again missed the whole point that my right hon. Friend made. Our point is that these cuts for which the right hon. Gentleman is claiming credit are not cuts that he has made at all. To some extent, they are cuts for which he has had the credit, and, although he needs as much credit as he can get, we think that for him to take it twice is a bit too much.
  The cuts include underspendings, which the right hon. Gentleman was not going to spend anyway. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say "No", and I believe that I see him now shaking his head, but he must put himself right with the Home Secretary, who yesterday told us exactly the opposite. The idea of a divided Cabinet may be usual but this division is surprising to me. [Interruption.] I do not see the right hon. Gentleman at such close quarters as right hon. Gentlemen opposite see each other.
  If the Chancellor can tell us today that it does not happen when the Home Secretary yesterday said that it did, we are entitled to decide who is right. I would ask the Chancellor to get the matter right with his colleagues and not have us told two different stories on different days. There is an element of claimed cut in this which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said is not a cut at all, and there is this rather lovely, belated admission by the Chancellor that the field in which we can make a cut is so small.
  I think of all the stories that present occupants of the Government Front Bench—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Mr. Walker-Smith), to say nothing of the 'Minister of Education—used to tell us about the wonderful wide field for cuts that was available. Now the Chancellor has discovered that it is only a tiny field anway and that he can make cuts of only £70 million. I hope that that has a profound influence on the rest of the Government party, so that those behind the Government Front Bench, as well as those on it, know the real story.
  As the Economist said, the Chancellor has gone shrimping. They are not even

  1277
  decent shrimps, not even Dublin Bay prawns, they are small, miserable shrimps of cuts for which he has looked all over the place, counting them twice, consuming stocks which he will have to replace, in order to cover a complete lack of policy.
  A few days ago the right hon. Gentleman made a speech to the Foreign Press Association on defence. At a time of great suspense in the affairs of N.A.T.O., at a time of great crisis in the defence plans of the West, his contribtuion was to think in terms of a £700 million cut in defence. He said, "Would it not be lovely if we could get a £700 million in defence? What we could do with it if we had it."
  Mr. H. Macmillan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, I have the hand-out here. Two pages from the end he said, "Of course, we have not got it; it is only a pipe-dream". We have had talk from the Minister of Defence about getting rid of conscription. We have had a pipe-dream from the Chancellor about a £700 million cut in the cost of defence. The real point is that they have no policy on defence, they have no policy on the reorganisation of defence, on the reorganisation of the Armed Forces, and they come, therefore, with these miserable little shrimps of bits and pieces, bits and bobs here and there, some of them "phoney," some dangerous, and present them to cover up their lack of policy.
  I do not want to be unfair. The Chancellor is no worse than his colleagues—but I do not think he is any better either. There was the speech of the Prime Minister at Perth, the speech of the Minister of Labour at Geneva, the speech of the Lord Privy Seal at Dunmow. All were cast in the same pattern, vapid, uncertain, gripless glimpses of the obvious, with no real policy, no real grip in them. What we are really waiting for in this country is a lead from a Minister.
  We accept that we have a Tory Government. We accept that they can count 67 more heads than we can. But that does not excuse them from giving a lead, from having a view, and that is what is wrong. Hitting this Government is like hitting a feather cushion which just goes in. There is no policy with which to get to grips. That is what is the matter.
  1278
  The two-party system becomes difficult when there is an Opposition with a policy and a Government with none. In the years immediately before the war, it was the other way round. It was just as difficult but less worrying for the country.
  May I tell the Chancellor the three headings under which I think he betrays most woefully a lack of any policy? I see the right hon. Gentleman laughing. Let him have his little laugh and then get settled down so that he can pay attention and hear what I am saying. First, there is the question of the balance of payments. We are importing things that we should not import. We are importing things that we do not need to import, particularly primary products. We are importing grains that we could grow here or that we could arrange to be grown by our friends in the Commonwealth and thus save ourselves dollars, but that would require action. That is what the right hon. Gentleman shirks.
  Today, the Chancellor, in the course of a long passage in his speech, used figures by value. It took a long time to get that out of him. It was not until he had a nod from someone that he got clear in his own mind the difference between value and volume. In a long passage he showed that exports had gone up more than imports. That would be so if he were talking in terms of value. The point is that this was all right for a slick passage in a speech, but from the point of view of examining where the country is getting, it is volume that matters and not value, because value merely reflects temporarily changing prices. It merely reflects temporary gains, of which one takes account, which may have very little to do with oneself. The point relates to terms of volume. If the right hon. Gentleman had used figures of volume instead of value, we should have had a different story from the one he sought to give.
  Secondly, there seems to be no policy for real co-ordination within the Commonwealth. We have the Commonwealth Prime Ministers here now. We have the Prime Minister of Australia here. What are the Government doing to try to arrange some co-ordinated policy so that we do not have the Australians cutting our throats because we are cutting theirs, and so that they may get the sterling with which to buy

  1279
  our sterling goods? What is the point of the Commonwealth unless we become an economic entity with some interactions among us? We want some statement from the Government. We want some policy. These things do not fall like apples from trees. We have to arrange to get them. So far we hear absolutely nothing of that at all.
  Thirdly, our exports are declining just where they ought to be rising. In the European countries, where there is no motor car industry, and where it is a free market, our exports are going down. We are losing our share while the share of other people is going up. This is especially true of Sweden. It looked to me to be true of Holland when I was there a week or two ago. This is what we ought to be tackling. I should like to know something about the line that the Government are taking to deal with this matter.
  We are told, generally speaking, that we are losing export markets on grounds of the finish of our products, of price or of delivery dates. One cannot get this over to people just in the course of a lecture. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) was Minister of Labour and Sir Stafford Cripps was Chancellor of the Exchequer, they undertook a campaign through the country in which meetings of trade unionists and employers were held, and they talked to them frankly about our problems and encouraged them to make a reality of consultation. We should do the same thing now.
  If the question is one of the finish, the price or the delivery date, why do not the Government arrange to get employers and workers together in the plants concerned and encourage the employers to put forward evidence about what is going wrong? Let us have some samples of the things which are better finished overseas than we finish them. Let us have some evidence of comparative delivery dates. Let us have some evidence of the comparative prices being quoted. Let us give our people some evidence which they can grasp and understand. This requires direct action from the Government, as was given by my right hon. Friends some years ago.
  All this leads to physical controls. It sounds nice to be against controls. Everybody likes to be against everything
  1280
  which is inconvenient, awkward and uncomfortable and likes to be for everything which is acceptable. It is woolly to talk in that way. Civilised life—this is where it differs from pagan life—consists of a great many restrictions and controls in the interest of the public good. The Chancellor, in the course of a long passage today, showed how many controls the Government still have and to what a wide extent they still operate physical controls. Tories who believed that they were supporting a Government which was against physical controls have been put to rout this afternoon by the Chancellor, who explained clearly that, like the Labour Government, the Conservative Government believe in physical controls, although they stop short of the extra ones which we think would be so important.
  If the physical controls which the Chancellor operates are so good and useful, I find it very difficult to understand why the others which we suggest should be rejected by him. Why does he not go the whole hog and do the thing properly? The real point is that, beyond the physical controls which he claims to be operating, those for which we argue, such as building licences and material allocations, are selective. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I prefer to rely on my form of control". His form of control is a restriction just as much as the other, but he said that he preferred to rely on that, and the result is that the control is unselective and hits over the whole range.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: I can think of no more selective control than the Capital Issues Committee.
  Mr. Brown: As my right hon. Friends immediately remind me, the Capital Issues Committee allows a number of questionable projects to go through. However, I am not dealing with that.
  I have said that the Chancellor operates controls for which he puts up a case, but when he comes to the credit squeeze and to blanket higher interest rates, he has deliberately chosen unselective forms of control as against selective forms. If his case about the C.I.C. is right, that would be a reinforcement for my argument that he should have further selective controls, instead of these blanket, unselective forms, like the credit squeeze and higher interest rates,

  1281
  which hit good and bad equally and which, because the good is often not so profitable as the bad, sometimes hit the good harder than the bad.
  I give the Chancellor his point, for what it is worth, that when we argue for controls, we must realise that that means restrictions. We realise that that would mean that people would not remain in a job, if they were wanted somewhere else. That is part of the operation of planning. If that is the system of planning with a system of selective controls, one has a combined operation—both the jobs out of which one wants the men to come and the jobs into which one wants them to go. However, that is better than the arrangement which results in 6,000 men at a time, in one large city, leaving their jobs with no arrangements to take them elsewhere, with all the unhappiness that is caused and all the other consequences. Every day that these men in Birmingham are out of work the country is losing its most vital asset. What is the use of lecturing us about producing more when 6,000 men are signing on at the employment exchange in Birmingham, 6,000 men who, with a little planning, could have stayed in their jobs until they could have been moved to other jobs without loss in between? This is a most grievous loss of our most valued asset and most important raw material, the labour of our men.
  That brings me to the motor car situation, where we are reaping the rewards. Sir Leonard Lord has come in for a rough time from the other side of the House. He has been knocked about. Far be it from me to defend him, but, a little unworthily, he has been made the scapegoat for the sins of the party opposite. It would have made no difference if he had given the men one week's notice or two weeks' notice that they were going to be out, if the Government were not planning in respect of the other jobs to which they were to go. They would still have been out and would still have had the toothache, and the tooth would still have had to be pulled. If the tooth has to come out, it makes no difference to lengthen the period of the toothache.
  Sir Leonard Lord may have acted rudely or abruptly. I do not defend him over that at all, but I do say that on the Treasury Bench are the real sinners and
  1282
  the real villains who set off the economic policy which encouraged Sir Leonard Lord and other manufacturers to get rid of their men with no arangements for the men to go into other work when they become available. It is no use venting spleen on Sir Leonard Lord, when the fault is with the Government who have to plan for these things.
  I want to refer to consultation. Too often the word "consultation" is being used as though it means the same thing as information. In the trade unions we are not asking to be informed when we are to get the sack. We are asking to be consulted about what is to be done and whether it is necessary. We are asking to be consulted in advance of decisions about what happens to our people who are affected. That means real and effective consultation, and we are muddling the words which we use when we confuse that with information which would not save anybody any trouble at all, but which might simply spread the unhappiness and ill-feeling and still leave people angry if they were out of a job.
  The real problem is that the Government have repeatedly told employers that it is their business to decide how many people they employ and whether those people are on full time or short time. In that respect the Minister of Labour has something to live up to. He may not hold it in my favour, but I intervened at the end of his speech in the debate on employment on 20th March last, to the anger of some of my hon. Friends, who did not think that I should do so, and reminded him that he had said that this was the employers' responsibility. I have the report of the debate here, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to dispute my statement. I could not help thinking it was a mistake, and I said that we were all liable to make mistakes at the Box, and that I thought he would like to take the opportunity of withdrawing what he had said. He refused to do so—and repeated it. He said, in terms, that the Government believed that it was essential for employers to decide about their future labour requirements. Trade unions were not mentioned; consultation with the workers or the Government was not mentioned, and Mr. Lord did exactly what the Minister of Labour emphasised that he should do. I knew that it was wrong at the time, but the Minister of Labour

  1283
  was so sure that he insisted upon it. The Government are now reaping the whirl-wind. They have refused to make plans and, as a result, the country is in its present situation.
  Even at Question Time today I thought that the Minister of Labour, answering a Question by one of my hon. Friends, showed the same complacency as he did in the employment debate in March. Let us consider the Government's Development Areas policy. Could anybody believe that at this stage, when the Government are talking about a switch, and about not wanting unemployment—and the Chancellor is being wounded by suggestions that he does want it—they are refusing to build factories in the Development Areas where the work could be begun and the unemployed persons fitted in?
  This is very much a psychological problem, and everybody concerned is very much in the grip of psychological emotions. Everybody in the Development Areas knows full well that, in the main, those areas merely have the branch establishments of the main companies, and they are terribly frightened that if the present situation worsens the branch establishment will go first. The moment the Minister refuses to build new factories in those areas he is giving them a warning that he is writing them off. It is an incredible policy, but that is what is happening. We warned the Minister that this situation would develop.
  Do not let us think that this is a matter which affects only the motor car industry. It does not; it affects the plastics industry, the foundries—we make no motor cars in my constituency now but two foundries are putting people off—the glass and chemical industries, and a whole host of other industries very far removed from the making of motor cars. All these will be progressively involved in the next few weeks.
  I want to make quite clear our view about labour rigidity. Do not let us invent differences where they do not exist. In March I said that under full employment there could not be a guarantee that a man would always stay in the same job and in the place where he was at the moment. But I pointed out that in that case—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) has
  1284
  nothing better to do than sit there mimicking my physical actions, he is being rather silly when we are discussing a serious matter. I said that if the men were to accept that they had no fixed right to a certain job in a certain place, the Government must accept the obligation to facilitate their mobility, by means of transfer and lodging allowances, travelling time allowances, special housing arrangements, etc. At that time the Minister of Labour said:
  "I know that the right hon. Member for Belper will call this a laissez-faire attitude … if I rejected straight away, as I do, his proposals about the mobility of labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 1036.]
  These people, who rejected my views about the workers being mobile, are now lecturing us about the very need for mobility to which they would not agree previously.
  The Government must make up their mind between two objectives. Either they want deflation and some unemployment, or a phased and controlled transfer of men from one job to another. We want to know which, because we are not clear about it. I do not want to wound the Chancellor too much, but I am not sure what he wants. I have a strong feeling that he really wants some unemployment and some deflation, and that when the Government instructed the nationalised industries to resist wage claims which had not been tabled they did so knowing that the unemployment which they were creating would make the position of the unions that much weaker, and the instructions that much easier to carry out.
  I believe that, and if they do not want that—if I am wrong—they should show where I am wrong. In my view, the only way they can do so is to have some plan for carrying out this vast transfer of labour from jobs where it is not wanted to jobs where it is. It is no use the Minister of Labour and National Service telling me that he has the powers. I know that he has powers, and when I put down a Question to him, he told me what powers he has. What I want to know is to what extent he is using them and which powers he proposes to use.
  I wish to say a word about the British Motor Corporation. I should like the Minister to tell us what are his views on some proposals which may well be made, and whether the Government feel that as

  1285
  early as possible there should be a high-level meeting between the unions concerned and the management of B.M.C. In the first place, there should be effective consultation about what has happened and what is to happen, and the compensation which should be awarded to those men who in the last two days have been unjustly thrown on the streets. I welcome the support of hon. Members opposite who were so rough with Sir Leonard Lord, and I look to them to support us in a demand that there should be compensation made to the people who have been put out. Compensation for loss of office is not an unknown thing in this country.
  At Geneva the Minister spoke about how it could be done, and I wish to know whether he will support us in saying that this should be a matter for an immediate high-level consultation with the B.M.C. management; that there should be adequate notice of what they feel they may have to do afterwards; that there should be a public inquiry into the position of the motor industry. We must try to find out the size of the industry which we can stand; how much investment should continue; how far it should be applied to the American companies, leaving out the British companies; where the transfer should be made and whether some factories could engage on other work.
  If the Government will not help, we shall be left with a situation in the car industry which will cause repercussions throughout the trade unions and upon employed workers. That is frightening our people. In many ways it is a test case. We welcome sympathetic words from the Minister and from his friends, but we should be better off were some real action taken. I ask the Minister of Labour and National Service to recognise that there is a long list of sins behind him and his colleagues which have produced this economic and industrial situation, and that he should do his best to remedy that position tonight by announcing some real action.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): There have been two main themes running through this debate; first, that of criticism and defence of the general economic policy of the Government, and secondly,
  1286
  anxiety about particular problems in relation to the motor car industry in the Midlands. I think that the House would prefer me to deal mainly with the second theme and with the actions and responsibility of the Government in this sphere.
  I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in the purple passages of his speech. Only in the last minute or two did he return to the issues which really concerned the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—only in the last minute or two. The right hon. Gentleman was carried away on the wings of his own oratory. He suggested at the beginning of his speech that he had not seen a divided Cabinet, but, as he is sitting next to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), I do not think that was particularly good co-ordination.
  I do not wish to use many figures in my speech, and if hon. Members will forgive me I should like to pack what figures I use into the next few minutcs. It is of great importance that we see the present position against the background of employment and vacancies in the country. Since the beginning of this year, there has been a seasonal decrease of 41,000 in the numbers unemployed, and the latest figures, which are still those for 11th June, give the figure of 223,000, or actually under 1 per cent. On the other hand, in the Midlands the rate of unemployment has risen in the same five months from 0·6 per cent. to 1·2 per cent., or in other words has doubled. On short time working, the figure of 35,000 in November, 1955, rose to between 90,000 and 100,000 in most weeks from the middle of March. As the House knows, the industries most affected were motor vehicles, cotton and furniture.
  In the motor car industry, although employment in the last five months of this year has fallen by rather more than 10,000, after rising by over 40,000 in the last three years, the number of wholly unemployed motor car workers rose from 1,425 to 2,468 in the first six months of this year, and that latter figure is still well below 1 per cent. of the numbers employed in the industry. Of course, it is true, as hon. Members have said, that there will be repercussions in the manufacture of parts and accessories, but the figure of unemployment there has remained very stable this year, and it is on the last count less than one-half of

  1287
  1 per cent., although there have been substantial fluctuations in short time working. In the manufacture of motor cars, the Midlands has been the most affected region because it employs something like 40 per cent. of the labour in that industry. As a result of the recent decisions that have been taken by Standard's and the B.M.C., something like 7,000 people whose last employment was in the motor industry will be looking for other work in the Midlands.
  I will, with the permission of the House, deal separately, later in my speech, with vacancies for men in the areas of Birmingham and Oxford, and the possibilities of employment. The picture which I have given very rapidly to the House can in no sense be called that of a depressed economy. Unemployment at 1 per cent. is almost as low as it has ever been and vacancies at 397,000 are getting on for twice the unemployment figure. It is still a picture of the kind of economy in which the demands for labour are very high but one in which redistribution of labour has begun to show itself.
  I turn to the question of the redistribution of labour in which we all, the Government, the trade unions and the employers have responsibilities, but as I am answering for the Government, it will be expected that I should concentrate on the Government's part. Many of the speeches which we have had today took this point particularly, and, if I may say so, the best speeches from the back benches were made by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). It is common ground—everybody has said it—between the two sides of the House that mobility of labour is an essential part of a full employment economy. I need not argue that point further. We are agreed on the diagnosis but not, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton said, on the prescription.
  I believe that if we are not ready to change our pattern of employment, or if we try to freeze employment where it may be at any given moment, we will very soon lose full employment itself. There is a great deal of labour mobility in this country, much more than people realise. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor
  1288
  of the Exchequer said this afternoon, it is estimated that in the past year there have been 2½ million changes of job in the manufacturing industries alone, and that figure represents some 30 per cent. of the total labour force. We cannot say how many of those jobs have involved a change of home, which is the question most in people's minds. The figure obviously has been very large, and there is a very interesting table, which hon. Members may have read, in the most recent issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette. That gives the figures for interregional moves in one year, between May, 1954, and May, 1955. These figures, which mean a change of employment from one region to another, do not necessarily mean a change of residence, as the regions are very big areas. They show that 38,000 men and 15,000 women moved into the Midlands area and that 33,000 men and 14,000 women moved out. There was a more substantial movement still into the London and Southern regions.
  It is clear that there is already taking place as part of the normal life of our country a sizeable geographical movement of labour. What is perhaps more important is what is called "occupational mobility," and it is on that that questions were asked. It is interesting to see, as we are beginning to see now, from what a wide area the workers at the B.M.C., who are affected by these changes, come. They are registering at West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Droitwich, Bromsgrove, Coventry, Nuneaton and many other places. In a number of cases it must be clear, from the demand for labour that there is in those places, that their next jobs will probably be nearer their homes than the last.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton made a suggestion with which I have a great deal of sympathy. It was that we should try to follow up the result of this movement of labour. A day or two ago, I thought of it from rather a different aspect. The right hon. Gentleman was thinking of it as a post mortem on the efficiency of the service. If we had such a follow-up it would be a social document of very great importance indeed, and it would be of great value to us all to know exactly what happened to all these people, where they went and how many had had to change their type of job.

  1289
  I will, therefore, try to see how practicable it is to have a record of the type of vacancies into which these workers are first placed, remembering that I can only do that for workers who use the employment exchange services.
  As far as powers are concerned, the right answer is that we should concentrate on seeing first that we have the powers available for giving special assistance to limited classes of people, and secondly, of seeing whether we should make greater use of those powers. The scope is ample under the 1948 Act. I detailed, in answer to the right hon. Member for Belper in the House, some of those powers in relation to fares, lodging allowances and so on. The policy we should pursue here is to keep under close review the powers that we have for facilitating the transfer of workers from areas where the prospect of employment is poor, and we should push on in the wider field with the provision of more housing accommodation. We should encourage, in particular, the maintenance of as big a pool of houses to let as possible. In that field a solution lies.
  The first protection that a man in difficulties has, whether from unemployment or anything else, is our social security system which is unequalled in the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly. I remember that, in a broadcast a short time ago, I was asked, "Surely you do not mean that the Labour Party produced anything good?" I said, "Of course they did." There has been a suggestion canvassed in a number of papers, and particularly in an article in the Economist, which many people have read and which is of great importance to study, whether the level of unemployment benefit should be higher for the first few weeks of unemployment.
  At first sight, that is an attractive idea, but I do not think it stands up to close examination. In the first place, ever since the Beveridge Report, it has been more or less common policy with both sides of the House that the sickness and unemployment benefit rates should be closely linked, and secondly, that there should be general uniformity in rates. I do not think the House would accept as a whole that benefit should relate to earnings—and no doubt, if benefits varied, contributions would have to vary
  1290
  also. These things need not be laws of the Medes and Persians, but they are important considerations.
  I believe that the decisive argument is that, in the early days of unemployment, the provision of P.A.Y.E. refunds, plus any payments that may have been made, often means that a substantial sum is available to a man, but I do not believe that the level of unemployment benefit itself is a decisive factor in a man's calculations when he decides to change his job or to stay on short time. I believe that much more important is his own estimate of how soon he will be back on full time, and what his level of earnings will be in the meantime.
  That leads me to the question, which the right hon. Gentleman and others mentioned, about compensation. The question, in effect, is whether the level of unemployment benefit should be supplemented, and if so by whom. I should like to refer at this stage to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire, who referred to the possibility of a longer contract of service in some cases. That is a difficult question and not one on which I should like to make any pronouncement tonight, but it is a subject which is well worth discussion as long as we bear in mind that there are very different problems and conditions in all the industries.
  I made a speech at Geneva, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, in which I touched on this question of compensation. I do not believe in any way that it can be, or should be, a matter for Government direction, and I do not see how that could possibly work. I believe that the matter of compensation to redundant workers is a matter for employers to decide in the light of their own circumstances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not see how the Government can decide it.
  Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman said that employers should decide it. Did he mean that, or was he not thinking of employers in consultation with their workpeople?
  Mr. Macleod: Of course. It is a matter, naturally, on which the unions would make representations to the employers and to managements, which, one would hope, they would discuss in that way and in the light of what I am saying.

  1291
  What I said to the International Labour Conference at Geneva was in connection with the very special problem of automation. I said that it may be appropriate for a firm to make compensation payments, and I pointed, out that in this country that can be done in addition to the unemployment benefit which is paid by the State—that is, without reducing the unemployment benefit paid by the State. I was talking about the case of workers being displaced after long and satisfactory service owing to the introduction of new machinery.
  There are many reasons why a man may lose his job. It may well be because of the coming of change or the coming of automatic processes—[Interruption.]—or through the actions of Governments. It may be through his own or his firm's inefficiency, because of a drop in demand or because changes of habit have passed by the product in which his working life has been concerned.
  I think it is generally agreed, however, that the social security system cannot, and should not, try to distinguish between these methods for the payment of benefits or of allowances, nor is any distinction drawn at the employment exchanges because of the past history of those seeking work. It should, however, be more widely known than it is that those payments can be made as I have indicated, both in my speech at Geneva and again in the House tonight.
  I should like to turn quickly to another responsibility of the Government in relation to training. There are at present 16 Government training centres, and a number of men and women are also in training under the vocational training scheme at technical and commercial colleges. Men in training receive maintenance allowances, which are, for example, 118s. for a married man with a dependant child, and lodging allowances can be paid when the trainee has to live away from home.
  Mr. Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement that compensation will not affect a man's right to draw unemployment pay. Will he say what he thinks ought to be the position of the Austin motor workers who are receiving one week's pay in lieu of notice? Will they be able to draw unemployment pay for the week they are out of work?
  Mr. Macleod: I should like to answer that, but I do not see how I can answer such hypothetical questions until they are put in the ordinary way. I am trying to go quickly through one or two important matters, and if the hon. Member would like to speak to me afterwards I should be glad of the opportunity.
  It is easy to say that a man should be re-trained, but a man does not lose his skill when he loses his job, unless that whole range of jobs has become outmoded, perhaps through technological change. The schemes to which I have referred arc very intensive and take six months or even more to complete. It is obviously not likely that more than a very small number of people would be suitable or, perhaps more important, be willing to undertake that training.
  As the House knows, provision in this matter—and this has been common policy of both Governments—has in the past largely been restricted to the disabled. It is agreed policy between industry and the Government that the vast bulk of industrial training must be done by industry, and there have been encouraging signs of greater interest.
  The expansion in technical education gives us a real chance to provide new courses to suit industrial needs. I have been discussing this with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and if industry wants men to take these courses at the colleges, then my right hon. Friend will encourage the schools and colleges to give them all the help they can. This is a most important matter concerning the training in our technical colleges, and I hope very much that employers will release their young men and women for such training.
  May I now come to the question of the jobs available, particularly in the Midlands area. I said a short time ago that there are about 12,000 jobs within reasonable daily travelling distance of Birmingham, but many hon. Members opposite have, perfectly fairly, said, "Never mind the numbers; are those jobs suitable for the people or not?" Whatever differences we have, we must recognise this difficulty: we cannot tell whether a job is suitable for Bill Smith—and that is what it comes down to in the end—until, first of all, we know what is the status of Bill Smith, whether he is going to be on short time or amongst

  1293
  those redundant; and, secondly, until he registers at the exchange and we know what jobs he would be suitable for and what jobs he would be prepared to take.
  Nevertheless, I think the House would like to have the latest figures of registrations and placings. The latest information I have is that about 1,370 of the workers discharged by the B.M.C. in Birmingham have registered at employment exchanges, that 718 of those, or about 53 per cent. have been submitted to jobs, and that practically all the skilled men have been submitted to skilled jobs and the remainder to a variety of jobs in the light manufacturing industries, the Post Office and transport.
  At Oxford, 484 of the workers discharged had registered by this morning, and all except 32 of those have been submitted for other employment. I was very glad to hear the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Turner) to the local services there, and I am sure that at Coventry and Birmingham, too, although under heavy pressure, the services have been of a very high standard. We have sent, as quickly as we can, from all other areas in the country details of vacancies which may be suitable for semi-skilled and unskilled workers. We have drafted extra staff to the Birmingham area, and, as I notified the House this afternoon, I am acquiring extra premises where necessary to ease the temporary congestion. I have already looked into the point which the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was good enough to put to me this afternoon, and I will either speak to him afterwards or write to him about it. I
  think he may find the situation a little more cheerful than he thought when he asked his supplementary questions.
  These are the fields in which I think the House accepts, as the Government certainly accept, that we have a major responsibility. This debate has been concentrated very largely on the immediate problems in the motor car industry, but it is actually on the general economic policy of the Government. The Opposition will no doubt express their opinion on that in the Lobby, and no doubt they will be defeated.
  We believe that the real tests of our policies are those to which the Chancellor referred this afternoon—the strengthening of our gold and dollar reserves, the steady improvement in the trade figures, the switch of resources from consumer to capital goods—and in all these, without being in the least complacent about them, many of the signs are definitely encouraging. We do not intend to relax our policies. We believe that they are fully justified, and we believe that we can ask for the support of the House and of the country.
  Mr. Edelman: Before the Minister concludes, would he say something about the Australian import cuts which—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Edelman: —are presently threatened, and which are likely to have a serious effect by the winter?
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 310.

  Division No. 251.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Albu, A. H.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Anderson, Frank

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Burke, W. A.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Deer, G.

  Baird, J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Balfour, A.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn John (W. Brmwch)

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Dye, S.

  Benson, G.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Beswick, F.

  Clunie, J.

  Edelman, M.

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

  Coldrick, W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Blackburn, F.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Boardman, H.

  Cove, W. G.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Bowles, F. G.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Royle, C.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Short, E. W.

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

  McInnes, J.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mahon, Simon

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Snow, J. W.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hale, Leslie Hamilton, W. W.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hannan, W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Steele, T.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mason, Roy

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Hastings, S.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Healey, Denis

  Messer, Sir F.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Monslow, W.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Moody, A. S.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Holman, P.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

  SyIvester, G. O.

  Holmes, Horace

  Mort, D. L.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Moyle, A.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Thornton, E.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Timmons, J.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Tomney, F.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, A. E.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Orbach, M.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Owen, W. J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Padley, W. E.

  Weitzman, D.

  Irving, S. (Dartford)

  Paget, R. T.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Janner, B.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

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

  Pargiter, G. A.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Parker, J.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wigg, George

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Paton, John

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Peart, T. F.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Willey, Frederick

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Popplewell, E.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Probert, A. R.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Kenyon, C.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Randall, H. E.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Rankin, John

  Woof, R. E.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Reeves, J.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Reid, William

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  1296

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Channon, H.

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

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cole, Norman

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Black, C. W.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Body, R. F.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Arbuthnot, John

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Ashton, H.

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

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

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Atkins, H. E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Braine, B. R.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Balniel, Lord

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Barber, Anthony

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Barter, John

  Bryan, P.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

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

  Deedes, W. F.

  Beamish, Tufton

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (SaffronWalden) Campbell, Sir David

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Carr, Robert

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  1297

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Duthie, W. S.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Kaberry, D.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)

  Keegan, D.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kerr, H. W.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Erroll, F. J.

  Kimball, M.

  Redmayne, M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Fell, A.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lambton, Viscount

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Langford-Halt, J. A.

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Fort, R.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Foster, John

  Leburn, W. G.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

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

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Freeth, D. K.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Gammans, Sir David

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

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Russell, R. S.

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Glover, D.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Godber, J. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

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

  Sharples, R. C.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Shepherd, William

  Gower, H. R.

  Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Green, A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Grimond, J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Speir, R. M.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  McAdden, S. J.

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

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mackie,

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Gurden, Harold

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Maclean, Neil (Inverness)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

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

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Teeling, W.

  Hay, John

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marples, A. E.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Mathew, R.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Maude, Angus

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mawby, R. L.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Holt, A. F.

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Vickers, Miss J. H.

  Hope, Lord John

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Vosper, D. F.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Wade, D. W.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Neave, Airey

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Howard, John (Test)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

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

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Osborne, C.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

  Page, R. G.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Partridge, E.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

  Proposed words there added.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the interim statement on economies in public expenditure made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26th June as further proof of the determination of Her Majesty's Government to conquer the dangers of inflation, and pledges its support for all measures designed to maintain our competitive position in the world on which the living standards of our people depend.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Industrial Accident Prevention
  Industrial Accident Prevention
  Engineering Industry (Dilutees)
  Engineering Industry (Dilutees)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
SCOTLAND
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Land, Glasgow (Use)
  Land, Glasgow (Use)
  Glasgow Overspill
  Glasgow Overspill
  Home Accidents
  Home Accidents
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Servants (Salaries and Expenses)
  Civil Servants (Salaries and Expenses)
  Industrial Production (Increase)
  Industrial Production (Increase)
  Pensions (Increase) Act (Civil Servants)
  Pensions (Increase) Act (Civil Servants)
  Lord Mayor's Distress Fund (Government Contribution)
  Lord Mayor's Distress Fund (Government Contribution)
  Malta (Grants)
  Malta (Grants)
HOUSING
  Bungalows (Pensioners)
  Bungalows (Pensioners)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Councillors (Wages Allowance)
  Councillors (Wages Allowance)
  Loans Sanctions, Wales
  Loans Sanctions, Wales
  National Parks (Reduced Expenditure)
  National Parks (Reduced Expenditure)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eviction Order, East Sussex
  Eviction Order, East Sussex
  Marketing Schemes (Report)
  Marketing Schemes (Report)
COAL
  Opencast Mining (Land)
  Opencast Mining (Land)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Administrative Economies
  Administrative Economies
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
TRANSPORT
  Inland Waterways (Report)
  Inland Waterways (Report)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Royal Parks (Litter)
  Royal Parks (Litter)
  Palace of Westminster Staff (Salaries and Expenses)
  Palace of Westminster Staff (Salaries and Expenses)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the 'Woolsack.
Prayers

  AIRFIELD EXTENSIONS AND MAJOR ROADS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government why a section of A.15 has been rebuilt to cross at ground level the new runway extension of Scampton Airfield.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the provision of a temporary road surface over that section of the A.15 affected by the development of Scampton Airfield was carried out at the request of the local authority in order to reduce the interference with road traffic during the construction of the airfield. A permanent diversion for the A.15 is being constructed to the East of the airfield.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions. The first is whether the question of tunnelling under the runways instead of building a diversionary road was considered, and if not, why not? The second is, if it was considered, can the noble Earl tell me whether comparative estimates of cost were obtained—that is to say, for the cost of a tunnel scheme in comparison with the cost of the diversionary roads scheme, taking into account, of course, the cost of requisitioning agricultural land for the diversionary road.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will allow me to answer those supplementary questions—if this is in order—after I have given him the Answer to his second Question.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in nay name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when it is proposed to extend an airfield, consideration can be given, as a matter of principle, to extending it in such a manner as not to require the diversion of a major highway, and whether, in the event of extension in such a manner not being practicable, consideration can be given, as a matter of principle, to the construction of a tunnel to accommodate the major highway to avoid its diversion, with consequent increased use of the country's transport resources resulting from the extra distance involved and loss of agricultaral production caused by the use of land for its construction.]
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, all projects for the extension of runways are carefully examined to see whethet they can be carried out in such a way as to avoid affecting roads. This examination includes the possibility of constructing a tunnel for a road that has to be cut by a runway; but, en grounds of cost as well as the security of the runway, it has so far been found that a diversion is the best means of solving the problem.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for his second reply. May I ask him whether he is in a position to tell us the difference in the cost of the two schemes in the case of Scampton, and whether due consideration was given to the loss of future food production from the agricultural land requisitioned?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the answer is, yes. Tie building of a tunnel was certainly considered. The question came before the local council. The estimated cost of a tunnel is £800,000 as compared with £175,000 for the diversion of the A.15. The approximate acreage to be lost is twenty-three.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl give an assurance to the House that due consideration is given to the necessity of providing adequate transport by road? That is one of the main requirements of this country, and I am not at all satisfied in my own mind—perhaps the noble Earl can satisfy me—that due consideration is given to transport needs as against the convenience of the Air Ministry, or whichever Ministry it is who want the highway diverted for an extension of a

  327
  runway. Who is the final authority to decide what must be at times a delicately poised balance?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that all due consideration is given on these occasions. I think that it is an illustration of the consideration which was given to road users in this case that new taxi tracks were built and the road was then diverted round these taxi tracks while the runway itself was extended at a cost of something over £2,000. The original road was taken across the present runway so as to give as little disturbance as possible to traffic until such time as the new road is completed. In all these cases, meetings are held between the Air Ministry, the local authority and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. It is with the concurrence of all three that the final decisions are reached.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl be kind enough to answer just one more question, if he can? What is the additional length which road traffic has to travel in this particular case which it did not have to travel before the diversion was made.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Half a mile.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the answer he has given also applies to the case of Blackbushe? Road users have been wondering whether considerable danger might not be caused by the fact that A.13 goes straight across a portion of that airfield.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I am afraid I am unable to reply to the noble Earl now, but if he will put down a Question I will gladly give him an Answer.

WAR OFFICE ACQUISITION OF FARM LAND
2.42 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: 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 why it is necessary to acquire the
328
Beaconsfield Drive at Wilton Park instead of the London Road Drive which would avoid damaging the Home Farm by severance and save the nation £2,500 compensation for severance.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for War, decided that it was necessary to acquire the Beaconsfield Drive at Wilton Park mainly because the alternative drive would make the journey to the village three times as long for the Servicemen and their families who are stationed there. The longer route would also mean that women and children would have to walk some distance along a busy main road, and the point at which the London Road Drive meets the London Road is dangerous. Further, the extra cost of necessary road work on the London Road Drive would be considerably greater than the compensation for severance. The Beaconsfield Drive has been in use by the Army for about fifteen years and does not appear to have seriously affected the Home Farm.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but it is obvious that there are factors in this business with which he is not acquainted. I shall be very grateful if he will look at them personally. For example, is he aware that there is a perfectly good footpath from the hutments at Wilton Park to the London-Beaconsfield road which adds no distance whatever to the distance that has to be travelled to get to Beaconsfield village? Has he taken that into account? At a time when enormous pressure is being put on civilians to reduce costs, does he not think it is scandalous that a farm should be cut in half and £2,500 in compensation paid in order that these people may walk along a metalled drive instead of over a perfectly good footpath? I the work is being done for vehicles, it will make little or no difference in going to Beaconsfield or going to London: it is half a mile longer. Can the noble Lord tell the House why the Minister all along has refused an inquiry into this matter, which is of some importance? Does he not think it would be useful to have an inquiry so that all matters may be threshed out in public?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I ask whether

329
he does not agree that the exit of the proposed Beaconsfield Road drive is much safer from the point of view of people emerging from Wilton Park than any other exit on the main road would be?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, in reply to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, may I say that I think he is referring to a right of way which goes along the Beaconsfield Road drive. If he wants that kept in operation as well as the new drive—that is, the London Road drive, then he is asking for two drives to be kept open. The Beaconsfield Road drive which has this right of way would be open to vehicles under the Government's proposed plan. The noble Lord is not quite right as to the cost of this proposal. In fact, the Government's proposed plan is cheaper than the noble Lord's alternative proposal. In either case the drive would need to be repaired and brought up to standard. The Government's proposed plan would cost £4,000 less than the noble Lord's plan, but against that must he put the £2,500 which must be paid in compensation to the owner of the farm. Therefore, the net difference is that the Government's proposed plan would be£1.500 cheaper than the noble Lord's plan.
As to an inquiry, the powers of the War Office of compulsory acquisition derive basically from the defence Acts, under which the service of a notice to treat is normal procedure if acquisition by agreement is not possible. This procedure does not provide for holding a public inquiry into the requirement to take over land, but, since 1947, when the White Paper entitled The Needs of the Armed Forces for Land for Training and other Pvrposes was published, special extra-statutory inquiries into the requirement of land for Service requirements came into force. These include a provision for a public local inquiry into cases where there are substantial objections on the ground of public interest, but—and I would ask the noble Lord to bear this specially in mind—such extra-statutory public beat inquiries are not empowered to consider objections from individuals on private grounds, and that applies in this case. In regard to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I said in my original answer that one of the advantages of the Beaconsfield Road drive is that it is much
330
safer than the other drive, which comes out on the main road.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that long answer. Surely he would agree with me that the severance of a valuable farm and payment of compensation up to £2,500 or £3,000 is a matter of public interest and not just a private interest and ought to come within the rule of matters of public interest allowed to he inquired into at art extra-statutory public inquiry?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I am advised gnat this is a question of private interest and I am afraid that at the moment I cannot inform the noble Lord further on this particular point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.50 p.m.
TETE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALIS-BURY): My Lords, before we proceed to the Business of the day perhaps I may say a word about our progress, or what I hope will be our progress, on the Road Traffic Bill. I am afraid that it was necessary to keep your Lordships sitting very late last night, and I am extremely grateful to those who took part in the debate; but we hope that it may not be necessary to do that again. The proposal which I have to put forward, which I understand will be acceptable to all concerned, is that we should sit until seven o'clock this evening, when the debate will be adjourned, and sit again to-morrow until seven o'clock, by which time we hope that the whole of the Committee stage will have been completed. I see no reason why that should not be done. In the unhappy event of our not having finished by seven o'clock to-morrow evening, we may have to sit later; but do no; let us anticipate that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House for that statement. Unfortunately, I was prevented at the last moment from being here yesterday, bat I am grateful to my colleagues on I his side of the House, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for keeping the debate going. I think what the noble Marquess suggests is a good plan, and perhaps we should mark a stage in

331
the remaining Amendments which we ought to reach tonight. We do not want to have to sit very late to-morrow night.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support the proposal that has been made, and I suggest that if by seven o'clock we are getting near to the end of the Committee stage we might well take that time rather elastically.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I suggest that we should not regard seven o'clock to-day as elastic, but seven o'clock to-morrow evening may have to be elastic.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YAR-MOUTH PORT AND HAVEN) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH PORT AND HARBOUR) BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

SUGAR BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who is unavoidably absent on official duties, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.,—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL now HOTEL PROPRIETORS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 15:
Provision of parking places where charges made
15.—(l) The Minister may by order made on the application of the local authority in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act designate parking places on highways in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London for vehicles or vehicles of any class or description specified in the order, and the local authority may make charges for vehicles left in the parking places of such amount as is hereinafter specified.
(2) The matters to which the Minister shall have regard in determining what parking places are to be designated under this section shall include—

(a) the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic, and

(b) the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises, and

(c) the extent to which parking accommodation (whether open or covered) otherwise than on highways is available in the neighbourhood or the provision thereof is likely to he encouraged there by the designation of parking places under this section.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): The first Amendment in my name to-day is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("the parking places") and insert ("any parking place so designated").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that a parking place shall not be designated under this section unless the Minister is satisfied that there is available for long term parking within a maximum disance of a quarter of a mile adequate parking accommodation (whether open or covered but rot of a temporary nature) otherwise than on highways."
The noble Lord said: This clause and the following three clauses cover the
334
vexed question of parking and parking places, and their regulation. I think your Lordships, whether you agree with the method adopted by the Government on parking meters or not, will agree with me on two propositions. The first is that something must be done to relieve the congestion, not only in London but in other large cities and towns in this country, caused by people who leave cars on the street for a long time. The second, I think, naturally follows: that it is no good, either by parking meters or in any other way, moving these cars out of those streets where they are causing congestion into other streets to cause the same kind of congestion a little way off. In other words, it is no good moving those cars unless there is somewhere to which to move them. That is where I feel the proposals of the Government fail, and in this Amendment I have sought to rectify that position.
The attitude of the Government towards this problem reminds me of a story I was told of a small boy, an apprentice in an engineering shop, who was told by the foreman to sweep the shop. He swept the shop up with great diligence, and he had a huge pile of muck. Then he went to the foreman to ask what he should do with it. 'The foreman said, "You had better sweep it about until you lose it." That is precisely what the Government are doing. As we argued when the earlier Bill was before your Lordships, what is the good of putting parking meters in any area? The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has told your Lordships that the reason why the Government desire to put parking meters in an area is not for the sordid purpose of collecting money—far be it for the Government to want to take any more money out of the pockets of the motorists!—but to push the parker somewhere else. I said that the measure of the success of the Government's scheme for relieving congestion by the method of parking meters will be the extent to which they are used. If all the parking meter areas are entirely devoid of motor cars, then the scheme will be a huge success. The streets will then have been cleared of the motor cars. But where to?
In subsection (2) of this clause, which I seek: to amend, a pious hope is expressed in paragraph (c). Subsection (2) says:
"The matters to which the Minister shall have regard in determining what parking

335
places are to be designated under this section shall include …
(c) the extent to which parking accommodation (whether open or covered) otherwise than on highways is available in the neighbourhood or the provision thereof is likely to be encouraged there by the designation of parking places tinder this section."
Piety is a wonderful thing, but I have never heard so much piety expressed in a few words as in the last lines of paragraph (c).
The Minister is going away from all the expert advice he has received. He has the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to whom he posed the problem. A Working Party was set up especially to report on parking places and the whole problem of parking. I have the Reports here. Both these bodies dealt with the problem, and their unanimous recommendation was that it was useless to proceed with any scheme of parking meters, or the restriction of parking, until off-street parking was provided for the vehicles that were to be turned off the road. The Government have ignored that recommendation. They have ignored the advice given them by the experts. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee is, I suppose, composed of experts—at least, it has been there to advise successive Ministers of Transport. A special subcommittee was set up to deal with this problem, and said, as I say, that it will not be solved by these methods; you are only going to "sweep it about until you lose it." You will sweep the rubbish out of some of the streets of London and put it in other streets outside your experimental area.
I believe that this is the whole crux of the matter of parking meters, and I confess that I do not think the Government have thought out this problem. I do not think the Government have thought out any problem on this Bill. I think this Bill creates a record. This is the fourth House of Parliament before which this Bill has come. It was before your Lordships' House in another guise in 1954–55. It went to the Commons: it was then reintroduced into the Commons and now comes again to your Lordships' House. On the fourth Committee stage of this Bill we have "miles" of Government Amendments, trying to prop up the most rickety structure that I have ever seen put before
336
your Lordships' House. This is a fair sample of it, as Clause 1 was a fair sample in dealing with the examination of vehicles. I have put down this Amendment to try to help the Government solve their problem. I realise that there is a problem to be solved. We cannot continue in London, or in any of the big towns—or, for that matter, in the small towns—with congestion through people parking cars on highways which should be left open for the free flow of traffic.
I would ask your Lordships to couple this Amendment with Amendment No. 37, because they both hang together. By the first Amendment I seek to add the words:
"Provided that a parking place shall not be designated under this section unless the Minister is satisfied that there is available for long term parking within a maximum distance of a quarter of a mile"—
I am not tied to that distance, but a quarter of a mile was the specific figure which was put in the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee—
"adequate parking accommodation (whether open or covered but not of a temporary nature) otherwise than on highways."
I say that that is a prerequisite to the success of any parking scheme in any town, whether in London or anywhere else. It is no good moving cars out of streets until you have somewhere off the streets to move them to. With those words, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.7 p.m.
EARL HOWE: The question of parking in London streets has been underlined by this Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Are we really in earnest about stopping parking in London streets? If we are, does anyone in your Lordships' House think that the mere institution of parking meters is going to do anything at all to help? I submit to your Lordships that where these approved parking places exist it will simply give official permission to parkers to remain there on payment of a certain charge. But they will still be there; and if their presence is an obstruction to traffic, it will still be an obstruction, whether there is a parking meter there or not. It seems to me the most extraordinary idea.

337
Two of the most representative and influential Committees were set up, one a Working Party specially to consider the problem of London traffic, and the other the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. Those Committees included among their members everybody who had anything to contribute on the question of London traffic—experts of every description, the police, the county council, the local authorities and every sort of organisation who knew anything about London traffic at all. They said just one thing, and that is exactly what the noble Lord who has just addressed us said: Have an experimental area for parking meters, if you like, but before you do so you must have off-street parking accommodation available. Simply nothing has been done about that. Nothing is even contemplated.
The trouble, as we all know, is mainly concentrated in the central area, where site values make it impossible for any new scheme to be started unless the Government are prepared to pay large sums of money for them. It is quite impossible to expect that any of these schemes will come to fruition. If they do not, the problem will remain the same. What are we going to do? In the parking problem of London there are upwards or' 100,000 commuters—the number may be more now. My figure is a conservative figure, based on an official figure about three years old; and with due allowance made for the general increase in traffic since then, there are about 100,000 commuters who rush up to London and near London to leave their machinery about in the streets anywhere and then go away again. If any of your Lordships doubts this, he can go to any main road leading in or out of London and see tie problem. These people have to get rear to their businesses, and they find that this is the most convenient way of doing it.
We are really within measurable distance of having London traffic coming to a full stop. I submit to your Lordships that we cannot possibly allow the present situation to continue. My further submission is that the Government are trying to tackle the problem at the wrong end. There is the boy the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke about. Whether or not it was he in the shop I do not know but, if it was he, what is he going to do to remedy this? I submit that there is only one way we can do it.
338
It is not a comfortable, nice or easy way. It is certainly not going to be popular, but I believe it to be the only way. We have to stop the commuters coming into the central area. I have already produced a scheme several times and have spoken about it here, and on the further stages of this Bill I may put down an Amendment so that this point may he definitely considered and debated. But I suggest to your Lordships that the only way in which we, can do anything about it is to see that anybody who wants to come into the central area of London, be it the City of Westminster or the City of London, must have secured from the police a pass which he can put on his windscreen to enable him to do so.
It would not be necessary, in order to get that pass, for the motorist to pay for it, so it will not be a further expense—it is something gained anyway. But having the pass on his windscreen would entitle him to go into the central area. In order to get that pass, I suggest he would have to satisfy the police that he has in the central area off-street parking accommodation, either of his own or available to hint, to which he can go. There are buildings going up in the City and else where there will be garage accommodation in the basements. There are very few garages in the central area, but. other than that, a motorist who was unable to get this pass from the police would have to stay outside the central area and make use, of public transport or whatever other means were available to get to his destination. It is not a good suggestion. I do not like it—in fact, I hate it. But I do not know of a better one. If I could only think of one I would "go for" it. But, in my opinion, unless we do something of that sort we shall find ourselves in a much worse position—and the Government are going in for this expensive show.
This question of parking meters is a sort of "half-baked" scheme which has come to us from America and has been adopted by the Ministry of Transport as a sort of excuse for doing nothing. Let us take the parking meter. Unless the car is parked at an angle to the kerb, the parking meter will make the parking problem worse. You will have to allow the same space for a motor-cycle as for the largest type of modern car. Then again, who is going to supervise the parking meters? Who is going to supervise them at night,

339
when there is nobody about? Is that another burden to be thrown on the overworked police? Do not forget that in New York over 300 of these parking meters were raided in one month. Therefore, it is not just fancy: these things can happen.
There are many other things that I could say about this proposal, but I will put them all away until a later stage of the Bill; but say them I will, if it is the last thing I ever do. Before your Lordships are carried away by enthusiasm for a "half-baked" scheme that has come to us from America and is not really at all applicable to British towns—and I doubt whether it is even applicable to British methods because it means employing people, not policemen, who will go round and report motorists for having overstayed their welcome at one particular place—and before your Lordships give approval to this scheme, I beg you to consider the Report of the Working Party on London Traffic and also the Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. If your Lordships will only go that far, I am sure there will be grave doubts in your minds with regard to the efficiency or desirability of this proposal. I beg to support the noble Lord in his Amendment.
3.15 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment which as has been pointed out by two noble Lords, is really bringing the matter again to the Report of the Working Party. I certainly cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there should be restrictions on cars entering London. That would be a most retrograde step. I understand that the Government's view on this matter—I may be wrong—is that neither private enterprise nor local authorities would build car parks unless parking meters were installed. This may or may not induce the car owner to make use of them—we shall see; but there is something in this point of view. I have never been in favour of parking meters, but I am quite willing that an experiment should be carried out. I feel, however, that this Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment, because I can hardly conceive any parking area which would be within a quarter of a mile of a permanent parking area.
340
On a small point, I should like to take this opportunity of suggesting to Her Majesty's Government that great care should be taken to see that parking meters are installed with due regard to the various amenities in the areas concerned, because these meters will be most unsightly and might well have the effect of ruining some of our attractive Squares and areas in London.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the first Amendment on this rather big question of parking meters. Perhaps, in view of the fairly wide spread of the discussion. I could make some general remarks as to what our views are on it. First of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said, this is just an experiment. I am not going to stand here and offer it as a solution to our problems, but I say that we should be very foolish not to try it. That is all we are asking at the present time. We do hot in any way underestimate the difficulty of the problem of putting this into force.
I should like to add this further comment. I hope that your Lordships will look at the Third Schedule, which describes in some detail the elaborate procedure which has to be gone through before any parking meter can be installed. I have no doubt that on other Amendments we shall refer to it again. I think it should be quite clear that the proposal must come, first of all, from the local authority. They must consult the police; they must advertise; they must bring it specifically to the attention of occupiers. The Minister can then take further steps to make it known to everyone. In London it will be referred to the London Traffic Advisory Committee and even then, whether in London or elsewhere, after objections of course, it may end up in public inquiry. When all that has been done, an order will be placed before the House which, of course, the House will be in a position to negative. I emphasise that the procedure is pretty elaborate. I think the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be closely examined before anything is done.
Whilst I agree very much with the first statement of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that something has to be done, he then went on to say that all we were doing was pushing the cars about from one street to another. That is not the problem. He knows very well that

341
the real problem is the problem of the long parker. It is not a question of pushing him from one street to another; it is a question of dissuading him from coming into the centre of London and leaving his car all day. I should like to quote the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in this respect. He said:
"… that to make it possible for everyone who comes into London to work to travel in his own car in the morning and to return in the evening is something which we can never attain."
If that is the meaning of the word "adequate," clearly it is nonsense.
I must emphasise that, while the noble Lord brings out the importance of off-street parking, as at present drafted this Amendment is clearly wrecking— think the noble Lord is aware of that. I regret that the noble Lord did not bring cut the fact that we had linked the whole of this proposal closely with the provision of off-street parking. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 19 which deals with the proceeds of parking meters. We think that we have drawn this clause pretty tightly, and if any noble Lord can show me how the local authority can dispose of their funds otherwise than in maintaining and providing parking meters or providing for off-street parking, I shall be interested to know. It means that all the proceeds of parking meters are quite certain to be dedicated to the provision of off-street parking, which I agree with the noble Lord, is absolutely integrated with the success of the parking meter scheme, if it is going to succeed at all.
The noble Lord has emphasised this point, and I hope that I have gone at least some way to show that I realise the force of his argument and that he is absolutely right in saying that or-street parking must be provided; in so far as it is not provided there is little hope of parking meters being of any benefit. That is the point upon which I am entirely at one with the noble Lord. It is a question, as I have said before, of the chicken and the egg—you must have one first—and we hope, to some extent, that the two will proceed together. That the intention of the Bill and I see no reason why they should not. I do not put this forward as a big solution, but I think it is well worth trying to see how far we can get before we go into the licensing
342
system of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has spoken. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Before the noble Lord disposes completely of this Amendment may I say that the noble Earl is no doubt aware of paragraph 96 (page 16) of the Report of his Working Party on London Traffic. In case he has not got the reference, I will read it to the Committee.
"There is, therefore, in principle a good case for carrying out the experimental installation of parking meters recommended in the Congestion Report, once the, necessary off-street parking accommodation has been provided. We wish to emphasise that parking meters on their own will not make any useful contribution towards solving the parking problem and relieving congestion."
Then, again, paragraph [10 (page 17) says:
"Parking meters in the first stage of the parking plan may be the subject of the experiment which is recommended in the Congestion Report and should take place as soon as off-street parking accommodation has been provided."
Your most influential committee has told you in each case that you must have off-street parking accommodation first. I submit that the noble. Earl has almost brushed that aside in -his reply. I know that many of us feel that the noble Earl should give an explanation why he is disregarding the Report of his own Working Party.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I assume—at least, I hope—that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is going to withdraw it. I do so not because I think he is necessarily trying to wreck the Bill; on the contrary, I think he has given a remarkable example of a one-man fight in this Committee. He has moved Amendments one after the other to every clause and shown the most exemplary knowledge and endurance. I should like to congratulate him on what he has done, quite irrespective of the ideas which he has put forward. But the actual Amendment which he proposes does not seem a very good alternative, because he wants the Minister to desist from appointing parking places unless he is satisfied that adequate parking accommodation exists within a quarter of a mile of the place that he is going to appoint. I do not know what "adequate" parking accommodation is, and I do not suppose that

343
he himself knows. It begs the whole question.
We are here, throughout this Bill, dealing with art almost insoluble problem, and I think the best that can be said of the Bill is that it makes a contribution to solving some of the difficulties, more or less in an experimental way; it does not pronounce the last word. The tests for vehicles were an important contribution, and I think that this proposal is a small contribution. But it is not solely concerned with the provision of parking meters: it is concerned with the provision of parking places. We shall tell by experience whether or not the parking meters serve their purpose; but somehow or another we must provide parking places, whether on the roads or off, and I believe that a much greater effort should be made to provide them off the road. I think we have reached the height of impotence when we have to consider a suggestion such as that made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who wants to institute a system of passes and privileges before people can use their own motor cars in London. That is reaching absolute negation and will do a great injury to amenity and to manufacture.
What I think we have to do is to face the problem of providing garages either below or above the ground, and it would be much cheaper to provide these garages than to let our streets become congested, as they are. A valuable highway with a costly surfacing and foundation is used for nothing more nor less than leaving cars upon it all day long. That is a most uneconomic use of the nation's money, whether it is considered as private or public money, that can be devised, and if the streets could be cleared we should save effort and money. Therefore think that the ultimate solution must be the provision of these garages above and below ground, whether by State money or by some other money.
In the meanwhile, I think the clause takes us one step further in endeavouring to regulate this matter. But regulated it must be, and I hope that the last proposal ever to be considered by the Government will be to put a restriction upon the use of private motor cars on the public roads: they are there for that purpose. I hope, still more, that if such regulations were to be made there would
344
not be exemptions in favour of very important persons. It would be a most invidious scheme and one difficult to administer. I therefore hope that the result of the debate on this clause will not be to give currency to that idea, but will be to give currency to the far more constructive idea of providing garages, whether by public money or otherwise; because until we provide these garages there is no solution of the problem and none of us will be able to move upon the highway.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for his statement that he did not believe this to be a wrecking Amendment. That was not in the least my intention; but, as the noble Earl has said, the Amendment does face the stark realities. At last the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and I find ourselves riding in the same motor car. The noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, has pinpointed again what I am trying to do here. He has said that the only solution is to find off-street parking, whether above the ground or under the ground. What I am afraid of is that the scheme expounded by the Government in this Bill will delay that solution rather than hasten it. However, we shall see.
I am not going to press this Amendment. What I am going to do is to ask the noble Earl whether he will consider again reviewing the proposals that were very much to the fore when I was in the Ministry of Transport. I have brought all the way from America a little present for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk: it is information on how they do it. I am going to ask him if he will accept this present. There is an underground garage in Union Square, San Francisco, which holds 1.700 motor cars on the most up-to-date plan. It was built by private enterprise in face of all the difficulties of engineering that had to be overcome. There is a beautiful garden over it, and it has beautified the square. Yet the charge for the motorist, even in the heart of San Francisco, is less than the noble Earl's colleague in another place wants to charge the motorists of this country for standing their car alongside a parking meter. I am told by the proprietors of public companies that it is a money-making proposition. That is where you want to drive the motor cars to: private enterprise garages—I know

345
the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, will agree with me there—or any garages, rather than leave the cars on the road.
I withdraw this Amendment. I have pinpointed the matter. I have warned. And I am sure I have all your Lordships' support in saying that this scheme of parking meters will do what it has done in America. When I was in America I asked everybody I could whether the parking meter system solved the parking problem. They all laughed and said it collects a lot of money: and that is what this will do. With your Lordships' permission I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "to" to insert "and the amenities of". The noble Lord said: In the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I ventured to draw attention to some of the further provisions which I thought would be required if the interests of the public were to be adequately safeguarded in the carrying out of this new experiment. I have here a series of Amendments, of which I am moving the first, to add some further matters to which the Minister shall have regard is determining what parking places are to be designated.
In the clause as it stands, there are only three matters to which his attention is directed. They have regard to the needs of traffic and to the requirements of motorists. The only allusion to the requirements of the owners or occupiers of the streets which may be involved is in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), in these words:
"the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises."
We all agree that that is very necessary. Speaking in the Second Reading debate, I ventured to point out that I was a little worried about what the Minister might have in mind in drafting these words when I looked at the terms of reference for a new parking survey which he recently set up, when he said:
"The overriding need for a coherert parking plan may well involve some degree of interference with existing doctrines in regard to access."
Those words, I think, are sufficiently alarming to make us wish to know what it is the Minister has in mind and what interference with existing doctrines he is
346
contemplating. But, however that may be, it is very necessary to add to the matters to which his attention is drawn before he designates these places. My first Amendment is to add the words, "and the amenities of" in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), which will then read:
"the need for maintaining reasonable access to and the amenities of premises."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, after ("to") insert ("and the amenities of").—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment help us by coupling with it Amendments Numbers 38 and 39? Would he agree that they all hang together?
LORD CONESFORD: I agree very much with the noble Lord. I think it is necessary to carry all three in order to make this clause at all complete, but I thought it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee that I should deal with them separately. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee and the Lord Chairman. I am prepared to take them together. I wondered which would be more convenient to the Committee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It would save some of us from making three speeches.
LORD CONESFORD: If it is to the convenience of the Committee I am most happy to adopt the suggestion. I proceed at once to my Amendment No. 38, which I venture to read. It is to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) the extent to which the business, trade or profession carried on in premises abutting on, or adjacent to, the part of the highway proposed to be designated as a parking place will be injuriously affected or interfered with by the use of that part as a parking place, having regard to the nature of the business, trade or profession."
Whatever the conclusion the Minister may reach, I think noble Lords in every quarter of the Committee will agree that at any rate that is a matter which the Minister should consider. There are very important business, trade and professional interests in Central London and in the areas which will be affected, and it is essential that the needs of the business and professional community shall be considered. I think that is so obvious that I can scarcely believe it will be disputed.

347
My noble friend may well say that the Minister would not dream of putting these parking meters in, shall we say, Harley Street or Wimpole Street; but there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which would make that impossible. In any event, I submit to your Lordships that this is an eminently proper matter to which the Minister should have regard.
The third Amendment that I am proposing is No. 39 on the Marshalled List and it is to add the following paragraph:
"(d) the extent to which the value of premises adjacent to the part of the highway proposed to be designated as a parking place will be depreciated by the use of that part as a parking place."
I think it is quite right that the Minister should, in determining these areas, have regard to any depreciation of property which it will cause. I am well aware that, if all my Amendments are adopted, it will not guarantee that the result which we seek will be achieved. It will still depend entirely on the bona fides of the Minister in considering all these matters. But in general in this country we can rely on the bona fides of Ministers if we tell them what matters they shall have regard to. I therefore suggest these additions to the three points already mentioned in the clause. To add "amenities" in paragraph (b), which of course applies to all business premises, professional premises and private residences; to add the needs of the business, professional and trade communities by Amendment 38; and the provision for the Minister to consider in every case the depreciation to the value of property which may be involved in his proposals, are all reasonable proposals.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord because I think he has put his case very concisely and I do not think we need spend a lot of time upon this matter. I feel certain that the Minister is going to say that it will be among the matters to be dealt with in regulations which will be brought before your Lordships' House. There is undoubtedly much difficulty in this connection. The Minister will not be able to allow any parking of motor cars outside any business premises. What happens to-day is that one finds a line of cars down certain streets; then along comes a van belonging to a shop in that street and stops right in the
348
middle of the street to unload or load. There is a line of cars on each side of the street, and as a result the street is completely shut to traffic. Your Lordships can see that sort of thing in St. James's Street any day. Cars are allowed to park in these streets although those cars have no connection whatever with the premises outside which they stand. So the Government will not really be able to improve the situation with parking meters, because the use of meters will only have the result of doing what cars are doing to-day: that is, blocking access to and egress from the premises.
Of course the Government should prohibit free parking during certain hours in these main streets. In that case delivery vans would simply go along them. What it would mean is not parking meters in Bond Street or St. James's or Oxford Street, but complete prohibition of parking. Are you going to allow a man to stand his car outside a club or a shop in St. James's Street and charge him for parking in Berkeley Square? The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has hit upon one of the incongruities of the parking meters scheme. There is only one way of dealing with this problem and I hope that the noble Earl will see it. When parking meters are installed in certain areas, then in adjacent areas which are shopping streets or where there is private property there will have to be total prohibition against the leaving of any vehicle which has not some direct connection with the premises outside which it stands.
I hope that the noble Earl will give the assurances which Lord Conesford wants, because they are essential. We shall have to watch when regulations regarding these parking places are put before your Lordships' House. I have warned the noble Earl already; I have issued many warnings to him. He thinks that he has jumped over some hurdles in the Committee stage of this Bill, but he does not know what is corning to him when the regulations come up for consideration. If he can find a way round some of the problems which Lord Conesford has posed, he is a better man than I think exists in this country to-day.
LORD DERWENT: May I add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has just said on this particular question of the regulations

349
which will come before us? I think it is most important that these Amendments of Lord Conesford should be passed. We want to be in a position to say, if we think fit, to the Minister of the day: "You were told to take these matters into account and lay regulations before the House." I think it is vital that these Amendments should be passed. I hope that the noble Lord will press them very strongly if the noble Earl does not accept them.
LORD SILKIN: I find some difficulty about the cumulative effect of these three Amendments. I do not accuse the noble Lord of having moved these Amendments because he does not like parking meters, but in fact it strikes me that if the Minister had to take account not only of the things in the clause but of all these additional factors, and had to take account of them seriously, it would, as a result, be very difficult for him to find any place in the centre of London which he could designate. Of course, if the noble Lord wants to make life difficult for the Minister, perhaps I am with him and I might say: "Let us do it"; but, being a supporter of the experiment of parking meters, I think we ought to draw the line at making so many conditions as virtually to rule out everything.
There is another point. If you take this Amendment literally and have to take account of the depreciation of the value of a person's property, are you not to give him a right to make representations? If a person alleges that by reason of the designation of a particular place as a parking place his property has been depreciated, he must have a right to establish his case. There has to be set up the whole paraphernalia of a public inquiry or some method by which he can state that his property has been depreciated; otherwise how is the Minister to know? He can know only as the result of representations made. The same point applies to the question of amenity. Is the Minister himself to go along and see whether it can be suggested that the amenity is likely to be interfered with, and to decide it for himself; or is he to wait until representations are made by the owners or by outside people? All these are factors which will—whether the noble Lord desires it or not—rule out the possibility of making what I regard as a very valuable experiment.
LORD CONESFORD: May I say this to the noble Lord who has just spoken? There are provisions in the Third Schedule for nicking representations and, I think, for proper inquiries. As Lord Derwent has pointed out, unless some indication is given in this clause as to what the Minister shall have regard to, no guidance is given to him on what representations to note. The suggestion in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat clown seems to be that the Minister should be entitled to disregard entirely all that I have set out in these Amendments—namely, the interests of the business community, interference with professional life and the depreciation of property. If these are not relevant matters for the Minister to consider then I think this experiment—which I also support as an experiment—will be far more dangerous than it need be.
LORD ELTON: The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Conesford and particularly the remarks about it just made by Lord Silkin seem to me to illustrate a fundamental moral problem which is continually facing us in these discussions of transport problems and which it is very easy to forget. The state of the roads presents us with such formidable problems that, in grappling with them, before we know where we are we find ourselves thinking of every citizen as a user of transport, and we forget that citizens have many other even more important activities. Some of us feel—for example, I think that many of your Lordships were feeling yesterday evening—that it might happen that when motor cycles indulge in scrambles over footpaths the rights of pedestrians or country lovers would be unduly invaded.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is reminding us, in effect, that in grappling with the transport problem we are forgetting that citizens are also property owners and, I would add, what is more important, dwellers in houses, because your Lordships are thinking in terms of London. I am thinking more of a provincial city, not of a place where you designate some parking area and everybody streams out into the country at six o'clock. Think, for example, of Oxford. Many of your Lordships were educated there and you may remember John Street, which leads out of Beaumont Street. That is not designated as a parking street, but it is used as a parking

351
place constantly. No doubt under this Bill it will be designated as such. It is not so much an invasion of the rights of property owners as an intolerable invasion in some respects of the amenities of the dwellers, because of the theatregoers who come into that street at eleven o'clock, "rev up" their engines and rush off, waking perhaps 90 per cent. of the occupants of the street. That is the sort of problem we are up against. It seems to me that it is so easy to forget that we are constantly invading the rights of the citizens to carry on activities even more important than that of getting from one place to another. So I hope that the Minister will be able to give attention to my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I do not know much about these things, and I should like to ask the Minister for information. Is there not a problem of access here? Is not a property owner entitled to get to his house or place of business; and, if he is, what is he to do if he finds a parking meter outside and a car standing by it, legalised under this Bill?
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has raised a number of important issues under this head which will certainly arise in the course of preparing a scheme. The only question which I think we need to ask ourselves is: what is the best way of dealing with it? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of access. Of course, it is fundamental in all parking meter schemes that there must be reasonable assurance of access to premises. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 15 (2) (b), he will see that emphasis is placed on this point. One thing runs through all that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said—that the Minister will consider nothing at all except what appears under these heads of free movement, access and parking accommodation. The whole object of parking meters, if they are to be successful, is to improve traffic regulation, to improve the flow of traffic and to raise the value of business premises. They are intended to enable people to get to work more easily and to make better use of our roads. I am told that in some parts of London shops are already going to the outskirts because
352
people cannot get access to them. The improvement of access is germane to the whole proposal, and if the scheme does not achieve that object it will not be worth doing at all.
On the second Amendment the noble Lord said that it was so obvious that it could not be disputed. If the words are so obvious that they cannot be disputed, I think that they are hardly worth while putting into the Bill. If I thought that the insertion of the word "amenity" into the Bill would do something to improve amenity in our great cities, I should be only too delighted to do so, but I wonder whether, in these circumstances, amenity has quite the force it has in other circumstances. After all, almost all the places where parking meters will be installed will be places where cars already park to-day. That means to say that they will be places where parking meters will be entirely covered by the cars, except possibly on Sundays and in the evenings. It is a matter to which the Minister has already drawn attention.
EARL HOWE: Could the noble Earl explain this point? If parking meters are to be put where parking places are now, how will it improve the position in London?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am afraid that that is a red herring.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A very good one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is not a good one. The difference lies, first of all, in maintaining the flow of traffic. Instead of having a car sitting there the whole day, it will go there, take its place, so that the motorist can do his business, and go out again. Undoubtedy the success of the scheme depends on a much more rigid enforcement of the parking regulations outside parking meter areas. That is germane to the whole scheme. If there is a parking meter in one place, clearly the idea will be to keep the area outside it entirely free and without parking meters there; and in the immediate areas outside the parking meter areas, the parking regulations must be fully enforced. I think that that meets the point the noble Earl has in mind.
If I may return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I wonder whether it is of such importance as to be

353
worth emphasising amenity here. The noble Lord is aware of the considerations which have to be taken under the Third Schedule. Everybody interested is going to have a thorough examination of the proposals which come forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has properly said, if we make things more difficult, it will make it impossible even to try this experiment. The third point the noble Lord raised was that of compensation for lost values. It would be an interesting task for a clever valuer to find whether the value of property rights have fallen or risen as the result of a parking meter scheme. Where it rises, there may well be a further question of planning and development charge. This is a difficult question to take into consideration, except in so far as it is the intention of the Bill to improve the whole business areas of our cities. If it does not do that, it is clearly not in the interests of business to do it. I have tried to answer the noble Lord's questions, but I think that his points are probably not best brought out by drawing them to the attention of the Minister at this place.
LORD CONESFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I still press my Amendments to his attention, for this reason. I am well aware that what this clause says is that
"the matters to which the Minister shall have regard … shall include,"
and therefore the noble Earl is quite right in saying that the list is not necessarily exhaustive. But I know that he will realise—and if he does not his noble and learned friend on his right will point it out—the legal principle that if three specific considerations are named there is a danger of its being thought that a number of other things which are not mentioned are impliedly excluded.
I cannot think of a better example of the importance of the addition of the word "amenity" than that given by my noble friend Lord Elton. Take a beautiful street in what is, architecturally, the best part of Oxford. It is true, as my noble friend said in his reply, that if parking meters are put in that street it will be in a street which is at present being used for parking. But it is at present being used for parking only so long as the police do not remove the obstruction. There is always the hope among the inhabitants that one day the police might enforce the
354
law. But, if parking meters are to be in the street, then parking becomes legitimate and the amenities of that street are gone beyond recall. I have not gone so far as to try to limit the Minister as to what his conclusions must be on this matter, when he has taken these matters into consideration. I wonder whether the noble Earl who replied for the Government realises what a dangerous dilemma he is in and even his contradiction. He uttered these two propositions: first, that my Amendments were unnecessary—which seemed to imply that the Minister would have regard to these matters even if we did not put them in the Bill; and secondly, that, if they were put in the Bill, it would make the Minister's task impossible. Which does the noble Earl mean?—because these two arguments do not go very well in double harness.
As regards my second Amendment, about the interests of the professional and business community, I quite agree with the noble Earl that traffic movement may sometimes help them. But these parking meters, if erected in the wrong place, may actually injure them. Again, all I am asking is that the Minister shall take these matters into consideration. On my last point, about the depreciation of property, I am not seeking to give any remedy for depreciation of property if the properly is depreciated; but that make; it all the more important that the Minister should consider whether, in fact, property is being depreciated when there will be no remedy for such depreciation, if is suffered.
For those reasons, I suggest seriously to the Committee that all these Amendments have merit. They have been carefully considered, and they are not put down as wrecking Amendments. My noble friend, in replying for the Government, although he has disputed the necessity for the Amendments, has not, so far as I can see, given a single reason why their inclusion would be harmful, and I hope that, on reconsideration, he will agree to accept the Amendments.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord accept an offer to discuss the matter between now and the Report stage? I would rather not accept one of the Amendments, and perhaps not the others. What I should like to do is to look through these three Amendments to see whether we can and something to meet the noble Lord's point. I do

355
not think it is as easy as he suggests, but none the less I shall be glad to try and meet him if I can.
LORD CONESFORD: My noble friend has made a most reasonable proposal, and I am happy to accept it. I hope that we shall come to an agreement, but if we cannot, I shall again bring the matter before the House on the Report stage. As I say, I am happy to accept the suggestion, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE: This Amendment raises the same point that I raised yesterday in relation to an Affirmative Resolution as against a Negative Resolution. I do not think there is any more to be said about the Amendment, and I shall not press it if the Committee do not wish to adopt it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 26, at end insert ("An order under this subsection shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Could we have from the noble Earl the same undertaking on this that we had on the other? The same point arises, and I feel that it should be an Affirmative Resolution.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is not quite the same, but I will gladly discuss the point. There are many more of these cases, and I should feel less willing to have an Affirmative Resolution where there are a large number of them. However, we can discuss the matter further.
EARL HOWE: As I said, I do not wish to press this Amendment, and I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.6 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to add to the clause:
"(9) An order made under this section shall be construed as authorising only the use in accordance with the provisions of the order of a highway as a parking place for vehicles and nothing in any such order or in any of the four next following sections shall be construed as authorising the disregard by any person of any other enactment or of any rule of law which is not inconsistent with such use."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent an order under the clause leading to the disregard of all sorts of other rights. To give what may seem a rather fanciful example, a large number of cars may be parked in the parking place, and those inside the cars may arm themselves with musical instruments and start up as a band, to the inconvenience of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. That is perhaps an unlikely example, but there might be an attempt to trade from these parking places. There are all sorts of possibilities that I do not think we want to deal with by specific prohibitions. What we wish to ensure is that the effect of the Minister's action in choosing one of these places is to provide a place where parking meters can be used, but not to authorise the disregard of various other enactments or rules of law; and, in particular, that apart from what is involved in having this lawful parking place, the inhabitants should have their remedies under the law of nuisance, and so forth.
The Government may say that I have not got the wording of this new subsection quite right, or in the best form. It is roughly modelled on a precedent in Section 1 (9) of the Gas Act, 1948. The Government themselves have, on various occasions, provided that, while some invasion of rights is inevitably involved in achieving the object of the clause—in this case the making of the parking place—there should be some safeguard against granting a general licence to disregard other enactments and rules of law. I think that something on these lines is clearly desirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining what his Amendment is intended to achieve, because I confess that it was not entirely clear to me in the first place. So far as the special examples which he gives are concerned, I think he will find that they are fully covered already by Clause 17 (8), which says:
"The Minister may by order make such incidental or consequential provision …
(a) for prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of trades or other activities, or the doing of any other thing, at the parking places."
However, the noble Lord probably has in mind a general picture of a broad

357
principle. If that is so, then I would ask him to say what exactly he feels could be done. We do not think there is anything which could be done under these clauses and which would not be allowed in any other circumstances. I find it difficult to say whether such a provision is necessary. If the noble Lord could give us details of cases that might infringe the point he has in mind, we should be glad to consider putting in a clause of that sort. But I think the special points he has in mind are fully covered. If there are others, perhaps he will be good enough to let us know what they are.
LORD CONESFORD: I take that as an invitation to discuss this matter further with my noble friend, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had given notice of an Amendment to move to leave out Clause 15. The noble Earl said: The more I have heard of this discussion about parking places, the more unrealistic do I think it is. We are proposing to do something which is, to my mind, quite absurd. It is not going to solve the traffic problem of London, and everybody on the Front Bench, not only in this House but in another place as well, knows that. It seems to me fantastic that we should go to all the expense and trouble of providing parking meters and the like when we know perfectly well that it is not going to do the least bit of good. The recommendations of the Working Party and the London Traffic Advisory Committee have been completely disregarded. The responsibility must be entirely that of the Government and the Front Bench. We know perfectly well what is going to happen. It is another device for looting the motorist and making him pay a lot of money. Everybody is agreed that it will bring in some money. In fact, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill referred to the fact that quite a lot of money would be brought in. That is the Government's hope for dealing with the traffic problem of the future.
There is only one way to deal with these all-day parkers, whom we are told are the principal problem, and that is in the way that I have suggested. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, may I say that I did not suggest
358
that motor cars should be prevented from coming into London. The noble Lord tried to say that I did. I never said anything of the sort. If he had given his, attention to what I said, he would have heard me say that the prohibition should apply to the central area of London, which is a different proposition—the City of London and the City of Westminster. I believe it was done by the police at the time of the Coronation, and I do not remember that his Lordship was very annoyed about it on that occasion.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Does my noble friend wish to put a complete prohibition on motorists entering the City of Westminster and the City of London?
EARL HOWE: May I explain it again to the noble Lord, who apparently did not hear what I said before? There should be a pass which you could obtain from the police and which you could put on your windscreen. The condition of getting that pass would be that you had garage accommodation available to you in the central area of London. It would either be garage accommodation, previously booked, of course, the underground garage of some big business premises, or a private garage. If you could prove that you had garage accommodation available to you, then yeti would be allowed to go into the central area of London. But if you could not prove that you had that accommodation ready and available for you, you would have to stay outside the central area. That is all I said. I justified that by the fact that site values are so excessive in the central area that the erection of garage accommodation is almost impossible. You may be able to dig under a square at enormous cost, and probably spoil the square in doing so, but that is about all you could do in the central area. But outside the central area, the problem becomes easier; site values are not so excessive and may be available for erecting garage accommodation. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, will now understand what my proposal is. I am considering putting it down officially for the Report stage of the Bill.
With regard to this particular Amendment, I do not propose to move it at the present stage. I shall wait to hear what transpires as a result of the important discussions which are to take place between the noble Earl and the noble

359
Lord, Lord Conesford. The three Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, go to the heart of one aspect of the problem, and I think we should know the answer to that before pressing this Amendment to leave out the clause.
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: I wanted to say a word about the general question of parking in London. I think this is the right place at which to say a word or two on the general position. Her Majesty's Government are about to embark upon an experiment. I am all in favour of trying anything which may alleviate the problem, which we all accept is a grave problem, but I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I do not believe that this scheme in itself, or in combination with anything else that Her Majesty's Government may have in mind, will seriously affect the problem of parking. It is getting worse. London is becoming gradually strangulated, and it may well be that eventually the only solution will be to do something of the kind the noble Earl has in mind.
I should like to refer briefly to what are the possibilities. One is what is suggested in this Bill—designating certain places as parking places. Although the noble Earl has agreed to consider the various Amendments that have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford—each one of which. I am bound to say, has merits—I still think that the cumulative effect of accepting all of them is bound to be to nullify the possibility of carrying out the experiment. Therefore, as regards the dilemma in which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, put the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I believe that the Amendments are serious Amendments and will have an effect, and are not just verbiage; but at their best they cannot have much effect. Not in this Bill, but in general, we have been talking about street widening, providing better facilities for cars, and so on. I have always taken the view that it is a two-edged sword. The more you improve transport facilities, the more you attract cars. At the present time there are still many cars which come to the suburbs and stay there and the drivers come in by public transport. If the roads were to be improved the cars would come right in. While I do not say that
360
that is a conclusive argument, I think it is a factor which has to be taken into account. Mere street widening at very great expense, and particularly in the centre of London, will not have all the advantages that are claimed for it. It will have certain disadvantages.
Moreover, if that is done and if cars are also prevented from coming into the centre of London—a course which is repugnant to most people; it may be a necessity but there is not a single noble Lord who would support it unless it were absolutely essential; it is repugnant to all of us—has the noble Earl faced the problem of the public transport that would be required and the availability of that public transport? To-day, the position of persons who have to travel by public transport is becoming almost intolerable. For the good of my soul, I sometimes stand in a queue at about six o'clock and try to get on a bus. I talk to some of the people who are waiting in the queue. Bus after bus arrives at Westminster full up, and one cannot get on. Some of the people who are standing in that queue tell me that day after day, every working day of their lives, they are liable to wait anything from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour before they can get on a bus.
If you are fortunate enough to live by the underground railway and can stand the physical strain, which I no longer can, of getting into a tube train at six o'clock, you may manage—provided you can get into a tube train at that hour. But to add the 100,000 (as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, says) people who come into the centre of London by car to the people who are already travelling by public transport would be to put our public transport to a strain which I think would be unbearable and might equally well tend to congest the streets of London. Instead of the cars congesting the streets, the buses would do so.
I do not suggest that that would be an entire loss: the cars that come into London take up much more space than public transport. But a problem which has to be faced is that of getting the necessary additional public transport, not only for those who are coming in but for those who are already suffering under present conditions. It seems to me that, looking at the problem broadly and not merely under this Bill, there is only one solution—perhaps I should not say "only

361
one solution"; it is one factor; a lot of factors may constitute a partial solution. One of the main factors that we shall have to consider is the possibility of reducing substantially the large number of people who come into the centre of London every day. It is stated that one million people come from outside London into London every day—the one Trillion commuters who work in the centre of London. They are, of course, the people who are causing the congestion. As the noble Earl says, 100,000 of them come by car and 900,000 come by public transport.
Ought we not, in conjunction with other methods, seriously to consider ways and means of making these journeys unnecessary by providing additional accommodation in the central areas of London itself? Of course, it is no part of the business of the Road Traffic Bill to consider that aspect, but I feel it is worth while asking whether, while we are thinking in terms of catering for the people who come in and are assuming that for all time one million people or thereabouts must come into the centre of London, is not one of the most effective ways of dealing with the problem to reduce substantially the number of people who have to come into London by enabling them to live close to their work, so that all this travelling will become unnecessary?
4.26 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to deal with one point raised by the noble Lord who has just sat down. He mentioned the probability that widening the streets in London would induce more cars to come into the centre of London. In fact, that has not been found to be so in New York. There, a very large number of cars are in fact being parked outside the city, the reason being that the parking restrictions are very much greater there than here. This Bill will, of course, make parking more restricted. For that reason alone, we may find that the parking outside London will increase.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I think it is clear from this discussion that there are two ways of approaching this problem. One is to approach it positively, with constructive proposals, such as for the provision of garages, and the other is to approach it negatively. I cannot help feeling that these suggestions, of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has been
362
the chief sponsor, are full of the spirit of reaction. I cannot conceive in practice a scheme such as he describes operating to the general satisfaction of the public. I do not think that f misrepresent him. He says that he wishes to prevent people from coming into the centre of London, into the City of Westminster and into the City of London, unless they are provided with a special pass upon their motor cars. Such a scheme seems to me to imply the most invidious distinctions.
Who are the people who will get these passes? I suppose Ministers of the Crown will get them. They always get every advantage. I do not know whether noble Lords who are Members of this House will get them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Oh, yes.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I do not know whether my noble friend has thought of that aspect of the problem. I do not know whether doctors or invalids will get them. Many people have weak hearts and suffer from other infirmities. Have they to go to a doctor every time they wish to bring their motor cars to the City of Westminster or the City of London? Are traders or Ambassadors to have them? Are visitors from the provinces to have them? Where are they to apply for their passes? It does not seem to me that a scheme of that kind is workable. I submit to your Lordships that it is conceived in entirely the wrong spirit. The duty of the State and of the local authorities is to provide highways for the public, and the most economical way is to provide highways through which clear passage can be made. If we are prepared to spend millions of pounds upon those highways, we ought to keep them clear aid provide garages, whether below or above the ground, and charge for the facilities which are there provided.
I think that the solution provided by these clauses is an interim solution and all that any Government could be expected to do Otherwise, nothing at all would be done. But, ultimately, the solution must be to undertake a really bold programme of construction. If it were a question of war, we should put up all the accommodation that might be required for the soldiers. This is an urgent national problem, and millions of pounds

363
are being wasted every day by the delays in traffic. Our nerves are being exacerbated and amenities are being denied, as my noble friend Lord Conesford has so well argued—and all because cars are blocking the road two and three deep. The only way to approach this problem is in a constructive spirit, and in a wholehearted determination to clear these roads once and for all, by providing off the-street garages, charging for their use and making their use compulsory. Then anybody who wishes can bring his car into the City of Westminster or into the City of London without let or hindrance, without any necessity of applying to my noble friend for a special permit.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not think it is necessary for me to say much in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has broadened this debate in an immense sphere, except simply to say that these are two-edged weapons. Not only would an enormous number of additional cars come in if they could, but the car population is, of course, rising quite rapidly—and we are all glad it is. But the solution, whether it be licensing, staggered hours or reducing the size of London, is one which is not readily and happily taken to by the public. The very modest proposals which we make in this Bill are not absolutely welcomed by certain Members of your Lordships' House. So that any movement of this character will, I am afraid, find difficulty in reaching a wide measure of popular support.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amount of charges for parking and method of payment
16.—(1) The amount of the charge for a vehicle left in a parking place designated under this Act shall be calculated as follows.
(2) There shall be a prescribed standard period for each parking place, and subject as hereinafter provided the amount of the charge for a vehicle left in the parking place for a time not exceeding the standard period (hereinafter referred to as the "initial charge") shall be such amount (hereinafter referred to as the "standard amount") as may be prescribed and the initial charge shall be payable on the leaving of the vehicle in the parking place:
Provided that—

(a) if it is so prescribed, the initial charge for a vehicle left for a time not exceeding one half of the standard period shall be one half of the standard amount, and

364

(b) where the last foregoing paragraph has effect, and it is further so prescribed, then if before the end of the prescribed time a further payment of one half of the standard amount is made the two payments shall be treated as a single payment of an initial charge of the standard amount made on the leaving of the vehicle.

(3) If a vehicle is left in the parking place for longer than the period for which payment was made by the initial charge, the amount of the charge shall be the amount of the initial charge together with such additional amount (hereinafter referred to as the "excess charge") as may be prescribed, and the excess charge shall be payable in such manner and at such time as may he prescribed.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words from the beginning down to the end of paragraph (a), and to insert:
"(2) There shall be a prescribed standard charge for each parking place, applicable to a prescribed standard period. At the end of the prescribed period, additional charges at the same standard rate shall be payable for each additional period, of the same length, or part thereof:
Provided that—
(a) if it is so prescribed, the charge for a vehicle left for a time not exceeding half any standard period shall be one half the standard charge, and"
The noble Viscount said: We come now to the details of any parking meter system which may be installed, and I have put down this Amendment—my other Amendments are consequential to it—in a protest against the Government scheme of excess charges, which are, I would submit, too complicated, undesirable and impracticable. I have put down this Amendment in the hope that it may provide a more simple and practical scheme. What I have in mind is, that there should be a standard charge at each particular parking place for a standard length of time which does not depend on the time which a car stands in that parking place. The driver of the car should pay into his meter the amount due—perhaps 2s. for two hours. If he wants to leave his car for a further two hours at the end of that time, he comes back and puts in another 2s., and so on.
This sum of 2s. could, of course, be varied, according, might I say, to the popularity of the area, so that the busier and more central districts would have a correspondingly higher charge. But the principle is the same—namely, that the motorist would keep the red flag

365
down on his meter. There would be no question of his getting into trouble at all unless he failed to pay his money and the red flag went up. If it did go up, there should be, I think, an excess charge of, say, one pound. Let me say at once that this would not be a spot fine, but would be payable in the same way as the Government excess charge scheme at present envisaged—in other words, the parking attendant would put a ticket on the windscreen to the effect that El was due to the local authority. Only if that £1 was not paid would an offence he committed and would the police have to step in.
I will compare that with the Government scheme. Under the Government scheme, the motorist can leave his car for two hours by paying in the money. If he leaves the car for a longer period than that he has to go to the time and trouble of paying his excess charge to the local authority, with the corresponding time and trouble at the receiving end. With my scheme all he has to do is to feed his meter. Admittedly, he may have to come back, or he can send back his agent to do so. I may point out that if he should take his car away, my scheme does not by any means rule out short-term park ing. In fact, there is just as much likelihood—or some, at any rate —that there will be space left under my scheme as there will be under any other. If Her Majesty's Government's scheme is brought into action I maintain that it will be open to abuse. It will not be at: all difficult for the motorist to come back and put more money in at the rate of a further initial charge and to keep the red flag down, and the excess charge would not then be payable because he would not be caught. It is true that he might go on doing this for a certain time and in the end be caught. But if the scheme is as easy to avoid as that, it cannot be anything but fairly ridiculous in the eyes of the people using it; and that, I maintain, should not be. My scheme, on the other hand, is at least more or less foolproof.
On the police side, Her Majesty's Government have a scheme by which if the car is left for more than four hours—I say four hours because that is the suggested period—an offence is committed. The policeman will not, in fact, have to stay beside the car and issue a summons
366
to the driver when he comes back. But, none the less, an offence is committed and it will have to be dealt with in court, which will require police time. Under my scheme no police work at all is required unless the £1 excess charge is not paid in, and that is the same as in the Government scheme. In other words, for my scheme there is simplicity for the motorist and very little work required. There will he no more work on the local authority side, to say the least. as all they would have to do would be to receive the £1 instead of a lot of excess charges for cars left for over two hours, as is the case under the Government scheme.
Against my scheme there is the argument of long-term parking. We have already heard this afternoon that it is contemplated that where a parking scheme with parking meters is in existence, it is intended that cars shall not be allowed to park anywhere else. If a car is parked at a parking meter, and there is no room anywhere else, then no cars can park haphazardly in the surrounding streets because they will not be allowed to do so. The very success of any parking meter scheme depends on this being so. Therefore, as the cars at parking meters will cause the same obstruction whether they are long-term parkers or short-term parkers, the whole matter comes clown to the fact that What we are considering is the convenience of the short-term parker, who will net be able so easily to get into the parking meter space. I wonder whether it is worth weighing the convenience of the short-term parker against the amount of police work involved in the Government scheme, and the time and trouble that that scheme will cause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 34, leave out lines 34 to 45 and insert the said new worts.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I believe that this is the first occasion upon which the noble Viscount has moved an Amendment on the Committee stage of any Bill in your Lordships' rouse. He made his maiden speech only a week or so ago. May I congratulate him on the way he put his points, and on his clarity and brevity. Perhaps some of us should follow his example more often. I only hope that the noble Viscount will

367
not fall into our bad ways when he is as old as we are.
I support the noble Viscount in this Amendment, and, to save time, perhaps I may speak also to the Amendments standing in my name and to the others which he has following. The gist of the present Amendment is that the only charge for parking, as registered by a parking meter, shall be the charge which the motorist can register, without any extraneous or excess charge. That is what I think the noble Viscount means by his Amendment. I support him because I have an Amendment following designed to leave out the excess charge. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would like to make the standard charge less than that suggested by the noble Viscount—I think it is a matter of about sixpence. What I am against is the excess charge proposals of the Government for any period over the standard period. I have heard it mentioned that there may be a charge for anything over two hours of 7s. 6d. for the next hour. Ten shillings has been mentioned. I say that is unfair—it is wrong; it is vicious.
It has been said that this has been suggested in order to let the price mechanism work. A shudder goes down my back when I hear that expression, because I know that the rich are going to gain and that the not so rich are going to suffer. Why should it be? Why should the little man, with his little motor car, who brings his wife to London to go to a theatre matinee or something like that, have to pay 7s. 6d. for the third hour of his parking, when 7s. 6d. is about half of what his entire day out is going to cost him? It is a vicious thing, and, as the noble Viscount has said, in very restrained language, it is open to all the corruption that the present parking system allows.
What happens? What will happen? Immediately we get away from the meter registration the human element comes in. There will have to be a car park attendant to put "stickers" on the windscreen, or to rush up and down the car park like a frightened rabbit, trying to collect 7s. 6d. from people who will put half a crown in his hand and drive the car away. That is what happens to-day. If you want to exceed the statutory limit in a car park you always come across
368
an accommodating car park attendant who will not note the time you put your car in the car park until he sees a policeman in sight. It happens every day in the week. This is what the Government will encourage by this provision. I support the noble Viscount's Amendment on two counts: first, because the Government's proposal is unfair, and secondly, because it is open to, and an incitement to, corruption, which it should not be. If an army of car park attendants are to be engaged to collect the excess fees, or to stick the notices on the windscreen, or give the drivers notice that their cars have been there an excess time, they will have to be employed whole-time. If that is done, why are parking meters needed at all? Why not let the car park attendants do the job? This seems to me to be an ill-thought-out scheme.
There is one other point, which I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made very well. We are supposed to be saying that we want to relieve congestion by seeing that the longterm car parker is not allowed to remain. I maintain that one car in a parking place for eight hours will cause far less congestion than eight cars going out and in a parking place every hour, or one car every hour for eight hours. So there is nothing in that argument. I maintain that the proper course is to have one charge for an hour, if you like, if the meter can be so arranged; that the driver should put in another shilling, or whatever it is, for the next hour, and that that should be the limit of the charge. He should be able to keep on putting a shilling in, or whatever it may be, if he cares to come back every hour to do it. That would be the most simple thing. It would not require any policeman. It is not open to corruption, and it is fair. I do not believe the argument that, if an excess charge of 7s. 6d. is made for parking over two hours, it will be in the interests of the short-term parker. It will not. It will be in the interests of the very wealthy motorist who does not care what it costs to put his car on the parking places. And there are not so many wealthy motorists who can afford something like 7s. 6d. to park their cars.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should like very much to support the noble Viscount in this Amendment. If he goes to a Division—I do not often take part

369
in a Division—I shall certainly support him. The noble Lord, Lord Bore-Belisha, said that in our approach to this Bill we were divided: those who are constructive and those who are obstructive. I am bound to say that I have heard in the speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this Amendment a short, clear and one of the most constructive speeches that I have heard on this Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee.
This scheme is an experiment. Incidentally, I believe that what the noble Viscount is proposing is much more in line with American practice than what the Government are proposing. I have an open mind on whether the charge should be one shilling for an hour, and a shilling for another hour, and then a sudden jump to half-a-crown. That seems to me rather odd. If I take my car into a garage I pay something for leaving it there, and I should be rather surprised if I were given an increase on a quantity, so to speak—I should rather expect a reduction on a quantity. At any rate, it seems to me very arbitrary. If I have to visit my dentist and he takes rather a long time with what is left of my teeth, it seems a little unfair if, in addition, I have to pay an excess charge to park. But I must have a car, because I may not be so well when I come out. It does seem a little hard if, in addition to all the pain the dentist is going to inflict upon me, I have to suffer an excess charge. Indeed, if the dentist is held up by some old lady before I can get in to him, and he keeps me a long time, not only have I to pay a lot of money but I am likely to be arrested by the police and persecuted. That seems to me the height of absurdity.
I agree with Lord Lucas of Chilworth that the object of this scheme is to discourage people from long-term parking. But, of course, if there is only a "penny in the slot" charge, with parking only for an hour, I know exactly what is going to happen. Everybody will come in and say, "I must rush to the parking place", and we shall have a sort of "musical chairs" going on round every parking place in London while people are trying to get in. They will go on driving round and round, because they know that somebody will have to play "musical chairs" when the hour is up. People will be going "round and
370
round the mulberry bush" in the hope of getting into a vacant spot.
Why should the police have to prosecute? I have some little experience of America. I know that if I commit an offence of crossing the road against the lights when I am a pedestrian, or get out of the line in the driving of a motor car, a "cop" gongs me and I pay two dollars. If I argue about it, I pay five. It seems to me very sensible. The Bill proposes that if somebody has committed an offence, one of those synthetic offences manufactured by the Government under this Bill, then a policeman shall go round and haul him up in court and come and give evidence in court. We cannot get enough people into the police force, and those who are in the police force ought to be engaged in coping with gangsters and not in doing this fort of job. The noble Viscount has provided a perfectly simple way by which A notice is affixed to the windscreen of the car to make people pay, like the income tax, and if you do not pay then you are "had up." It seems to me that he has provided us with about three excellent things that can 'be done and three excellent arguments for doing them, and I shall most certainly support him it he presses this Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I entirely agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken. As the clause is drawn at present, it is an incitement to corruption. Moreover, the Government procedure, as drawn in the clause, for collection of excess charges will involve many practical difficulties. If the excess charge is to be 7s. 6d. or 10s., or anything like that, its effect will be penal. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he cannot look at this matter again. I cannot believe that the Government really want to have the scheme in the form in which it is at present drawn.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the clear and simple way in which he has moved this Amendment. Whether he has, in fact, been supported by noble friend Lord Swinton I do not know. Indeed, I doubt whether the noble Earl has read the Bill with very great care. One thing is clear: the Bill as drafted does

371
not include any of the terrible situations which the noble Earl so vividly portrayed to your Lordships. So far as I am aware, the procedure which we have adopted here is, in certain aspects, much nearer the procedure in America than that suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. With regard to the matter of meter-feeding, whether we want meter-feeding or whether we do not is a matter of principle. Meter-feeding means that a motorist can park his car by meter and then send out the office boy every hour or two to put in a coin; and the car can stay there for as long as eight hours, if he wishes. Americans have had a good deal of experience of this sort of thing and they have always regarded that as illegal. My advisers from the Department take the view that it would be a great mistake to introduce it into this country.
The noble Viscount's proposal, it seems to me, is twofold. First, as I understand it, it is that a motorist should be allowed to leave his car indefinitely at a car parking meter, provided that payments are continually fed into the meter. Secondly, in as far as I understand it, it is that he is guilty of a criminal offence as soon as the flag goes up and he over-stays a period without renewing payment. That is what I understand.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Will the noble Earl forgive me? That is not at all what I intended. I intended that, far from there being an offence or a "spot" fine if he over-stayed his period, the red flag should go up and he would then pay an excess charge, in exactly the same way as under the Government scheme, to the local authority. The police do not come into it at all unless the excess fee for which a ticket has to be put on the windscreen is not paid. There is no question of a "spot" fine.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: How does that differ from the Government proposal? The only difference I see is that, whereas we have suggested a rather smaller figure than £1, the noble Viscount wants a larger one. We maintain that when the period is exceeded the motorist should not immediately be guilty of a criminal offence. We think it would be most undesirable that people who do not pay the amount due for meter parking
372
should immediately come into the sphere where the criminal law applies. The Bill has avoided that by having an intermediate period and what is called an "excess charge." The police do not come into this scheme at all; it is run by the local authorities. One of the advantages is that it does not involve in any way the use of police personnel in looking after it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There must be someone who will be the equivalent of a car park attendant.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know what the noble Lord would call "the equivalent of a car park attendant," but clearly an attendant could cover a much larger number of car parks with these meters than he can at the present time. And the scheme avoids the difficulty of bringing in the police or putting people into the law courts. I was slightly at a loss, on the second point which the noble Viscount emphasised, to see the difference between his scheme and the scheme which we have drawn up here. In regard to the first one, the indefinite feeding of meters, I think it would be wrong. I believe that the noble Lord has experience of British Columbia. Would he tell us whether they feed meters there, or is that illegal?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is illegal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is illegal, I understand, in nearly all places in North America. I think it would be wrong to accept feeding of meters as a normal way of using parking meters. I suggest that if the Committee wish to take a decision upon this, they can do so; but perhaps we might consider it.
With regard to the other point, I am slightly at a loss to understand the difference between the noble Viscount's suggestion and what is in the Bill. We have called it "excess charge" and the noble Lord suggests payment to the local authority—which is exactly the same as excess charge. It is only when the motorist fails to make payment, or stays beyond a certain length of time, that the criminal law comes into it.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I understood Lord Colville of Culross proposed continued charges at the standard rate.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In regard to the same standard rate, it applied only

373
if the money was constantly fed into the parking meter. It is after the arm gees up and the attendant goes round and a ticket is put on to a car that a certain fee is due to the local authority. The noble Lord suggested £1. I would say substantially less. It is only on failure to pay that, and after staying at the parking meter for an additional period—it may be two or three hours—that any criminal charge will come in.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With all due respect, the point is not quite that. Under the noble Earl's scheme, after a car has been there four hours, the police automatically come in, and the owner of any car left in a parking area more than four hours would be prosecuted in a court, with all the waste of time that that involves. Under my system there will be no question of magistrates' courts at all, unless the excess fee of £1, or whatever it might be, is not paid. There will he no police prosecution for leaving the car unless it is left for a very long period after the meter period had run out—not immediately after four hours. I do not know whether that makes the matter clear to the noble Earl.
Tim EARL OF SELKIRK: What happens if the car is left for 24 hours? I should have thought that the police must come in eventually, and take the car away if it has been there too long. The only difference, it seems to me, is that the noble Viscount would charge a much bigger fee when the arm goes up. He suggests that the car should remain for quite a long time—perhaps for four or five or six hours—and that no one should he able to say anything until it has remained for perhaps six hours. It strikes me as leaving slightly vague what is to be the position at the end of that time. We have left the matter uncertain because it will have to be covered by regulations. I cannot see that the police will not have to come in at some point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think we should like to take advantage of the noble Earl's suggestion that this matter might be considered further between now and the next stage of the Bill. It is clear to me that what the Committee are against is this excessive excess charge, which has been proposed to stop long-term parking. When you talk about "nickel-feeding" I should like to know what it means. I suggest that
374
all it really means is that the motorist goes on paying the standard ate for as long as he wants to keep the car at that particular place. I am not at all satisfied that that is such a criminal thing to do. If anyone wants to keep his car at a parking place hour after hour at 2s. an hour, or 1s. or 1s. 6d., or whatever it may be, it seems to me that he needs his head seen to. I should think that the only person who would leave a car over an excess period would be someone who had just stolen it and wanted to get rid of it. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, would not be agreeable to paying out time after time while he was seeing his dentist if it so happened that he was detained there far an unexpectedly long time.
We are against this excess charge. We are against the system where car parking attendants will have to be employed to collect the excess charge. We say that the first: is unfair and that the second is open to corruption. If the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, withdraws his Amendment. I am prepared not to move mine, which proposes to delete the subsection which imposes an excess charge, and to allow the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to have another look at this provision. If not, I am afraid that we on this side would go into tie Division Lobby on any Amendment which sought to delete from this clause the evils of an excess charge and the personal collection of that charge by car park attendants for any time over that which the mechanical meter collects. If I dare advise the noble Viscount, I suggest that he should accept the noble Earl's offer to look at the whole problem.
Loma GIFFORD: What has impressed me during the last few minutes is this question of corruption. The noble Earl said that the money would be collected by the local authorities, but in fact it will be collected by the same car park attendants one sees in the streets to-day; and we all know what happens at car parks to-day—you give the man a good tip. But if meter-feeding is allowed, it will do away with any temptation to corruption. I do not think there is any other way of avoiding corruption except by this feeding method.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The present car park attendants are not paid any

375
thing. I think they would certainly have to be paid properly; then the possibility of corruption might not arise.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I express my gratitude to the noble Lords who have congratulated me, both for their encouragement and for their contributions to this Amendment? I am afraid that I am not altogether satisfied, but in view of the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the general feeling of the Committee, and with the proviso that, if satisfactory results are not reached before Report stage, I can put down a further Amendment or assist in one, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (2):
"(c) The standard period shall not be less than two hours and the standard amount shall not exceed one shilling."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is clear. Whether it is adopted on the Government figures or not, noble Lords will have gathered from the discussion on the previous Amendment what an exciting life we are going to have in London in the future. We are going to arrive at some parking place with our pockets full of money. We shall find it full and drive round once or twice, hoping to see somebody move off; but if they do not, what happens? Any one of us may have this happen to him if these infernal machines ever do come into operation. We are not allowed to stop and we cannot park because there is no room. What is going to happen? It will be lovely fun! I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, has gone. I cannot help feeling that he would have a solution for this—a constructive solution—but he is not here and we cannot do anything about it.
Is it really necessary to have the amount of 2s. proposed in the Bill? The Government are already taking over £400 million off motorists in taxation and giving them back the barest minimum of some £60 to £70 million, or whatever it is that the road programme involves; and every move in this Bill has been to make the motorist pay again and again for this and for that. My humble pro-
376
posal for solving the parking problem in London was not going to cost anybody anything, but we shall have to pay more for coming into the central area if anything like this scheme goes through. I consider that the sum laid down is too high. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 6, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I listened with interest to the noble Earl's racy speech, dealing with a variety of subjects except the Amendment. I should be glad to know the strength of his argument. He said that "the figures" are too high, and therefore I suppose that the figures in the Amendment are too high. I do not know. My own view would be that the figures he has put here are probably about right. I would ask the noble Earl not to press this Amendment, because it is too rigid to fix figures of this sort. There may be different figures and different circumstances. For instance, I understand that there are places where a lower figure is charged for a shorter period. In some places in America one can pay 5 cents for fifteen minutes outside a post office. I would much rather that the noble Earl did not press this Amendment and I am sure he will find himself in agreement for once with me when I say that our whole object is to see that the initial charge is low enough to encourage people to use parking meters as much as possible. I hope that he will take that assurance and withdraw his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I could not bear to say "No" to such a heartbreaking appeal, and naturally I shall not press this Amendment at the present moment. But I ask the noble Earl whether between now and Report stage he will indicate in some way what the charge is going to be. I do not know what it will be after this discussion, because there is an Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and other noble Lords have spoken on the subject. Could the Minister let us know roughly what the fee is going to be, because it is of some importance? We are not all extremely wealthy people and we should like to know. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH had given notice of his intention to move to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I will not move this Amendment because of the noble Earl's undertaking. I agree with him that there is this difficulty. I do not think we can expect him to come to the House with a whole scale of charges; that must be done by regulations. But I think that the Committee is really interested in laying down in the Bill the principle of the charges, More than ever are we against the introduction of excess charges that will be outside the meter collection. I feel that if the noble Earl works on these lines, he will have the support of the whole Committee—certainly of noble Lords on this side. I not move this Amendment, but leave it to the noble Earl to bring forward his proposals.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is not much more than redrafting. It extends the words of the Bill in regard to what one has to do when one puts a coin in the meter slot. In paragraph (b) it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the initial charge has been duly paid in cases where the flag has gone up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 14, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) If it is so provided in the order designating the parking place, there shall be apparatus of the prescribed description for indicating in the prescribed manner, as respects each space provided for the leaving of vehicles, whether the initial charge has been paid and whether the period for which payment was made by the initial charge has expired; and—

(a) payment of the initial charge shall be made by the insertion of coins in the apparatus and the doing of any other thing prescribed for the purpose of operating; the apparatus;

(b) subject to the next following paragraph, if at any time while a vehicle is left in the parking place the apparatus relating to the space in which it is left gives the prescribed indication, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the initial charge has been duly paid and that the period for which payment was made by the initial charge has already expired;

(c) if it is proved that the time for which the vehicle has been left in the parking place is less than the standard period, or, where paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section has effect, less than half the standard period, paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not have effect but it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the initial charge has not been duly paid for the vehicle."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The only question I have to ask the noble Earl is this. If there is anything in this Amendment which cuts across what he is going to do when he comes to implement the undertaking he has already given to the Committee, I take it that he will have this new subsection amended. I am not certain whether he will not come up against paragraph (c) when he tries to meet the wishes of the Committee in regard to the Amendments we have just withdrawn. Perhaps he can give the Committee an assurance that if this new subsection cuts across that undertaking, he will have the Amendment which is now going into the Bill amended.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I readily give the noble Lord the assurance that if we amend the Bill we will see that the drafting is as good as it can be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 43, after ("prescribed") insert ("and the doing of any other thing prescribed for the purpose of operating the apparatus").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 45, leave out from ("been") to ("paid") and insert ("duly paid or not to have been duly").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE: The reason why I put: down my next Amendment to omit Clause 16 is that the excess charge of 7s. 6d. or 10s, that has been mentioned as the, amount the Government have in mind is, in my view, too high. The procedure required for the collection of the excess charge will produce the maximum amount of practical difficulty; and, moreover, if there is no off-street parking accommodation in the vicinity, the excess charge will be unreasonable. I. submit, again, that if a motorist goes to a parking place and is lucky enough to get in it is most unreasonable to demand 7s. 6d. or 10s, as an excess charge. This has all been, covered, to a certain extent, by the discussion on the previous clause, but I should be glad if this matter could receive

379
the consideration of the Government. All the time it means a steady imposition on the motor world, which is already paying too much in taxation to-day. I hope that the Government will be able to give this matter further consideration. I gather, from the discussion which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had just now, that they will. In the circumstances, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [General provisions for regulation of parking places]:
5 14 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is not much more than clarification to make it quite clear that in designating parking areas the Minister has power to keep clear the area immediately outside, which is obviously necessary, whether it be for unloading, or to allow the free movement of traffic. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 44 and insert ("for determining by or under the order the positions in which vehicles left in a parking place shall stand in, and the manner in which such vehicles shall be driven into or out of, the parking place, may prohibit or restrict the waiting in a parking place, whether in the said positions or elsewhere, of other vehicles, and may contain provision for determining as aforesaid the positions in which other vehicles permitted by the order to wait in the parking place, or to wait there for any purpose specified in the order, shall wait there.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL. OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is a little more than drafting, and I should like to explain its object. This concerns the case of the removal of a car from a parking meter area. As the Bill is drafted at the present time, it is possible to remove cars only if they overstay the period which they are entitled to stay. This rather widens the power of local authorities to remove cars. For instance, they may remove cars for any contravention of the provisions under the order—which contraventions may be such things as parking in a loading bay, or in some place where they are not entitled to park, such as in a position where they are across two meters, or something of that character. It does slightly widen
380
the power of local authorities to remove cars, and I thought I ought to draw the attention of your Lordships to that fact. However, it does not widen them a great deal, except in so far as it includes contraventions made under the regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, leave out from ("order") to ("and") in line 39.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We shall know more about this matter when we see the regulations. This is one of the peculiarities of this Bill. If there is obstruction of traffic by some wilful parking of a car where no waiting is allowed and where parking is prohibited, I am not against giving powers for the removal of that vehicle. I am prepared to allow this Amendment to go through, with the proviso that when I see the regulations which this is going to enforce I may change my mind. I do not think the noble Earl can expect me to say anything else.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Offences relating to parking places]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The next Amendment in my name concerns the same point that I was drawing to the attention of your Lordships before, and I do not wish to move this Amendment. All I want to say is that if I did not thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for his courtesy in saying that he would discuss the matter, I meant to, and I do so now.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): This Amendment is little more than drafting and is intended to cover the case where payment involves not only the insertion of coins in a meter but doing something else to make the meter, or any other apparatus used at a parking place, start working, such as pulling or turning a handle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, leave out ("to pay when it is due") and insert ("duly to pay").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, after ("been") insert ("duly").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is little more than drafting. It is a neat little legal point. What it amounts to is that if a person finds himself under this clause being proceeded against for failing to pay an excess charge, and it is not proved that the excess charge has become due, but it is proved that the initial charge has not been paid, then he can be convicted of an offence for failing to pay the initial charge. It is a little subtle, I am afraid, but I think it is necessary to have it that way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, at end insert ("(5) Where in arty proceedings for an offence under this section of failing to pay art excess charge it is not proved that the excess charge had become due, but is proved that the initial charge has not been paid, the defendant may be convicted of an offence under this section of failing to pay the initial charge.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Had not the noble Lord better withdraw his Amendment to see how his noble friend gets on about the excess charge? This is all to do with the excess charge. If there is going to be no excess charge in the if I sense the feeling of the Committee correctly, there will not he—then this will not be necessary.
LORD MANCROFT: I grasped this point, and I am not at all surprised to hear the noble Lord make it. If it is all the same to him, I would rather leave it so that any Amendment can come the other way round. This does not go quite to the principle in the same way as the other Amendments; it is a procedural point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As the noble Lord enjoys a reputation for honesty in this House I am prepared to trust him on this. I know he will take care to see that if this excess charge is removed from this Bill, this provision also will be removed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Parking places: financial provisions]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, leave out ("payments made out of") and insert ("amounts charged to").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, at end insert ("and the Common Council of the City of London").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This and the subsequent Amendment are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, after ("references") insert ("respectively").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, at end insert ("and the general rate of the City").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 19. The noble Earl said: Apparently the whole of this clause makes provision for the financial arrangements for providing parking places. Could the noble Lord say what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is going to be with regard to providing parking places? We have had many allusions to it during the course of the debate. What are you going to do with regard to the central area of London and the provision of parking places? Are you going to have it alone and do nothing, or are you going to do what the Working Party and the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee said you should do? I think we might be told what is going to happen and what policy the Government are going to adopt about this matter. It might help many of us who are doubtful about the provisions of this Bill or are even opposed to it, as I am. I hope the noble Lord can give some information, if not on this particular Ante Raiment, then on a succeeding one. If the policy of the Government with regard to providing garage accommodation and parking

383
places generally in the central area could be explained, it would be welcomed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 19.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am grateful to my noble friend for having explained why he wants to leave out this clause. I was a little uncertain, from reading the Bill, what it was in this clause which was worrying him. Now that I see that it is the general matter of the whole policy of providing parking places, I am in a slightly easier position. Without giving the matter a little more thought, I do not think I could give a final answer. But, as my noble friend Lord Selkirk and I have more than once pointed out, the principal purpose of collecting this money by local authorities through parking meters is to encourage the authorities themselves to use that money for providing the extra parking facilities which the noble Earl so rightly wants. That we hope will be done. But there must be a communal effort as well. It is not just the building of garages or the providing of parking facilities by local authorities which will solve the problem; private enterprise must play its part, and I believe that at the moment there are in fact garages being built by private enterprise in the centre of London. I will look again at what the noble Earl has said and see whether there is any more information I can give him, other than those three general observations. That is the policy we have elaborated at different stages of this Bill.
EARL HOWE: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that garage accommodation is being erected in the central area of London—in the City of London and the City of Westminster?
LORD MANCROFT: If my memory serves me aright, a garage is being built near Selfridge's. I think that is being done by private enterprise.
EARL HOWE: That is not in the City of Westminster.
LORD MANCROFT: It is in the central area.
EARL HOWE: That is different.
LORD DERWENT: Before we decide what to do about this Amendment. may I
384
ask whether it is a general policy of the Government—never mind how vaguely they reply, so long as the noble Earl gets some reply—that at some future date financial help will be given by Her Majesty's Government to local authorities and/or private enterprise?
LORD MANCROFT: That is going further than the noble Earl's question goes. I think we ought to stick to the immediate point in this Bill, which is that the financial arrangements will come from the local authorities in the first place.
LORD DERWENT: In fact, is it the case as regards this clause that there is no Government policy?
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has no right whatever to say that. There is a perfectly clear Government policy which was expressed by my noble friend on Second Reading, and which is tied up with the matter of parking meters which we are now discussing. It is that the money shall be put at the disposal of local authorities so that they may provide more permanent parking facilities.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I emphasise the importance of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, from the point of view of London? So far as London is concerned—and, of course, the problem in Central London is a matter causing great anxiety to all of us—the local authorities are perfectly clear that these multi-storey garages, which are obviously required, cannot be run without financial assistance from the Government. That is a matter which deserves serious consideration (I am not asking for an answer to that question now) on the part of the Government.
LORD MANCROFT: I quite appreciate that point. If I remember aright, the noble Earl and I had discussions about it on a stage of the previous Bill. I am well aware of the point; but if the noble Earl does not mind I should not like to get involved in a detailed discussion about financing multi-storey garages—a very complex matter. As a Londoner, living in the central area all my life, I am fully conversant with the parking problem there and I can assure the noble Earl that I will bear it closely in mind.
EARL HOWE: When we come to the next stage of the Bill, will the noble Lord or the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, be in

385
a position to make a full and comprehensive statement as to exactly what is the intention of the Government with regard to garages, with special reference to the central area of London? I agree that the problem is just as bad in many of our other big cities, but the problem of London is a vital one, and how it is to be dealt with I have simply no idea, I am perfectly certain that what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said just now is absolutely right, and that nothing effective will be done unless the Government are prepared to give assistance to the erection of garage accommodation in the central area of London. That is the chief problem, and the chief reason for the whole of this Bill. I will put down an Amendment on the Report stage of the Bill—or anybody else can do so—if the noble Lord will be prepared to make a considered statement. If he will tell me that he can do that, I shall be quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: I am, of course, quite prepared to do anything I can to help the noble Earl on this point. I am not laying down an authoritative exposition of the whole of the Government's garage policy. Again, I may say we are discussing here an Amendment to leave out Clause 19. My difficulty was that I had to guess in advance what aspects of the problem the noble Earl wished to raise. I imagined that he wished to discuss the proceeds of parking meters and their relationship to local government expenditure. I hope I have given the noble Earl a clear answer on that point. He has now ranged over a much wider field, and I will certainly do anything I can to make the Government's policy as clear as possible at the right stage. I will discuss this matter with my noble friend Lord Selkirk and see in what particular we can oblige the noble Earl.
EARL HOWE: I thank the noble Lord. Having regard to that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after Clause 20 to insert the following new clause:
Charges for parking vehicles in Royal Parks
"21. Regulations under section two of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1926, may
386
make provision for imposing and recovering charges for the leaving of vehicles, or vehicles of any class or description, in any park to which that Act applies; and regulations made by virtue of this section may make, as respects charges and penalties recoverable under the regulations, provision corresponding with the provisions of subsection (3) of section eighteen of this Act:"
The noble Lord said: We now move to a slightly different matter. As your Lordships know, two years ago the Government took power to allow parking in the Royal Parks. The effect is perfectly obvious to anyone who drives through a Royal Park. It was a controversial decision at the time and caused some misgivings, but I am afraid that most people came to the conclusion that it was inevitable. What this new Amendment seeks to do is to give the Government power, if needs be, to charge for parking in the Royal Parks. At the moment, parking is free. I do not see any reason why the Government should not have the right to charge, if circumstances require. I wish to add that there is no intention at the moment to put up parking meters in the Royal Parks or to change any of the present regulations, or to extend the areas in which parking is permitted. For the benefit of noble Lords who are worried on this particular point, I may add that the authority given by the new clause can be exercised only by the making of regulations under the Parks Regulation Act by my right honourable friend the Minister of Works. Those regulations must lie before Parliament for forty days and can be challenged during that period. I think that that safeguard is obviously necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course, the first question that the noble Lord will expect me to ask is: Who receives the plunder?
LORD MANCROFT: The Minister of Works.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why?
LORD MANCROFT: Why not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHELWORTH: I thought the object of charging for parking was to swell the coffers of the local authorities so that they could build

387
garages. For what purpose is this charge being made—to increase the amenities of the Royal Parks?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the amenities of the Royal Parks are very well looked after now. Where do the funds come from now? Do they need augmenting? Why should they be augmented in this way?
LORD MANCROFT: Why not?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why? I am not proposing to augment them and surely the onus of proof that this charge is just and proper falls upon the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, and not upon me. Will the noble Lord please tell us why this money is being charged when right the way through this Bill the principle on which the Government seek powers to impose charges for parking on the public highway is to enable off-street parking facilities to be brought about? That may be a vain hope, but that is the principle of the Bill. For the purpose of parking cars on the roads in the parks, roads are highways. They are subject to normal traffic control. They have speed limits. I can only assume—I do not know; perhaps the noble Lord can tell me—that they are maintained out of the public purse. Why, then, should this charge be made if the charge is not going into precisely the same fund as the charge made for parking on any highway under this Bill? That is the first question I should like to ask the noble Lord. If the parking meter system is so good, why are you not going to have it in the Royal Parks? I am not going to pretend that it would increase the amenity of the parks in any way, but neither will the parking meter increase the amenity of a lot of our London streets. Would the noble Lord answer those two questions before the House gives its consent to this proposal?
LORD MANCROFT: As I began by telling the noble Lord, this is quite a different matter. I will point out again that it is divorced from the questions we have been discussing. It is incidental, because the Royal Parks, as we all know, are a law unto themselves. The revenue collected would go to the Appropriations in Aid of the Ministry's Vote—that is, the Ministry of Works' Vote—for the
388
Royal Parks, from which the cost of the upkeep of the Parks, including the Park roads, is met. It is quite a different matter. Let me emphasise, in case the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not fully understand me, that it is not intended to do this now. The Minister is merely taking the power, which he has not got, to charge in the future if he wants to. There is no question of setting up parking meters at the moment, quite apart from the point of view of amenities. A charge could be easily collected without setting up parking meters, which would not be at all appropriate to the Royal Parks, so far as I can see. I beg the noble Lord not to try to associate this subject with the previous argument. It is quite a separate matter. It is purely permissive, with Parliament permitting a power to be taken which might well one day be advantageous to all concerned, particularly to the users of the Parks.
EARL HOWE: It seems to me, from what the Minister has said, that this is a minor experiment of a toll road. You are going to charge a certain sum of money for the upkeep of the roads in the Royal Parks. It is really the same principle as a toll road. I do not necessarily object to the toll road, but I feel that there is a good deal in what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on the subject. There is another aspect. Fortunately, you are not going to have parking meters in the Royal Parks, but if you were there would be the question of the supervision of parking meters there at night. It would just be wonderful if you were able to solve it. I am certain that you would find that it would give rise to a whole new industry in the Metropolitan Police Area. I hope that this matter will be considered. What is the motorist who leaves his car there going to get for it? You are going to ask him to pay 6d. or a ls., or whatever the sum is. What is he going to get out of it in the long run beyond a minute proportion of a reduction of Government taxation—income tax or whatever it is? I appreciate that this is only a contingent power that the Minister is seeking, but, at the same time, such experience as we have had through the years teaches us how dangerous it is when Ministers get power to do these things. They are apt to go ahead with it and we find that in the

389
long run we have gone a great deal further than the Minister ever contemplated when the power was first introduced.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want to help the noble Lord; but, when he says "We do not intend to do it, but we want power to do it if we want to", what crimes have been committed in legislation under that excuse! All Departments of State want to accumulate all the power they can in case at some future date they may want to use it; and, when they have it, invariably they use it. I would contest this, and the only thing that really makes me give way is my kindness of heart. The noble Lord has been obliging to me; he accepted the only Amendment I have got through, so I should like to give a quid pro quo. Do I understand that these charges cannot be imposed without agreement to a regulation?
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: So that I can at least give way; but the House wants to contest this charge it can do so at some future date. I do not like giving way. I think: that this is one of those sneaky little things that are brought into a Bill. Now is the opportunity, I suppose, as we shall not have another Road Traffic Bill for another twenty years—I hope to goodness we never get one like this in my lifetime—to put this further imposition upon the motor owner in this country, and we had better let you have the opportunity. But I tell the noble Lord that he will have far more difficulty in getting through his regulation than he has this clause.
LORD MANCROFT: I am slightly grateful to the noble Lord for his rather queer response—his allegation that we are taking powers of a sneaky kind that we do not really need and which will lead to great evil and much iniquity. At some late hour last night he was tryin2, to obtain power for the policeman on traffic duty which I assured him we did not want. I cannot help thinking that that has slipped his memory. But he is quite right that these powers that we are seeking under this Bill cannot be put into effect without Parliamentary approval. I should like to remind the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as we have reminded him often
390
previously, that the highway is not automatically the correct place to park vehicles. Some people seem to regard themselves as having an inalienable right to put their cars on the highway. They may realise from this proposal (if it ever conies into effect) that they have no such right; and the finance that will come from the no doubt modest fee which will be levied will obviously go towards a good cause in the parks that they use and enjoy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:
Extension of powers to make advances for certain purposes
("The powers of the Minister under section seventeen of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, to make advances for certain purposes shall include a power to make advances for the provision of parking places by a local authority under section 63 of the Public Health Act, 1925, as extended by section sixteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, and for the purposes of this section the expression 'local authority' shall include county councils.")
The noble Lord said: Here I try to follow what I consider to be the general tenor of the discussion in your Lordships' House this afternoon about providing for off-street parking. I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said that ultimately that must be the aim. That is right. It has been truly said that you cannot run a railway service unless you have sidings. Without sidings a railway would be unworkable. And you cannot run roads without sidings; you must have off-street parking for vehicles when they want to get off the main line—or for that matter any other line. Under Section 17 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Minister has powers to make advances for certain purposes. I agree with the noble Lord that the provision of parking places is a duty of the local authority which they have neglected for years and years. Every local authority that I know has neglected it, and the Government, foolishly in my view, say that they will not give the local authorities loans at the present time because it might be thought to be favouring the motorist. It would be nothing of the kind. It would stimulate the local authority to do their duty by their shopkeeper ratepayers, a duty they have neglected for years and years.

391
Some day the more enlightened local authorities will come to the conclusion that unless they provide car parks for the incoming potential customer—it is only by the influx of good money into a town that the local shopkeeper can pay the present much enhanced rates—they will not prosper. The only towns in the future that will prosper will be those who provide these facilities.
The same applies, I believe, in regard to the branches of big stores. In every town one goes to in America, even the small town, the big store includes as one of its first projects the provision of a big car park, because everybody, even the domestic servant, goes to shop in a motor car. I want the county councils to have this power. Under the present legislation the county council does not benefit. Amendment No. 59 and Amendment No. 60 are designed to extend the power to make advances to the county council, and also to extend the power to the county council to provide parking places. These Amendments must be old friends to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: They are.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They are very old friends and I felt sure that they would be recognised. They were put down in regard to the 1954 Bill, and I think it is appropriate that they should be put down in regard to this Bill. Whether or not the Treasury are going to loosen their purse-strings to provide the money is neither here nor there for the purposes of this Amendment: in other words, if they ever do, the county councils should have the right to benefit and should have the right to provide car parks, if they are necessary, on roads in regard to which they are the highway authority. I have dealt with the two Amendments together and I hope that the noble Earl will accept both of them. I now beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is the Amendment which was moved last time by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, and I am afraid I have absolutely nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.
392
I appreciate the point that the noble Lord has made, but we regard this as essentially a local responsibility. In principle, I do not see that, as such, it should be taken as a national responsibility. I would emphasise that this Bill gives a source from which funds can be drawn for the provision of off-street parking, and to accept this Amendment, which the noble Lord puts in a most disarming way—he says that the Government are taking only powers and that it involves no finance—would, I am afraid, be quite wrong on the part of the Government, because at the present time they have no intention whatsoever of using such powers. I am sorry, but. much as I should like to think that the important purpose which the noble Lord has in mind is one about which I could help him, I am afraid that it would be quite illusory to suggest that there is any chance of that happening at the present time. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I feel seriously that it is not fair to say that the Treasury has always got the money. The suggestion behind the Amendment is that this is a matter upon which the Treasury can easily be approached. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.
EARL ATTLEE: Might I ask the noble Earl this question? He says that this is purely a local charge. Suppose that cars are coming into London and the drivers think it right not to come to the central area but proceed to leave their cars in the area of local authorities outside the main area. Why is that a local charge? Surely the noble Lord is rather out of date in this regard. So often we have had the idea that "the poor" and everything else is a local charge. In a transport matter it cannot be a local charge.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Earl would agree that in the majority of cases the cars which would use a local car park belong to the people engaged in local business, or to people engaged in local shopping. It is the shopkeepers and the business people of the area who are interested in the car parks. If the noble Earl had taken the argument a step further I should have been inclined to agree with him, in this sense. If he had said that in certain cases

393
the provision of car parks would ensure that through-traffic would have a better chance of getting through, I could see readily that there would then be a stronger case for saying that car parks are not a local business. But I feel, with respect, that they are a matter for the people in the area, the business and commercial people; and that is why I suggest it is wise to regard them as such. To-day we are very willing, and sometimes too willing, to take from local authorities powers which they should properly hold.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl does himself less than justice with that argument. Has he forgotten that the Treasury, via the Ministry of Transport, pay 100 per cent. out of the National Exchequer for the construction of trunk roads; that for class A roads they contribute 75 per cent.; for class II roads, 60 per cent., for class III roads, 50 per cent.? What is the difference between paying out of national funds a percentage of the cost of making roads and paying the same percentage towards the cost of a car park to prevent congestion on the roads for the construction of which they have just made a 75 per cent. or 60 per cent. grant? What is the difference? Accepting the noble Earl's argument, it would be the duty of the county council or any other local authority to build and maintain all the roads of this country. That is the noble Earl's argument—that it should licit be paid out of the national Exchequer.
I opened my remarks by saying—it has been said by a well-known authority—that you cannot run railways without sidings. You cannot run a network of roads without off-road parking. Is not one the natural corollary of the other? The reason why we have so much congestion on the roads is because the Government have ignored that first principle. Why do the Government say that the lay-by shall be paid for in the same proportion as the road? What is the difference? A lay-by is a one-vehicle park or a two-vehicle park. What is the difference, in principle, between a two-vehicle park and a twenty-two vehicle park? Why does the State pay 75 per cent., 60 per cent., 50 per cent. or 100 per cert. of the construction of the lay-by?
The noble Earl thought he was going to "get away with" this argument. He
394
really cannot, because it is not true. Therefore I do ask him to realise that the only up-to-date method of road construction in the future for these roads—which we hope are not merely a pipe dream, but something we shall see all over the country—is to see that they have, at certain strategic points, off-the-road parking. One of the secrets of good road control is never to let a vehicle come to a standstill on the highway. Who is going to pay for parks? If these car parks are to be provided on the new main road from London to Birmingham, is every local authority to pay for the off-highway parks or will they come within the total cost of the road?
Really the noble Earl has not a leg to stand on on this matter. I hope he will accept the Amendment. I do not want him at the present time to undertake to give all this money. But, after all, the noble Earl must realise that the people who use these roads are paying £400 million a year, which is not an insignificant sum of money. Some of it is now to be used for the building of these roads. No road of the future will be a proper highway until it has these facilities. Do your Lordships not think I have convinced the noble Earl of the justice of my case?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not propose to say much more, but I have, in fact, made the point on which the noble Lord sought to base his argument. Of course through-traffic is not a local problem. That is the basis of large trunk road running, class I road running, class II road running; and the percentage of the grant is supposed to represent, very roughly, what 'is through-traffic and what is not through-traffic. Lay-bys are there for through-traffic, but nearly all these off-street car parks will be in towns, and will be used by people who are going there to buy or sell or work. That is why we consider it a local matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I would remind the noble Earl that this clause is only permissive: it is a permissive power. Where occasion arises I say that the cost of these parks should come out of public funds. That is all I am asking. I am not asking the State to pay for every car park which any local authority throughout the length and breadth of the country wants to put up. I think that if I divided the Committee at the present time the Government would lose on this—I am certain they would.

395
But if the noble Earl will give me an assurance that he will discuss this matter with his colleague—this is not a lighthearted Amendment—between now and the next stage, to see whether my arguments will impress them a little more than they impress him, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Before the Amendment is withdrawn may I just say this? Take the central area of London again. Is that purely a local problem? What about all the Government offices and the vehicles of hundreds of Government employees that come into work every day? Surely that is not a local problem? Perhaps the noble Earl would give that point his attention for a moment. It seems to me that the population of Government offices is in no way a local problem. The Government put their offices up all over the central area of London. It seems to me that is a responsibility that should be shared by the country.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would just say this. First of all, the drafting of the new clause is bad secondly it involves a Money Resolution; thirdly, whilst I should be very happy to discuss it, I really cannot hold out any hope that we can do anything.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: In that case I think there is only one thing, we can do and that is test the feeling of the Committee on a matter of great principle. In view of the very fair way in which my noble friend has approached this matter on an important question. I think all we can do is divide.
6.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether the noble Viscount realised what my noble friend said about the Money Resolution. There is that difficulty with the Bill. We are dealing with it coming from the Commons, and the effect of the new clause would be to authorise expenditure out of public funds
towards the provision of off-street parking places. This is outside the terms of the Money Resolution passed in the House of Commons for the purposes of the Bill. It would be unusual for us to do it. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised an important point of principle, but not a point that can easily be dealt with at this stage. We shall all be glad to consider it. Her Majesty's Government, as my noble friend has said, have treated parking as a local matter. I think the important point which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has raised is whether it ought to be a local matter. That raises the other aspect, which I am sure the noble Lord has in mind, that relevant matters for consideration might well be different in some provincial centres from what they are in London. These are [natters of great interest, and I think they might well be taken up as a general point. But I do not want noble Lords to divide the House on a kind of point upon which they do not usually divide it, a point which involves amendment of a Financial Resolution in another place. I do not mind if they do divide the House, but I want to be clear that the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, understands the situation the Bill is in.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understand fully. It would not be the first occasion on which Members of your Lordships' House, in order to press a point of great principle, have divided the House, leaving it to the other place to agree or not. Of course, we know that the final word lies with Her Majesty's Commons. In view of the quite rigid attitude which the Government have adopted when the matter has been put so reasonably by my noble friend, we feel that all we can do is to show our complete disagreement with the Government by dividing the Committee.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents 12: Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Crook. L. [Teller.]

Kershaw, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Hall, V.

Hampton, L.

Silkin, L.

Waleran, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Goschen, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.[Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Margesson, V.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Gridley, L.

Templewood, V.

Hawke, L.

Albemarle, E.

Hore-Belisha, L.

Gosford, E.

Aberdare, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Howe,E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lloyd, L.

Morley, E.

Barnby, L.

Luke, L.

Munster, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Monson, L.

Selkirk, E.

Conesford, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swinton, E).

Craigmyle, L.

Salter, L.

Denham L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Strang, L.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Teviot, L.

Falmouth, V.

Elton, L.

Teynham, L.

Furness, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 21:
Penalties and disqualifications.
21.—(1) The following provisions, shall have effect as respects penalties and disqualifications which a person is liable to incur on a conviction for an offence under section eleven (reckless or dangerous driving), section twelve (careless driving) or section fifteen (driving under the influence of drink or a drug) of the Act of 1930 in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle, that is to say:—
(a) a fine imposed on summary conviction for a first offence under the said section eleven may be of an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds and may be imposed in addition to any imprisonment awarded by the court; and any imprisonment awarded on summary conviction for a second subsequent offence under that section may be for a term not exceeding six months;
6.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "pounds," to insert:
"and shall not be less than fifty pounds except for special reasons which may be special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender."
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it is in order to refer to the recent Division, but all I can do is to remind your Lordships that according to Biblical history—at least I was so taught—twelve good men, perhaps, laid the foundations of a lot of good work. We have now finished that part of the Bill which deals with the controversial issues of vehicle inspection, and we come to the important part of the Bill which deals with penalties for offences against the traffic laws. With your Lordships' permission, I should like
398
to deal with Amendments 61, 63, 64 and 65, which run together. I have always held the view, ever since I can remember, that one fundamental principle governs our social life—that is, that as a people we believe that punishment is a deterrent to wrong doing. If that is so, and I believe it to be true, then that punishment should really be a deterrent. But all the evidence that is available on the question of road accidents and the punishments which Parliament in its wisdom degrees shall be inflicted, has not proved that these punishments are a deterrent. Unfortunately, the number of accidents increases.
Through the courtesy of the Ministry of Transport, I have here the latest figures for road accidents, and they are appalling, This year there is a substantial increase in the number of people killed on the roads. The total for five months from January to May is 2,001, as against 1,841 for the corresponding period last year. The number of seriously injured has gone up from 20,996 to 22,601. The number of slightly injured has gone up from 67,919 to 74,424. So that the total has gone up from 90,756 to 99,026—or 10 per cent. We cannot look at these figures without an added sense of responsibility. When at the Ministry of Transport, it was one of my duties to act as Chairman of the National Road Safety Committee, and the problem confronting us all the time was how we could make the punishment fit the crime. I believe that the failure to do that is one of the greatest contributory factors to road accidents.
I have prepared some data and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I read out these figures, because

399
in my view they are absolutely conclusive. They may be difficult to follow, but I want to read them in order to have them published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, SO that your Lordships can study them at leisure and noble Lords who are not present in the Chamber can also study them. These are the official figures prepared annually by the Home Office. In 1952, prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit numbered 89,799, in which there were 87,345 conviction with an average fine of £2 3s., when the maximum penalties then in force, as they are now, were £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second offence. In 1954, the number of convictions went up to 89,714 and the average fine went up to £2 8s. In 1952, the number of convictions for careless driving was 22,305 and the average fine was £3 17s., whereas the maximum penalty that could be inflicted was £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second. In 1954, the number of convictions went up to 29,614 and the average fine went down to £3 16s. In 1952, the number of convictions for dangerous driving was 3,237 and the average fine £10 10s., with maximum penalties for the first offence of £50 and for a second offence £100. In 1954, the convictions were 4,202 and the average fine went down to £10. In 1952, the number of convictions for driving under the influence of drink—may I interpose that in my view this is the worst crime ever to be committed on the roads—was 2,099, and the average fine £19 15s., where the maximum penalty for a first offence was £50 and for a second £100. In 1954, the number of convictions was 2,806 and the average fine went down to £16 4s. Disqualification has always been a matter for the discretion of the magistrates, and in 1952 it was invoked in only 3 per cent. of the total of convictions for an offence where disqualification was within the discretion of the magistrates. In 1954 the percentage of disqualifications remained precisely the same.
This is the conflict—and I want to put it fairly. Parliament, in its wisdom, said that the maximum penalty for any of these offences I have read out was a certain sum. I think logic would then dictate that the average penalty one would expect to see imposed is about halfway between the maximum and nothing. But it was not. The averages
400
that I have read out amount to about 10 per cent. So there is a conflict, in my view, between Parliament and the magistrates' bench. Parliament lays down what the maximum fine shall be, and the fines are 10 per cent. of the maximum. The other place, in its wisdom, has doubled the maximum fine in this Bill, and that, in my view, betokens the seriousness with which they view these offences. I maintain that the magistrates have another view, judged by the penalties they have imposed in the past. Whose view is going to prevail? If Parliament is right—and, after all, Parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people—the magistrates must be wrong; and if the magistrates are right. then Parliament must be wrong.
So what I have tried to do in this Amendment and those that follow is a modified version of what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor tried to do under Clause 8. I have tried to find out why magistrates do not convict, and I have discussed this matter with various magistrates all over the country. They say: "Well, we think the reason is that nearly every magistrate is a motorist, and when they sit on the bench, going through their minds all the time is the thought, 'There, but for the grace of God, stand I'". That may be so. If that logic is correct, since the biggest drop in the average fine is in relation to motorists who are found guilty of being drunk in charge, does the same thing apply to the benches: "There but for the grace of God stand I"? I should not like to say that for a moment; but I cannot find out the reason why there is such a disparity between the view of the bench and that of Parliament as to the seriousness of these offences. What I have tried to do, therefore, is to retain the discretion of the magistrates—which I think is the right thing to do—and to bring in the psychological aspect which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor so well described yesterday afternoon. And, if I may say so, he quite convinced me of the justice of what he was saying.
While I am mentioning the noble and learned Viscount, I hope he will not think I am taking an unfair advantage of him by quoting to your Lordships something that he said in a speech that he made

401
when he was addressing magistrates. He said this:
"Magistrates must be very careful to consider whether the penalties which they are in the practice of imposing on motorists who handle that instrument which endangers other people are sufficient to impress on the motorists the seriousness of this offence."
The Lord Chancellor then mentioned this Bill, and he went on to say:
"I do not know in what form the Bill will finally emerge from Parliament, but I can at least say that the terms of the Bill as introduced are indicative of the grave concern of the Government about road casualties."
He then concluded this section of his address to the magistrates with these words, quoting some of the figures that I have quoted, which he no doubt obtained from the same source as I did —the Home Office. He said:
"These figures obviously provide a good deal of food for thought, and I suggest that some courts, at any rate, should consider whether their practice is appropriate when Judged by present standards and in the light of current conditions."
The accident rate is going up; we are not keeping pace with the times. So I have put down these Amendments, and what I have clone is to take the new maximum monetary fines as they appear in this Bill, and divide them by half. I am not tied to these figures, and have done this only as an illustration to your Lordships. Then I have said—arid I will take the first Amendment that I am now moving:
"after pounds 'insert and shall not be less than fifty pounds except…."
Perhaps I had better read the clause, so that your Lordships can see how it goes. Subsection (1) (a) says:
"A fine imposed on summary conviction for a first offence under section eleven may be of an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds"—
and it is here that I propose to insert the words,
"and shall not be less than fifty pounds except for special reasons which may be special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender'".
That does not put a minimum fine, as I am against minimum fines. Nor does it take away the discretion of the magistrates. The bench, or the court, can impose a smaller fine, but if they do then they must give their reasons, which may be
"special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender."
402
They can take in all considerations such as income, position, past record and so on. This does not tie them at all. Bu: what it does—which it; not available now —is to allow the prosecution, if they are not satisfied that justice has been met,. to go to the divisional court to appeal upon those special reasons. I believe, that would be a good thing, because we should then get some uniformity over the country.
I put this matter before your Lordships with some temerity, but I am really concerned at the leniency of the benches. I have read out these average fines—those are facts—and, with the value of money as it is to-day, they are merely nothing If I had my way, anybody who was convicted of driving a car or any vehicle ore the roads of this country when he was drunk and incapable would never drive a motor vehicle again It is a ghastly crime. But the average fine for that offence—for which the maximum fine on a first offence is £50, and for a second offence £100—has been £16 4s. It has gone down, and the value of money has gone down at the same time. I do not think I have been harsh. I do not think I have done anything to which the magistrates' benches could object. As I have said, I shall welcome expressions of opinion by noble Lords, but I firmly believe that we have got to do something to give the magistrates' courts of this country a guide as to the serious view that Parliament takes of these offences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19 after ("pounds") insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
6.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that, all your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for bringing up one of the most difficult problems we have to consider. I am personally grateful, because he was good enough to give me the figures that he quoted, some time before the debate commenced. Undoubtedly, these figures show that there is a real and serious problem which we have to consider in Parliament. I appreciate that the noble Lord has tried to find a fair and equitable via media between the difficulty of a fixed fine, which he himself repudiates, and the question of too much discretion. He must be conscious, as I

403
am—and I have considered it with great sympathy—that that is a difficult thing to find.
The fixed fine is as repugnant to me as it is to him, because it must be possible for a court to take all the circumstances of the particular case into account. The noble Lord has dealt with that with full consideration of the point by altering the existing statutory provision so that the discretion of the court applies to the circumstances of the case as well as to the offence—to the offender as well as to the offence. But, of course, he will realise that as soon as that is done it makes it more difficult, on an appeal to the higher court, for the higher court to interfere with the justices on that point. The noble Lord will appreciate that I am not blaming him at all; I entirely agree, and I do not think he could have left it the other way. That immediately raises that difficulty, and it is one which naturally we have had very much in mind.
There is one other general point. When I was Home Secretary I was constantly pressed in another place, as Home Secretary, to issue an instruction. I always refused, because I think there is another aspect that we must consider—namely, whatever Parliament may do, the Executive must never interfere with the Judiciary in the exercise of their work. These are principles with which I am sure the noble Lord will agree. Of course, the position of Parliament is a different matter, and what the noble Lord has sought to do, when one comes down to it in the end, is to give a pointer, and a serious pointer, to magistrates as to what Parliament would like them to do.
There is only one aspect of that which I should like to put to him, because I have given this matter grave thought since his Amendment first came before me for consideration. I have said that the problem is a genuine one. It is recognised by everyone who has considered it that some courts do not impose adequate penalties for motoring offences. There is another point that I should like to add (and I do not think the noble Lord will disagree), which is that magistrates' courts do not make as much use as they might of the powerful weapon of disqualification.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Three per cent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point the noble Lord was making by quoting these figures at the end of his statement. He would agree that disqualification serves a double purpose in that it is, first, the punishment most feared by motorists and, therefore, the most effective deterrent; and, secondly—the practical point—that it keeps a careless or dangerous driver off the road for a period and does that practical amount of good. In most cases of serious motoring offences it is probably the most useful penalty that magistrates have at their command. I say that with the utmost seriousness, because I think it should go out from your Lordships' House that it is a matter to be considered. Nothing that I say, or the noble Lord says, will derogate—we are both careful about that —from consideration of the particular facts of a particular case. But that general matter should go out. I was, and am, rather worried that the attention which the noble Lord's series of Amendments gives to the question of fines might have the effect, on those who did not read our debates in full, of deflecting their attention from disqualification. I think that would be a bad thing. They might feel: "Well, if Parliament says that in the absence of special circumstances you have got to fine somebody at least half the maximum amount, that is obviously what they want us to look at." I think that is a serious point.
With regard to the noble Lord's objective of giving a pointer to magistrates, I want to repeat what he has already said, because it is most relevant on this point. The Government have revised the current penalties for motoring offences, and have embodied their conclusions in Clause 21 of the Bill. This clause increases the fines and terms of imprisonment which may be imposed for some of the more serious offences; it removes the present limitation of three months on the period of disqualification for a second conviction of careless driving and it requires that the disqualification which has to be imposed, in default of special circumstances, for a second or subsequent comviction of dangerous driving, shall be for not less than nine months unless more than three years have elapsed since the offender's last conviction for that offence.

405
I have repeated that summary because I want—and I am sure everyone wants—these increased provisions to be regarded, not merely as a maximum which is not afterwards regarded, but as a sign of the seriousness which is felt in Parliament with regard to this matter. We have tried, as a Government, to keep the balance between the motorist and the public; and, as has been pointed out countless times, these are not exclusive terms. Therefore, in considering the public we must always try to ensure that the public, as motorists, will regard the public in their other capacities. But we have tried to keep a balance, and the last thing that we want—for the very reason that motor transport is so basic in our society to-day—is that anyone should think that this Bill is an attack on motorists. That has been repudiated from both sides, but, while the Bill is not an attack on motorists, that does not exclude the fact that the Government consider that magistrates' courts might be well advised to review the scale of the penalties which they customarily impose in motoring cases and decide, in the light of the gravity of the problem of road safety and of the fall in the value of money, whether these are adequate.
I have tried to say again, in the most serious terms, what the noble Lord was good enough to quote from my speech in Sussex. I hope that it will go out in that way and that it will be understood by magistrates. I think it is right for me to pose to them the seriousness of the problem. I say again that it would be wrong, and no-one in this House would desire me to infringe in any way their right to give full effect to the circumstances of each case. But the gravity of the prob1,ein is of national importance. It is a matter which everyone must consider to-day, and especially those who are in that responsible position of magistrates. I hope that, in view of what I have said, and of the gravity with which I have dealt with the problem which the noble Lord has raised, he will not press the Amendment. I have not gone into any details; I have tried to deal with the Amendment in a broad way which I thought would be appreciated by everyone. But it has undoubtedly had the result that it goes out from Parliament that this is a grave and serious problem. I hope the noble Lord will he content with that in the spirit in
406
which I have tried to answer his Amendment.
6.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I ant sure that the whole Home shares with me gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount for his careful and serious pronouncement. Of course, I would not dream of pressing these Amendments in view of what he has said. I here are only two doubts in my mind. We are asked in this Bill to double the maximum fines. Frankly, I think it is useless. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that there are some extensions of disqualification in the Bill. I hope that that will have an effect: but, if I may be frank with your Lordships, having been through all this matter from the inside I am not at all optimistic that all the labours we have spent on the first part of this Bill will influence our problem to a worthwhile degree. I am serious. I believe that Parliament has to find some way of influencing the conduct of the public—that goes for motorises, pedestrians and all other members of society. They all have to be influenced. Tinkering about with the fitness of motor cars nay do something; but our serious problem, even with motor cars far 'Defter than they have ever been in the history of the automobile industry—although admittedly there are more vehicles on the reads—is that accidents go up.
However, I will be optimistic in hoping that perhaps the noble and learned Viscount has found the way of impressing upon the benches of the country the seriousness of this matter, because that alone may prove the answer to many of our problems. We have the police to think of. I have discussed this question in and out of season with the police, and they say, "What good is it for us to waste our officers' time clicking their heels in the waiting rooms of magistrates' courts in this country, when some people get off with a fine which, for a serious offence, we think is no deterrent at all?" That is one of the prime reasons why the traffic laws of this country are being brought into disrepute. None of your Lordships will contest the accuracy of that statement. These law s are really in disrepute. There are even some that have never been used. I will not waste any more of your Lordships' time. I will withdraw not only this Amendment but

407
the others, with my thanks to the noble and learned Viscount for the care which he always takes with serious questions of this sort. I hope this will have a good effect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.47 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (a):
"and a disqualification for a period not exceeding three months may be imposed on conviction for a first offence under the said section eleven;"
The noble Lord said: I want to be brief—in fact, I have to be brief. I am all the more grateful for much that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in moving his last Amendment. I am also grateful for much that the Lord Chancellor said in replying to him. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, reminded us that road accidents are still steadily going up. They are rising, and they are rising from a level to which a civilised and Christian country should never have allowed them to rise. We all of us at intervals in this House say that we are anxious to abate the road massacre. We frequently protest—and I sometimes think that, like the Queen in Hamlet, we protest too much, for, as the noble Lord. Lord Hore-Belisha, was reminding us yesterday afternoon, when a particular measure comes before us we usually find that somebody has discovered some insurmountable and practical objection to it. I cannot believe that anyone who wishes this Bill to save lives can find any insurmountable objection to the Amendment which I am now putting before your Lordships.
Very simply, if in their wisdom they so desire—there is no compulsion—it seeks to give benches the power to suspend a licence, though not for longer than three months as a maximum, on a first conviction for reckless or dangerous driving, instead of, as at present, only after a second conviction. I would stress that this is permissive, not mandatory, and the maximum suspension of licence possible under it would be three months. We all know that there is a certain number of obstinately reckless, selfish and accident-prone drivers who are usually pretty easily recognisable and who, in their own interests as well as in the interests of the community, should be
408
taught this comparatively moderate lesson at the outset of their motoring career.
A friend of mine who, besides being a celebrated and learned legal luminary also chairman of a bench of magistrates, frequently laments that his bench has had to convict for the first time an obvious potential killer and has been unable to impose the suspension of the licence for three months, well knowing that humanly speaking it is certain that before long that man will have killed or maimed either himself or some innocent stranger. Surely it is not asking too much that benches should have the power, if in their wisdom they so decide, to suspend the licence of one of these potential killers at the outset. Even if it is for only a brief period, it is long enough to warn him that, if he does not drive with more circumspection and unselfishness, he is likely to get himself and others into much graver trouble. Surely it cannot be said that that is a sentimental or unpractical or excessive demand. I am inclined to feel that I deserve to say of myself the words which Lord Clive of India used—namely:
"I stand astonished at my own moderation."
I am greatly fortified in this view by what has happened since I put this Amendment down early last week. On Friday I received a communication from the Magistrates' Association informing me that their council had adopted the following resolution:
"That any person convicted of reckless or dangerous driving should automatically be disqualified, the period of disqualification to be decided by the court, but in any case to be of not less than one month."
That is much more extreme than what I am asking the Minister to agree to this evening. Here the Magistrates' Association are asking that the power to suspend a licence after a first conviction for reckless or dangerous driving should be mandatory and not permissive. There is no mention in the resolution of a maximum period; it merely says "of not less than one month". My Amendment lays down that there should be a maximum of three months.
The Magistrates' Association is an important and influential body, the President of which is no less a person than the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who is about to reply to my Amendment. Surely it is unthinkable

409
that he should now rise and tell me that I am asking for too much, when I am asking for less than is demanded by the resolution of the body of which he himself is President. In the circumstances, I feel that I need hardly detain the Committee longer. I greatly hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is going to be kind to me, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Elton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will think that I am going to be kind to him, because I am going to point out to him that the existing law is more severe than his Amendment proposes it should be. These things are rather tricky to find; therefore, may I ask the noble Lord to follow me on the point, and I think he will see that I am right. Section 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relates to the offence of reckless or dangerous driving of a motor vehicle, and subsection (3) of that section provides that on a second or subsequent conviction under the section the convicting court shall, except in certain circumstances, exercise the power conferred by Part I of the Act and order that the offender shall be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence for such period as the court thinks fit. I think that is what must have misled my noble friend Lord Elton, because I do not think he had in mind that in fact the court has power to disqualify for a first offence under Section 6 of the Act of 1930. That is frequently exercised and is not limited as the Amendment is, but is a matter which the court can and does apply. Therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment, which is that disqualification may be imposed on conviction for a first offence, is already the law and is put into effect. I think that fully meets the point of the noble Lord.
I was speculating deeply as to who was the legal authority on the bench—I think I have a fairly good idea. In this case it is not a question of law and order, but it is a question of a provision in a different section of the Statute. But may I say to my noble friend that I am glad he has moved this Amendment, because it has given me the opportunity of pointing out that there is that power under Section 6 of the Act of 1930. It is a power which magistrates ought to have
410
in mind; and the very fact that his friend thought he had not that power shows that the noble Lord has done a service in giving publicity to the fact by his Amendment and giving me the opportunity of making it clear that the power does exist. I need not go into the facts of the enlargement of the penalties and the powers of disqualification which occur in the Bill, because I answered the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in my views as to the importance of disqualification. I am glad to be able to reassure my noble friend that this point is covered and to thank him for having given me the chance of making that quite clear.
LORD ELTON: Is this not an example of one of the difficulties of legislation by reference? I was aware of Section 6 in the Act of 1930 and of Section 11. I consulted an eminent legal authority who gave me exactly the opposite view to that of the supreme authority, the Lord Chancellor. He said that in his view this did not empower the bench to convict on a first offence. And the legal luminary to whom I was referring, who shall remain anonymous, who had been a professor of law as well as chairman of a bench, considers, too, that these sections do not give this power. And where exactly are we with the Magistrates' Association? The Magistrates' Association, of which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is President, is demanding the passing of a formal resolution claiming the powers which the noble and learned Viscount its President says it already possesses.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the greatest respect to my noble friend, if I heard the resolution aright, they were asking for an automatic disqualification. Under Section 6 it is a discretionary disqualification. An automatic disqualification is quite different.
LORD ELTON: That is so; it is automatic. But subject to correction, as I read this resolution, they were under the impression that the "firstness" of the conviction as well as the "automaticness" of the penalty would be a novelty. Of course, I bow to the Lord Chancellor, but I hope that this will go out to the public, because I am sure that there are large numbers of magistrates and distinguished lawyers who are not aware that this is the state of the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I take it that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD ELTON: No. I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend the Leader of the House announced earlier. I would suggest to your Lordships that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

  ATTACKS ON SOMALI TRIBESMEN
  ATTACKS ON SOMALI TRIBESMEN
  RUGBY CORPORATION BILL
  RUGBY CORPORATION BILL
  PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL
  PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL