Sitting of 4 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Maltese (Long-Service Engagement)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will introduce a world-wide form of engagement for Maltese ratings in addition to the existing local engagement.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Ward): My noble Friend has under consideration a scheme whereby Maltese young men may be entered in Malta, as Maltese boys are now, for a long-service engagement. This would involve the same obligations and advantages as an engagement entered into in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he will have my support—and that is worth a lot—in any such move? Further, may I ask him whether this means that the Maltese ratings will get the same rates of pay if they enter on the same engagement?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, it does.

    Engine Room Artificers (Pay)
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a mechanician I and engine room artificer 3 both rank as chief petty officers and have similar periods of experience as engineers, he will increase the basic pay of the engine room artificer 3 to that of the mechanician I.
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir. The basic pay of the artificer 3rd class, with trade pay in addition, is the same as the basic pay of the mechanician 1st class, who is not eligible for trade pay until he acquires comparable skill with the artificer. It
    1302
    normally takes about three years for the mechanician to obtain the full trade pay of 1s. 6d. a day which is automatically payable to all engine room artificers 3rd class.

    Chief Petty Officers
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the percentage of chief petty officers with nine years' seniority to other ranks in the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Ward: The percentage of chief petty officers with nine or more years' service as such, to the total number of male ratings in the Royal Navy is at present 2·9.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that the figure is only 2·9 per cent., and as the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a Question by me on 9th May, gave the fact that only 3 per cent. were warrant officers in the Army as the reason he could not give chief petty officers in the Navy the same status and pay as warrant officers in the Army, will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Ward: On that occasion I was talking about all chief petty officers, not only those with nine years or more in the rank. That is what makes the figure different. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pay codes are not the same at every point. If one concentrates on any particular point in a man's career one has to look at the swings as well as the round-abouts. Taking the career of a chief petty officer as a whole, I am satisfied that those in that rank compare very favourably with their opposite numbers in the other Services.
    Mr. Willis: Will not the hon. Gentleman look at the matter again and give the chief petty officer with nine years' service what I asked for before, the pay of the warrant officer in the Army?
    Mr. Ward: May I suggest this? As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a very complicated matter. If he would like to go over all the figures with me, I shall he very glad to do so, and I think that I can satisfy him on the point.

    Bases
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what other naval bases he proposes to

    1303
    close down in addition to that of Scapa Flow.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby): I have nothing to add, at present, to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 20th June.
    Mr. Hughes: If Scapa Flow is not safe, can the Minister tell us what is safe in this country; and can he say whether he proposes to base the Navy in the next war on Miami, Florida, St. Helena or the Seychelles?
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the strategical reasons for abandoning the naval base at Scapa Flow.
    Mr. Ward: I can only repeat the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on 20th June, that we no longer see sufficient use for most of the naval installations in the Orkneys, either in peace or in war, to justify the expense of their retention.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us if we are justified in spending over £400 million on the Navy if it cannot even defend Scapa Flow?
    Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman is constantly asking for reductions in defence expenditure. When we make one he must not complain.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will ensure the closest co-ordination with other Departments over possible uses of the base installations at Lyness or Scapa Flow, and the maintenance of various services, such as ferries and water supply.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Yes, Sir. I am in consultation with the Scottish Office and the other Departments concerned on these matters.
    Mr. Grimond: While I know that the Admiralty is well aware of the difficulties which the islands will have to face, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if it will give us as long notice as it can of the actual run-down of personnel, as it comes to the Admiralty's attention?
    Mr. Digby: Certainly we shall give as long notice as we can. The plan is being
    1304
    worked out. As soon as it is decided on we shall give as long notice as possible to the men concerned.

  POST OFFICE

    Watcombe Estate, Torquay
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now prepared to authorise the establishment of a sub-post office at Watcombe Estate, Torquay.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Not, Sir, on the information available to me at present. If my hon. Friend has any further considerations to advance perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been pursued by both my predecessor and myself, over a period not of months only but of years, and that we have given very full information about it? Is he further aware, if he has not visited the locality, that Torquay, like Rome, is built on seven hills, and that the distances which the Department has fixed to be those between the post offices established there have no bearing on local considerations? Is he further aware that savings are being lost day by day because elderly people living in that area cannot climb up and down the hills to get to and from any of the post offices?
    Mr. Alport: There are two post offices, each about half a mile away from the estate, and both of them at present give a satisfactory service. There is a good public transport service available between the estate and the post offices concerned.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Postal and Telephone Charges
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now give an undertaking that there will be no increase in postal or telephone charges for at least twelve months.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Postmaster-General whether, to assist the campaign to stabilise prices, he will give an assurance that postal charges will not be further increased during the next twelve months.
    Mr. Alport: I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave last Wednesday to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Although that reply, of which I am aware, is all to the good, would my hon. Friend not consider going further than the undertaking of six months and give an undertaking that there will not be any increase in postal charges for twelve months?
    Mr. Alport: It has been and still is the policy of my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Post Office pays its way on the basis of contemporary costs, while trying at the same time to achieve maximum efficiency and economy, and that will continue to be the principal dominating my right hon. Friend's policy in future.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Cannot the Assistant Postmaster-General go one stage further and give a twelve months' undertaking instead of a six months' undertaking, which sounds all the more suspicious, in view of the alleged success of the Government's economy policy? Cannot he extend the undertaking?
    Mr. Alport: If the hon. and gallant Member could forecast what the level of wages during the next twelve months will be, perhaps one would be able to give a different answer.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the increase before the last one was imposed by the Postmaster-General due to manipulation by the Treasury, and can he give an undertaking that there will not be manipulation by the Treasury?
    Mr. Alport: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of those events. It is not true, as he, from his own experience, should know.

    Mail (Opening)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Postmaster-General how many individuals, or bodies, had their mail opened, under instructions from the Home Office, during the last twelve months.
    Mr. Haleasked the Postmaster-General what authority exists for the interception of letters addressed to persons regarded as doubtful security risks; how far such authority extends to the families
    1306
    and associates of such persons; and on what occasions these powers have been recently exercised.
    Mr. Alport: Mail is opened only under the authority of an express warrant in writing signed by a Secretary of State. In the public interest it is not the practice to disclose information about such warrants.
    Mr. Grimond: While fully appreciating that it may be held not to be in the public interest to disclose details of particular cases, may I ask whether we really ought not to be told how often this very alarming power is exercised during a year? What possible harm could there be in giving the number of cases?
    Mr. Alport: It is not the practice under this Government, as it was not under any previous Government, to give details of this sort.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not important that the volume of this sort of work should be known to the House, even if not individual cases? Here is an alarming exercise of power over which the House has no control at all. Ought not the Postmaster-General himself to seek authority from his colleagues to publish the volume of cases in which this power is used?
    Mr. Alport: When the right hon. Gentleman was Postmaster-General he would not, I am sure, in any circumstances have given the information for which he is now asking.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the rumour that letters addressed to Mrs. Lang, the wife of the gentleman who was recently dismissed from his employment, under Government instructions, were opened? If so, what was the reason for it?
    Mr. Alport: No particular case is included in the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Stokes: Did the Minister's first reply mean that letters may be opened on the authority, or "signed warrant" as he calls it, of any Secretary of State? Does it mean that any Secretary of State of the Government can demand that a letter shall be opened?
    Mr. Speir: On a point of order. Is it not contrary to Standing Orders for secret matters to be discussed by the House?
    Mr. Speaker: It is in order to ask questions about them, but it is also in order to refuse information about them.
    Mr. Alport: The position is set out quite clearly in Section 58 (1) of the Post Office Act, 1953, which reproduces the similar provisions of previous Acts stretching back a considerable period of time.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Would I not be right if I asserted that there has been no material change in practice since the great days of the Liberal Government of 1906?
    Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the same provision was included in the Post Office Act, 1908.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister be a little more courteous, instead of hiding behind the mumbo-jumbo in the reply which he gave me? Will he tell me whether in fact this means that any Secretary of State can demand that letters shall be opened?
    Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman will see the situation set out perfectly clearly in the Answer which I gave to the original Question.
    Mr. Ede: Is it not a fact that there is only one Secretary of State?
    Mr. Speaker: That seems to be a legal question.

    Staff, Palace of Westminster (Expenses)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Postmaster-General how many of his staff are employed in the Palace of Westminster; and how many of these have to meet the cost of their postage, secretarial and other expenses wholly and necessarily incurred in carrying out their duties on behalf of his Department, from their post office wage or salary.
    Mr. Alport: The answer to the first part of the Question is 66 and to the second part none.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that I am very pleased to see that he has not treated his staff of 66 here in the same deplorable manner as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has treated Members of Parliament?

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Reception, Kingston Blount
    Mr. Hayasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the interference being experienced to television reception in the vicinity of Kingston Blount, Oxfordshire, as a consequence of transmissions by the United States radio beam station at Kingston Hill; and what action is being taken to put this matter right.
    Mr. Alport: Yes, Sir. Post Office engineers are visiting the viewers affected, and in most cases have been able to cure the trouble. The more difficult cases are being further investigated in co-operation with the radio industry.
    Mr. Hay: Is my hon. Friend aware that when this station was first set up categorical assurances were given by the American technicians concerned that no interference with television would be caused? Will he do his utmost to see that remedial steps are taken at the transmitter itself, rather than at the various receivers, because it covers a very wide area of the country and is affecting a great many people?
    Mr. Alport: We realise that interference does take place, and we have had the full co-operation of the United States' authorities in attempting to deal with this problem, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the transmitter uses a radio technique which is new to this country and has, therefore, produced results which, I think, were unforeseen in those circumstances.

    V.H.F. Station, Rowridge
    Dr. Kingasked the Postmaster-General if he will include a station in southern Hampshire in the second programme of new frequency modulation stations.
    Mr. Alport: I hope that a station at Rowridge will be included in the next stage of the V.H.F. broadcasting programme, which my right hon. Friend is now discussing with the B.B.C.
    Dr. King: While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that that part of England was about the last to get television coverage, and that ordinary broadcasting reception is very unsatisfactory, especially on the medium-wave band, and that anything he can do to

    1309
    speed up this new kind of broadcasting will be much appreciated by the people of Hampshire?
    Mr. Alport: We are aware that there has been considerable interference from foreign stations on the medium-wave band. We have made representations to the Spanish and Rumanian authorities recently, and they have improved the situation, but the hon. Member can be assured that the need for further improvement is well understood and will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman say when all such areas will be covered by very high frequency transmitters?
    Mr. Alport: Not without notice, but I can assure the hon. Member that during the next year, 1957–58, we hope to make considerable progress.

    Reception, West Somerset
    Mr. du Cannasked the Postmaster-General what improvement will be provided in the reception of the British Broadcasting Corporation's programmes in west Somerset by the coming into full operation of the very high frequency stations at North Hessary Tor and Wenvoe; and how soon this will be achieved.
    Mr. Alport: The Wenvoe V.H.F. station, which already broadcasts the Welsh Home Service, is expected to broadcast the West of England Home Service and the Light Programme later in the summer. The station will give good service to west Somerset on all these programmes. The North Hessary Tor V.H.F. station is intended to, serve Devon and Cornwall and not Somerset
    Mr. du Cann: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that those of us who are concerned with Somerset feel sometimes that Wales gets a little more attention than Somerset does and that we shall very much appreciate and be very grateful indeed for anything he can do to improve reception in that area?

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Overhead Cables, Northumberland
    Mr. Speirasked the Postmaster-General how many miles of telephone cable in Northumberland are carried by
    1310
    poles or pylons employed jointly for the distribution of electricity.
    Mr. Alport: About 29 miles carried on 410 poles.
    Mr. Speir: Does my hon. Friend not consider that to be a rather disappointing total? Is it not quite feasible to carry both electricity cables and telephone cabes on the same pylons or the same poles? Will he, therefore, get his engineers in the Northumberland area to consult the Electricity Board about it, because too large numbers of people in rural areas are still waiting for both telephone and electricity services?
    Mr. Alport: We are in process of negotiating a new agreement with electricity boards in all parts of the country about the sharing of poles and pylons. During the year which ended 31st May, 1955, that policy was carried out in 6,000 new cases involving joint use of 15,000 new poles. However, I would remind my hon. Friend that in certain circumstances, for reasons of danger and interference with the telephone service, it is not possible to carry out joint user of the type that he envisages.

    Kiosks, Rural Areas
    Mr. Gowerasked the Postmaster-General what steps are taken by his Department to consult local opinion before siting new rural telephone kiosks.
    Mr. Alport: The programme for the provision of rural kiosks is drawn up in consultation with the Rural District Councils' Association, and local officials of my Department keep in close touch with local interests regarding the location of individual kiosks. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will let me have particulars, I shall be glad to make inquiry.
    Mr. Gower: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that there is a feeling, certainly in Wales, that his Department does not pay sufficient heed to the views and knowledge of parish councils and parish meetings and associations of parish councils, with their superior local knowledge?
    Mr. Alport: My right hon. Friend hopes that, with the expansion of the Post Office advisory committees, which will represent local interests of various

    1311
    sorts, consultation of this sort may be improved in the future.
    Mr. Snow: While supporting in principle what the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has said, may I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is a tendency towards wastage, where new housing estates are completed, by contractors' lines being sealed up although it is planned by his Department to install kiosks. Could not one job follow the other? If I send him particulars of a rather bad case in my own constituency, at Mile Oak, will he please look into it?
    Mr. Alport: I hope that if the hon. Member has an example he will bring it to our attention immediately.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Aerodromes, East of Scotland (Civilian Use)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make available to British civil airways landing rights on Royal Air Force aerodromes in the east of Scotland similar to those available at other service stations where civilian aeroplanes are accommodated.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): Most of the airfields from which the Royal Air Force operates in this area are already available to civil aircraft.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I did not quite catch the first word of the reply. Do I understand that the Leuchars aerodrome is available for civil aircraft?
    Mr. Birch: I understand that it is available as a diversion airport.

    Controlled Air Spaces (Flight Rules)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Air if he has now reviewed the procedure governing flight in controlled air spaces; and whether, and to what extent, the existing rules have been altered.
    Mr. Birth: The review is not yet complete. Meanwhile, as the hon. Member knows, we have increased the visibility and cloud clearance governing visual
    1312
    flight rules and have prohibited any manoeuvre within the airways which would seriously restrict the pilot's view.
    Mr. Rankin: When the review is completed, will the Minister ensure that all aircraft using controlled air spaces will in future fly only under air traffic control clearances so that, whatever the flying conditions may be, there will be no chance of two aircraft seeking to occupy the same spot at the same time?
    Mr. Birch: Naturally, when the review is completed I will inform the House of the decisions.

    U.S.S.R. (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on his recent official visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the purposes of witnessing the Soviet Union's air display.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Moscow.
    Mr. Birch: I visited Russia from 23rd to 29th June, accompanied by a party of senior Royal Air Force officers. We attended the Soviet Air Day Display and paid visits to an operational airfield, the Zhukovsky Air Engineering Academy and to two factories. We were able to see something of the aircraft of the Soviet Air Force; of its personnel and of the technical and engineering training which they receive, and their industrial methods of production. We were entertained with traditional Russian hospitality.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the very regrettable incident which occurred affecting the batteries of the Comet, will the right hon. Gentleman not give some explanation or some information on that subject? Can we be assured that he took no batteries with him?
    Mr. Birch: There is another Question on the Order Paper about the Comet.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Can my right hon. Friend say which were the two factories he visited?
    Mr. Birch: We visited two aircraft factories in Moscow, one making piston-engined transport aircraft and another a development of the Nene engine.
    Mr. Hughes: Was it on the right hon. Gentleman's instructions that the Comet returned to Moscow? Is it true that a Russian pilot piloted the Comet, and will the right hon. Gentleman extend this practice so that Russian pilots fly all our aircraft and our pilots fly all Russian aircraft, because that would solve all our problems?
    Mr. de Freitas: In view of the great hospitality received in Moscow, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see whether Soviet Ministers can be invited to Farnborough in September? If they are, will he take them for a row on the Serpentine?
    Mr. Birch: It is the intention to ask a party of Russian officers and industrialists over to this country at the time of the S.B.A.C. show, and I understand that the S.B.A.C. is willing and anxious for them to go to the Farnborough display.
    Mr. Geoffrey de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what restrictions were placed upon him and his staff when they visited Soviet Air Force installations and aircraft factories.
    Mr. Birch: The visits were in the nature of conducted tours. The restrictions placed upon us were not unreasonable.
    Mr. de Freitas: Since that is so, will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to see if there cannot be a better adjustment of security restrictions on visits to airfields so far as Members of Parliament are concerned? Does he realise that journalists and foreign officers are allowed into aircraft access to which is forbidden to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Birch: I am very sorry to hear it. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman had a satisfactory visit to a Javelin station the other day.
    Mr. de Freitas: I did indeed. I was not complaining about that, but about the case, which the right hon. Gentleman knows well, of one of my hon. Friends.
    Sir D. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement concerning the failure of the Comet aircraft in Moscow.
    Mr. Birch: A connection inside one of the batteries fused and this resulted in there being insufficient power to start the engines. It was an unusual fault and one which could not have been detected during normal routine servicing. The fault was traced and rectified within one hour, but by that time there had been a deterioration in the weather and it was decided to abandon the flight.
    A Comet flew to Moscow and back yesterday, and while there gave a 500 mile flight to a party of Russians.
    Sir D. Gammans: Can my right hon. Friend say that he is satisfied with the general maintenance arrangements of this aeroplane, in view of the very unfortunate effect that this failure had at a time when he was trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the Comet?
    Mr. Birch: It certainly was unfortunate, but I am satisfied that it was long odds against the chance and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, these things happen occasionally.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make sure that the fantastic performance of the Comet yesterday receives wide publicity?
    Mr. Birch: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving it.

    Jet Aircraft (Noise Reduction)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Gloster Aircraft Company have developed a detuner which reduces considerably the sound of jet engines being ground tested; and whether he will investigate the possibility of producing a version suitable for use on Royal Air Force stations at which jet aircraft are ground tested.
    Mr. Birch: I understand that this detuner is similar in principle to others already in use. Research and development in the reduction of aircraft noise is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and we shall of course keep in touch with what progress is made.
    Mr. de Freitas: Although that is the concern of the Minister of Supply, is it not a fact that it is R.A.F. airfields about which the public complain from time to time? Will the right hon. Gentleman do

    1315
    everything he can to speed up this research so that the R.A.F. will not be blamed for these noises in the countryside?
    Mr. Birch: We shall be as quiet as we can.

    Married Quarters, St. Mawgan
    Mr. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the siting of the proposed new married quarters at St. Mawgan Airfield, Cornwall.
    Mr. Birch: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is now over two years since his officers first met the county planning authority for Cornwall? Does he not consider that the hesitation and delay justifies the county council in feeling that the married quarters ought to be sited at St. Columb Minor?
    Mr. Birch: I am aware of the point which the hon. Member has in mind, but the future of the units at the station is not yet decided.

    Expenditure (Economies)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state the aircraft projects which are to be cancelled included in the item of £4,620,000 in the Government's economy programme.
    Mr. Birch: No cancellations of aircraft projects are included in the £4,620,000.
    Mr. Collins: Can the Minister say what proportion of this money is represented by works started and abandoned and therefore a total loss, and whether any part of it represents an addition to the already considerable losses on the Comet aircraft?
    Mr. Birch: No, I do not think so. It includes the reduction in requirements for guns, motor transport, clothing, accommodation, stores and various other things like that.

    Living Quarters, Habbaniya
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give an assurance that, before agreement is
    1316
    concluded with the Iraqi Government regarding Royal Air Force personnel to be stationed at Habbaniya, he will take steps to ensure that adequate and suitable living quarters, including married quarters, are provided.
    Mr. Birch: There is ample single accommodation and the availability of married quarters is expected to be as good as in the rest of the Middle East.
    Mr. Williams: In what time does the Minister expect that to take place? When will the married quarters, in particular, be ready?
    Mr. Birch: They are available already. In fact, owing to the reduction of Royal Air Force personnel there, the proportion of R.A.F. personnel who will get married quarters will actually increase.

    Land, Kingston Blount (Acquisition)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air on what date, and for what purpose, his Department acquired the land at Kingston Blount on which the United States Air Force has established a terminal of the new transatlantic ionosphere-scatter communication system.
    Mr. Birch: This land was leased with effect from 28th February, 1955, for the purpose described in the hon. Member's Question.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman help us in this matter? When it was known that there was the possibility of very great radio and television interference from this station, why was it set up on that spot, instead of in an isolated area?
    Mr. Birch: It was set up on that spot because it was the only site from which it could operate. It has to have a very considerable space of flat land in a particular direction, and this was the only site that could be found.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that this is the only possible site? Will he not look at the matter again, and consider whether a great mistake has not been made?
    Mr. Hay: Having regard to the Question which I put to the Assistant Postmaster-General on television reception, and since it is said that transmissions

    1317
    at the moment are in an experimental stage only, will the right hon. Gentleman not ask the United States authorities to close this station down until the matter is put right?
    Mr. Birch: I think that all are doing their best. I realise the difficulty of putting this matter right but I do not despair of a solution being found.

  TRANSPORT

    Television Interference (Suppressors)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, if he will take powers to require motor car owners to attach suppressors to their vehicles in the interest of television users; and if he will utilise the annual issue of the Excise licence to ensure that suppressors have been fitted.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General already has powers to require motor car owners to fit suppressors to their vehicles, and new motor vehicles must be so fitted. My right hon. Friend has no power to make the issue of an Excise licence conditional on the fitting of a suppressor.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the large and growing number of television viewers and the serious interference from which they suffer where they are near highways such as the Western Road through Slough, where motor cars are so frequent, whether he could not take powers to enable him to use the annual licence to see that these suppressors are attached to cars?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir, I do not think that it would be a proper thing to do, to take power, by a side wind, to enforce something of that kind.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are large numbers of new motor-assisted bicycles which interfere not only with television sets, but with ordinary radio sets? Can he say whether the Regulation just mentioned applies to those, because if so, it is being contravened.
    Mr. Molson: I think it applies to all motor vehicles, but I will certainly look into that point and let my hon. Friend know.

    Roundabouts
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what traffic has precedence, under his regulations, at a roundabout where two main roads intersect; and if he will arrange for appropriate signs to indicate this.
    Mr. Molson: In accordance with the advice of the Departmental Committee on Road Safety, no rule of precedence has been laid down for traffic at roundabouts. The existence of roundabouts is clearly indicated by traffic signs, and drivers must exercise proper judgment when approaching and using them.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the usual practice at roundabouts seems to be a system of "devil take the hindmost," and would it not be helpful if signs were put up to mark quite clearly which line of traffic has precedence?
    Mr. Molson: I am afraid that that would be impracticable. The only form it could take would be to indicate which road was to have priority, and that would not be practicable, because drivers approaching the roundabout would be unable to recognise which vehicles were entitled to that priority.
    Mr. Isaacs: Is the Minister not aware that in other countries this matter is easily settled simply by saying that a driver gives way to the car on his right or his left? It would be a great help if such a rule were applied, because in this country the driver who gives way every time does so because it looks as if he is "going to get it." Why cannot we have the practice which works well in other countries?
    Mr. Molson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the general rule that vehicles coming up on the right are to have priority. We have considered that, and we have come to the conclusion that it does not make for safety. A great many people are of the opinion that where that rule obtains, as in France, it adds to difficulty and danger and not to safety.
    Mr. Isaacs: But has the right hon. Gentleman considered that it operates in Kenya, where I saw it myself, apart from other countries, and that there is not the slightest doubt that it makes for the safety and convenience of the motorist?
    Mr. Molson: We have considered this matter; we even have some figures on the subject, and we are of the opinion that it would not be wise to adopt a rule for giving preference to vehicles coming up on a particular side.

    Railway Fares and Charges
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action he proposes to take concerning railway fares and charges following the consultations he has had with the British Transport Commission concerning its financial position.
    Mr. G. R. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now make a statement about the progress of the re-assessment by the British Transport Commission of its financial position, made as a result of the Government's intervention in March this year.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The right hon. and hon. Members will have noted the undertaking given by the Chairman of the Commission on Wednesday last that during 1956 there will be no general increase in passenger fares by British Railways or London Transport and, subject to the reservation made by the Chairman, no increase in freight charges on British Railways. Meanwhile my consultations with the Commission about plans to improve its financial position are making good progress, and I will acquaint the House with the results as soon as possible.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Minister realise the urgency of this, in view of the Report and Accounts just published by the Commission, showing a deficit of some £70 million? Does he appreciate that the deficit is likely to rise to over £100 million by the end of the year? Would he not agree that it is incumbent upon the Government to take some action in the matter and declare their policy, as the difficulties of the Commission are, at least in considerable part, due to the Government's policy?
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir; that is not so at all. The Commission and I have three objectives. The first is to give a lead in stabilising costs and prices. I think the country should be grateful to the Commission for being the first nationalised industry to do this. The second objective is to avoid the kind of general increase in charges which will drive still more business off the railways on to the roads at a time when the railways want to carry more and not less. The third objective is to show that the railways can quite well pay their way as the modernisation plans speed up. Those are the three objectives. They are of great importance to the Commission. As I have just said, we are making good progress with them, and I will acquaint the House of the final details as soon as I have them ready.
    Mr. Strauss: As half the six-month period of reassessment has now passed, is the right hon. Gentleman still hopeful that at the end of a further three months there will emerge some remarkable new way of running the railways at substantially lower costs? Also, as it is an undoubted fact that a substantial part of the increase in the deficit will be due to direct Government policy—I am not arguing whether it is good or bad—does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he should be able to announce some plan or proposal for dealing with the deficit as it develops?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir; I quite agree. I am very hopeful that by applying the ordinary principles of enlightened private enterprise to the railways we shall show how they will make a profit.
    Mr. Usborne: When discussing with the Chairman of the Commission ways and means of raising revenue, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chairman that a silly way to do it is to charge people 6d. for leaving their bicycles and 1s. for leaving their cars while they are buying tickets to travel on the railways?
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister give an undertaking that before we adjourn for the long Summer Recess he will make a statement about Government policy in the matter? It would be unfair to the House if he came out with a statement that a subsidy was necessary while we were in Recess and had no opportunity to debate the matter.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The undertaking that I gave was that a six-month period would be devoted to a radical, far-reaching and detailed review of the Commission's future operations and economic prospects. I ought to express my appreciation of the great co-operation I am receiving from the Chairman of the Commission and his colleagues in a most difficult and complex task. The six-month period will not be up until the end of September. As soon as it is up, as I have said, no doubt our plans will be ready. If it is the wish of the hon. Gentleman to delay matters still further until the House returns, I will consider it.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members on this side of the House, and certainly many members of the public, are grateful to him and the Commission for making a real effort to stabilise prices and improve transport services?

    Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many motor cyclists were killed in accidents during 1955; and in how many cases death was due to head injuries to motor cyclists who were not wearing crash helmets.
    Mr. Molson: One thousand one hundred and forty-six motor cyclists were killed in road accidents in 1955. Of these 747 were reported not to have been wearing crash helmets. It is not known how many of these died from head injuries.
    Mr. Short: Does not the Minister think that it is about time he got figures of this sort? Does he not think it is about time that he took the obvious step, in view of these figures, of making the wearing of crash helmets compulsory? Can he not do anything to lay down adequate minimum standards for the construction of crash helmets, some of which are at present not really worth wearing?
    Mr. Molson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present recently when the matter was very fully debated during consideration of the Road Traffic Bill. The general opinion on both sides of the House was strongly against the use of compulsory powers. I am glad to say that there has been a very great increase in the use of crash helmets in the last two or three years. Indeed, the Road
    1322
    Research Laboratory estimates that one in three motor cyclists use crash helmets. We think it is largely because of that that there has been a reduction in the proportion of deaths from accidents to motor cyclists. My right hon. Friend is considering whether he can take any further steps to encourage the purchase of crash helmets which comply with the British Standards Institution specification.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Has any progress been made since our discussions on the Road Traffic Bill about getting helmets which are really safe and which do not turn out to be shoddy? In view of the large number of accidents which still occur to motor cyclists who are not wearing crash helmets, will the right hon. Gentleman consider undertaking considerable national education in this matter?
    Mr. Molson: As regards the right hon. Gentleman's first question, we are investigating the matter, as we undertook to do. As regards the second, the development is going extremely satisfactorily at present. We take every opportunity of urging motor cyclists to use crash helmets, and although we should like to have 100 per cent of them doing so, the position is not unsatisfactory.

  ROADS

    A.12, Gallows Corner (Improvements)
    Mr. Lagdenasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the position regarding the improvements to be made on A.12 at Gallows Corner; and when they will be completed.
    Mr. Molson: Work will start in September and is expected to be completed by March, 1957.
    Mr. Lagden: Would it be possible, in view of the fact that there is such tremendous congestion on the A.12 and Southend roads, for the Minister or one of his representatives to view it from the air, possibly by helicopter? It would bring home to my right hon. Friend the desirability of speed in this case, and it is quite impossible to view it from the ground. If necessary, I would be willing to accompany him in the helicopter.
    Mr. Molson: Attractive as I should find that helicopter journey with my hon.

    1323
    Friend, there is really no need to bring home to us how heavy is the traffic on those roads. The work could have been begun before September, but because of the large amount of traffic which is likely to be on them in August, we decided to postpone it until September.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware, in view of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill, that he is an expert on the question of gallows?

    Markings
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will amend the regulations so as to compel the appropriate highway authorities to make use of the system of road marking used in Belgium and consisting of a combination of solid and intermittent white lines where the view ahead is restricted on three-line highways.
    Mr. Watkinson: As I told the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) on 22nd February, I hope to make experiments with a wider range of road markings to control overtaking, and am taking into account European and American experience. The powers to enable me to conduct these experiments are contained in Clause 28 of the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament.
    Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that roads with three lines of traffic are especially dangerous where they go over hills or round corners, and that the number of accidents would be reduced if he had powers to enforce observance on the lines I have indicated?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to make a great deal more use of road markings, but until this Bill is passed I have no legal powers of enforcement.

    Traffic Signs
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that many of the road signs in use in this country are too small and in the case of those indicating dangerous curves are often too close to the curve to give adequate warning of the danger; and if
    1324
    he will consult the highway authorities and motoring organisations to see what improvements can be made.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have already consulted representative bodies on this subject, and the Traffic Signs (Size, Colour and Type) Regulations, now in course of revision, will provide in many cases for larger signs. As regards curves, the Regulations will require the use of standard bend signs; the siting is a matter for the highway authority.
    Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that very often these signs are much too near the danger of which they are intended to give warning? When he is considering this matter, perhaps he would bear in mind the Continental practice of sometimes putting up two signs, one some way back and one much nearer the danger, particularly at curves?
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regulations which he has drawn up, and which are now in proof form, allow for lettering of 2 in. or 3 in. high, and also of the fact that this, coupled with the application for a driving licence, which only stipulates as a visual standard that the applicant is required to read 3 in. lettering at 25 yards, is more likely to cause confusion and danger than the opposite?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, but the Regulations also double the size of many of the road signs, and that is an important thing to do. I will consider also the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) about their siting.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Could I ask the Minister how soon the Regulations are likely to be put into effect, as there is general agreement that the present road signs are most ridiculously small, and a source of real danger?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree. It has been necessary to clear the Regulations with the various authorities concerned, but I am most anxious to get them into operation as quickly as possible.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that months ago I called the attention of one of his predecessors to the utterly inadequate and confusing signposting between Lewisham and Purley on the road to Brighton?

    1325
    Will he look into that? There is nothing easier than to get lost on that road. If I may say so without any temperance significance whatever, it is worse coming back than it is going, on that road.
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look into the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but I think he will find that our new signposting in inner London which is now going up is a great improvement.

    Dual Carriageway Scheme, Great Cambridge Road
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it is proposed to start work on construction of a dual carriageway on the Great Cambridge Road between Bury Street, Edmonton, and Carterhatch Road, Enfield; when it is anticipated the work will be completed; and whether he will then proceed with the extension of the dual carriageway to the Hertfordshire border.
    Mr. Watkinson: I expect that work will start in August and be completed by the early spring of 1958. I am unable to say when the dual carriageway will be extended to the Hertfordshire border.
    Mr. Davies: While welcoming the fact that the work is to start soon, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recalls that his predecessor stated that the work was to start early in the last financial year? Why cannot the work proceed on the whole length of the dual carriageway? This will be the first stage. The waste involved is considerable, because all the equipment has to be moved away and then brought back when the next stage is continued.
    Mr. Watkinson: We are doing the most urgent job first. We have kept exactly to the promises which were made in the previous Answer by my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    London—Moscow (Service)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further discussions have taken place with a view to establishing a direct London—Moscow airline service through British European Airways and the Soviet airline Aeroflot.
    Mr. Watkinson: There have been no discussions since last November but, at the beginning of last month, an invitation was issued to the Soviet authorities to resume discussions on the establishment of a through air service between London and Moscow.
    Mr. Edelman: Despite the Minister's statement, is it not the case that last December Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, Chairman of B.E.A., and the Chairman of Aeroflot made a provisional agreement by which there should be a link-up in Berlin, and by which also B.E.A. should have monopoly rights in the Moscow—London air traffic? Is it not further the case that since then, as a result of intervention by the Foreign Office, the agreement has been abandoned and four Continental air lines have now taken over the traffic between London and Moscow?
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman asked me about a direct service from London to Moscow, and I answered him by saying that I hope the Soviet authorities will accept our invitation, and, if so, discussions can proceed forthwith.
    Mr. Beswick: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the supplementary question? Will he say whether or not there has been any Foreign Office interference with the provisional agreement which was made between B.E.A. and Moscow in regard to a service between London and Moscow?
    Mr. Watkinson: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer that, perhaps he will be kind enough to put a Question on the Order Paper.

    B.O.A.C. (Future Aircraft Requirements)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has yet made any decision on the request of British Overseas Airways Corporation to purchase Boeing aircraft.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave on 29th June to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). We must await the results of the technical discussions now proceeding with aircraft manufacturers in this country and America.
    Mr. Rankin: Can we assume that the Minister has hopes that in the near future the British aircraft industry will be able to provide a machine which will meet the needs of B.O.A.C. for this purpose?
    Mr. Watkinson: What we can assume is that the new Chairman of B.O.A.C., with my support, is conducting, as is his right and duty, the most urgent technical discussions with anybody who can offer him the kind of aircraft which will maintain the future prosperity of B.O.A.C. As soon as these discussions have taken place and any conclusions have been reached, I shall be in a position to go further into the matter with him.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Employees (Marriage Information)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it was on Government instructions or with Government approval that the Atomic Energy Authority recently sent a questionnaire to atomic workers requiring from them information about the persons to whom they are married or whom they might be intending to marry; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Atomic Energy Authority requires its staff to inform the Authority if they marry or remarry; and it requires any woman officer to give notice if she intends to marry an alien or if her husband intends to become naturalised in another country. These regulations were not issued on my noble Friend's instructions, but he has authorised me to say that they have his approval. It is necessary for the Authority to have this information for both establishment and security reasons.
    Mr. Younger: In view of the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary in the general debate on security procedure that nothing new was being introduced, can the Lord Privy Seal say whether that statement covered this position, or is it an innovation? Secondly, can he say whether the employees of the Atomic Energy Authority are the only persons to whom this applies, or is it applied to everybody who handles top secret information, no matter what their status, including, for
    1328
    instance, chiefs of staff and others of that sort of standing?
    Mr. Butler: I think that the best thing I can do is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Command Paper, Statement on the Findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors on Security, which in paragraph 15 used the following words:
    "They"—
    that is, the Privy Councillors—
    "recommend that an individual who is living with a wife or husband who is a Communist or a Communist sympathiser may for that reason alone have to be moved from secret work."
    That indicates that there is anxiety on this score. It is against that background that the Atomic Energy Authority has taken this step.
    Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not challenging that statement in the White Paper? I asked him whether persons subjected to this particular procedure are selected entirely because of the type of material which they handle and, if so, whether it applies to all other ons, irrespective of their status, who similar material.
    Mr. Butler: I can reply only for the Atomic Energy Authority. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to extend the scope of his Question, I shall be glad to answer it, if he puts it down.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is not this an innovation in the Atomic Energy Authority? Is it not a new administrative practice?
    Mr. Butler: This was issued on 11th May, 1956. It is, to that extent, new.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not this going a bit too far? What happens if the Atomic Energy Authority decides that a person should not be permitted to marry somebody? What happens in consequence? Are they to be allowed to live together, but not to marry? Are not the Government and the Atomic Energy Authority now conniving at sin?
    Mr. Butler: There are limitations to the moral hegemony of the Atomic Energy Authority, and I do not think that it will attempt to lay down a moral definition of the marital or non-marital state. It is interested not so much in the

    1329
    ethics of the situation but two considerations to which I have referred. One is for establishment reasons, because, as the House will be aware, the Authority has to know about the marital status of its employees as that affects superannuation benefits. That is the administrative side. The other aspect relates to security, to which I have referred, so that there are those two considerations in the mind of the Authority in laying down these rules.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Are we not making a laughing stock of ourselves? If he insists on going ahead with this, will he apply it to members of the Government? Are they to get away with it and marry anybody they like?
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman must differentiate between general views on ethics, which anybody is allowed to hold, and the view on security which must be held by the Atomic Energy Authority. The Government are satisfied about their own security precautions.

    Establishment, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received asking for an atomic energy establishment to be set up by the Atomic Energy Authority on a suitable site in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Atomic Energy Authority has in the last few months received a number of suggestions and inquiries about the possibility of siting atomic energy establishments in various parts of Wales. There is, however, at present nothing to add to the information about the Authority's plans which I gave the hon. Member in reply to his Question on 29th February last.
    Mr. Gower: As there are to be establishments of this kind in England and in Scotland and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend at least say that his mind is not closed to the possibility of one establishment in Wales in the future?
    Mr. Butler: My mind is never closed, but I do not like to give false promises.

    Peaceful Uses
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent research into the possible peaceful uses of energy derived from
    1330
    hydrogen fusion is impeded by delay in the explosion of a hydrogen bomb.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Research into the peaceful uses of energy derived from thermo-nuclear reactions is not dependent on the explosion of hydrogen bombs; but any such explosion could be expected to yield valuable scientific information.
    Mr. Warbey: In view of the first part of the reply, will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Prime Minister to that very important information, and make it clear that there is now no real excuse for not stopping the explosion of the hydrogen bomb?
    Mr. Butler: I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually very clear in his statements, is somewhat confused. There is a difference between testing a nuclear bomb and proceeding with the peaceful development of nuclear energy. The two are not necessarily related.
    Mr. Stokes: As everybody is anxious about the whole position of further nuclear explosions, may we expect a statement from the Government on their future policy about these explosions in the very near future, and in any event before the debate on defence, which is expected quite shortly?
    Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to HANSARD of 20th June, he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary answered the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on this subject. That is the latest news I can give him on the Government's policy in this regard. We realise the importance which hon. Members attach to it, and we shall certainly keep them informed of developments.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Prime Minister and, I think, the Foreign Secretary as well, have said that the British Government will be tabling proposals, regarding the control of hydrogen bomb tests, in the Disarmament Commission? The Disarmament Commission is meeting now. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this matter will be raised in the course of the next week?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot at present add to the answers given by my right hon. Friend in this respect, but that is not to say that

    1331
    I underestimate the importance attached to this by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Stokes: If I put down a Question for an answer this day next week, may I expect an intelligible reply?
    Mr. Butler: It depends how intelligible the right hon. Gentleman's Question is.

    Employment, Dounreay
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority will arrange to accept suitable men unemployed in the motor industry for jobs at Dounreay where one shift per day with excessive overtime is being worked.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The men engaged in constructional work at Dounreay are employees, not of the Atomic Energy Authority, but of contractors, who are of course free to engage suitable men unemployed in the motor industry.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the contractors are employed by the Atomic Energy Authority, which is a Government organisation? Is it not quite wrong that there should be one shift, that 60 to 80 hours a week should be worked, while fine men in the Midlands have been forced into unemployment and on to short time? Will my right hon. Friend look again at this situation, which is distorting the economy of the northern counties of Scotland? No one can compete with the wages being paid by the Government.
    Mr. Butler: I gave an answer to the hon. Gentleman in regard to this matter, which affects his constituency. I do not accept that the overtime is necessarily excessive. I do stress the difficulties of this somewhat distant site and the problem facing the contractors and the need to make a speedy development in finishing this job. Whether we can arrange for men from as far away as the motor industry districts to work there is a matter which is engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but it seems a rather difficult proposition. However, if the contractors wish to engage these men, we shall be only too glad to assist.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, of the Committee on Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1954–55, and on the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Clean Air Bill and the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1956–57
  CLASS VIII

  SUPPLY

    Vote 1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £10,606,720, 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 expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; of County Agricultural Executive Committees; of the Agricultural Land Commission; of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; and of the White Fish Authority and the Scottish Committee thereof.—[£5,500,000 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.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND (MID-WALES INVESTIGATION REPORT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House takes note of the Mid-Wales Investigation Report of the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission.—[Mr. Amory.]
  3.33 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I feel that I should begin by congratulating the authors of the Mid-Wales Investigation Report upon the excellent work that they have done. Whatever we may think about their conclusions and recommendations, I think the House will agree that the Report is a document notable for its thoroughness, lucidity, and, above all, frankness.
  The task which confronted this panel of distinguished Welsh agriculturists was no easy one. They were asked to investigate and report upon economic conditions in the rural area of Mid-Wales,
  1334
  which bristles with human and industrial difficulties. The facts and figures presented in this document constitute a grim and urgent challenge not only to those of us who have the welfare of Welsh agriculture at heart, but also to everyone who is concerned about the very survival of Wales as a nation. It is from areas such as this that our people have always derived not only material sustenance, but also much spiritual and cultural strength. I very much hope that the House will bear with me if I have more to say about that aspect of the problem before I conclude my speech.
  What is the picture which the Report presents to us? I do not want to over-paint it, but it is certainly one of a struggling and declining economy; of rapid depopulation and extensive emigration, especially by the youngest and most virile; of deserted farmsteads, frustrated local government and wretchedly inadequate amenities. The pace of depopulation, which is the heart of the problem, is best illustrated in Appendix L of the Report. This shows how the number of those gainfully employed in the three counties of Cardigan, Montgomery and Radnor has declined from 34,773 in 1901 to 23,235 in 1951, which is a drop of nearly one-third. That depopulation is still proceeding.
  Furthermore, it cannot be said that the survivors of this massive exodus enjoy a standard of life which is much more than marginal in most cases. One could select almost at random from the pages of the Report startling evidence to prove this point. For instance, we learn that of the 1,404 holdings investigated by the panel, 570, which is well over one-third, have no tractor, and as many as 838—or eight out of every 14—actually have no form of motorised transport whatsoever. Again, of these 1,400 holdings nearly 1,200 are without electricity. In this vast area, in the very heart of Wales, electricity is a rarity. Perhaps most serious of all is the fact that, in spite of the area's abundant rainfall, seven out of 10 of these holdings have no piped water supplies, and we are told of some holdings which actually get their water by gathering rainwater in tubs.
  I spoke of the marginal character of these holdings, and there is striking proof of that in Appendix O, which is supported by data provided by the Department of

  1335
  Agricultural Economics of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. The key studies produced by the Department show that in almost every case, whether the holding is small, medium or large, there is what is known as an enterprise loss in its running. It is only by disregarding any payment or remuneration to the farmer and his family—and almost all these are family farms—that the vast majority can be deemed to be viable.
  We must ask why this state of affairs should exist over such a large and significant area of the Principality. Some of the answers spring to mind at once—this matter has been discussed for generations—but some of the more obvious answers must be examined very cautiously and, perhaps, qualified. One answer advanced, often in far too facile and specious a manner, is that many of these farms are too small to be economic, and that the solution is to amalgamate them ruthlessly.
  It is, of course, true that the enlargement and amalgamation of holdings could, and should, proceed in some cases, but it would be highly dangerous to assume that that would be the right policy in all cases. Even the Report, which shows a certain dogmatism in favour of amalgamation, does not, to quote its own words,
  "envisage a uniform pattern of large units"
  throughout the area. All the county councils, the farmers' unions and the leaders of young farmers' clubs—who, incidentally, are doing a magnificent job of work in the area in the teeth of very serious difficulties—as well as many individual agriculturists, are agreed in refuting the Report's suggestion, for instance, that no hill farm in this region can hope to be economic unless it sustains about 500 ewes or an equivalent number of stock. That is the kind of suggestion that we find in the Report, a tendency all the time to come down in favour of the large unit.
  The fact is that the case for the large unit, except in specific instances, still remains to be proved. Even where amalgamation can clearly be shown to be the solution, it should not be brought about by compulsion. There is in the Report far too much argument in favour of something like compulsion. Most certainly, it should not be brought about by a manipulation of grant schemes, which I very
  1336
  much regret to see proposed in the Report.
  As I have said, these are family farms and in many cases they have been handed down from generation to generation. Anything like compulsory amalgamation or dictation through rationalisation grants would be an affront to human rights as well as a real danger to production. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that there are positive arguments for the retention of some small farms in such areas as these. Where else but on a comparatively small farm can the young farmer or farm worker with little or no capital hope to make a start, especially in these days when, as the Report reminds us, the capitalisation of even a medium to small farm may be anything between £8,000 and £11,000? These small farms have often proved to be valuable training grounds for some of our best farmers and there is also a substantial case to be made for part-time holdings in some parts of an area of this type.
  It is a major criticism of this excellent Report that it places undue emphasis on size—acreage—as a factor in the success or failure of holdings. There are other factors, some of them just as important as, and even more important than, the factor of size and it may be that in considering these other factors we may well be proposing the real solutions, or some of them, to the agricultural problems of the area.
  The first factor with which I should like to deal is that of amenities. Proper roads and access roads, piped water, electricity, decent housing and farm buildings, not to mention telephones and telephone kiosks, which are vital to the economy of an agricultural area, are not only amenities: they are in every sense of the word industrial facilities. Where would our urban industry be without them? What kind of industrial efficiency and productivity would we have in our towns if they had had to make do with amenities and facilities which the countryside and agriculture have to put up with? The point is a valid one.
  That brings me to my first suggestion. There is statutory and administrative machinery which, if it were used boldly and with imagination, could do very much indeed to further the extension and strengthening of the amenities I have mentioned in an area like this. Consider,

  1337
  for instance, the administration of the Hill Farming Act and the Livestock Rearing Act. At present, the small farmer is asked to present a comprehensive scheme and as such the scheme is frequently beyond his means.
  This question was raised in the last debate on Welsh affairs. Has anything been done to enable smallholders to present their proposals piecemeal so that they can have a real chance of earning the grant? Many of these small farmers have difficulty in finding their own 50 per cent. of the necessary cost of even small schemes.
  In page 30 of the Report it is stated that schemes estimated to cost about £¾ million—£721,430—have been approved in this area under those two Acts, but that so far work costing only about £¼ million—£234,982—has been completed and claimed for. Only one-third of the number of the entire approved global schemes has been completed. The reason is clear: many of the farmers cannot find a qualifying contribution in one lump sum. Is it not time that we considered letting these smallholders finance their part of the cost of such schemes by loan? I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on this.
  Thirdly, could not the Ministry give a stronger lead in encouraging schemes which entail the use of prefabricated buildings? There is an undue tendency to continue along traditional lines when buildings of a prefabricated character, much cheaper, very serviceable and durable, would do equally well.
  Then there is the question of the types of farm. I agree that there is room for variation of the types of farming in the area, and, indeed, throughout Wales, but in the Report there is the persistent suggestion that the dairy farmers of the area should change over to stock raising, without facing the real difficulties which lie in the way of the farmers being able to do that.
  There may or may not be over-production of milk but the fact is that the dairy farmer, in this kind of area at least, dare not change over. Milk is his one certain source of constant revenue, and before we can reasonably hope that he will vary his policy we must try to provide something like the same inducement for meat and poultry as we have provided for milk.
  1338
  All this links up naturally with the question of research and advisory facilities, and I wish that the Report had said much more under this heading. Some hon. Members are familiar with a striking memorandum which has been sent to some of us, and, I think, has reached the Minister, framed by the Director of Education for Montgomery, Mr. Glynn Davies, which shows how pitifully neglected is the whole of Wales, and particularly this part of Wales, in the matter of research.
  Research and advisory services of a greatly expanded nature are vital in the matter of animal health. Without them, we cannot look forward to that growing variation in the type of farming which these smallholders carry on. There is need, I should say, for an experimental hill farm in Central Wales to promote research and expand advice in this and related subjects, and, certainly, the veterinary service in this area ought to be greatly improved.
  I hope that the Minister will have something to say about the progress made in improving access roads under the 1955 Act. The reports are that the implementation of this very useful Act needs to be speeded up. It may be early to challenge the Minister on this point, but it does not seem to me, and to the other hon. Members to whom I have spoken about it, that there is a sense of urgency at the highest levels about speeding up the preparation and presentation of schemes and going on to their approval and final implementation. Has the Minister given any consideration, in the light of this Report, to further assistance to these local authorities to promote water schemes? Is he in touch with the electricity authorities to see whether they can still further speed up rural electrification?
  I pass on to the question of afforestation. Agriculture is and must remain the premier industry of this area. There is no doubt about that, but it cannot alone solve the rural problems of underemployment and depopulation. There is, of course, no such thing as a purely agricultural area. No area ever subsisted solely on agriculture, and mid-Wales is no exception. Here, as elsewhere, there used to be substantial opportunities of employment in rural crafts and in quarrying. The Report tells how these flourished at one time and finally declined.
  Mr. David Grenfell: And lead mining.
  Mr. G. Roberts: Yes, and lead mining, as my right hon. Friend reminds me, in Cardigan and in North Wales.
  One reason for the general decline in the area is undoubtedly the disappearance of these rural industries during the past 50 years, and the fact that substitutes for them have been slow in reaching the countryside or have not gone there at all. Mid-Wales and North Wales must have not only a strengthened agriculture, but quite new rural industries if depopulation is to be arrested, the standards of local government are to be raised and local life is to be improved.
  It is at least doubtful whether the rural industries which used to exist in this area, like quarrying, mining and some textiles, will ever return there, but there is, possibly, in areas like these another industry, and a fairly new industry, which is wholly indigenous to the area. It is that of forestry, and already forestry does present a fairly prominent element in the life and economy of mid-Wales. I welcome afforestation. I think it can make a substantial and healthy contribution to the economy of our countryside, but, having said that, I am bound to make some important qualifications.
  The first is that afforestation, if it is to succeed and be a blessing, must proceed in partnership with agriculture. In the past, unfortunately, and, I fear, even in the recent past in Wales, demands for land for forestry have been made with an arrogance which has now finally alienated the farmers from the foresters. That is a tragic thing to happen, because the alliance and industrial partnership between the forester and the smallholder is something which, when it does happen, is a source of very great strength to our country districts. Things are a little better now, and I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of the present Director of Forestry in Wales, who, I think, understands the psychology of the people and has tried to direct his policy in such a way that he obtains good will and co-operation of the farming community.
  Forestry will certainly assist in the revival of the economy of this area, but there are conditions. First, it must be a partnership with agriculture. The farmer, for instance, must himself be
  1340
  encouraged to plant shelter belts. There is far too little of that. The farmer's suspicion of the Commission is inhibiting him from proposing or even welcoming schemes which could be of direct advantage to him. He should also be encouraged to regard timber as a crop—a long-term crop—and maybe we would have to fashion a scheme of financial support, something like an acreage payment or loan scheme, into which I have not the time, and, indeed, would not care, to go this afternoon. The point remains that trees should be regarded as one of the crops which farmers in this kind of country should naturally think about; and they should be given every assistance and advice by the Forestry Commission itself.
  Secondly, the Commission must really make the effort to find and take land which is not of very important agricultural value. The Commission is doing that to some extent now, and in urging the point I want to congratulate that body upon understanding the need for doing so.
  Thirdly, there should be periodic surveys of land held by the Commission in order to see whether, in fact, it is being used for planting, or whether it is simply being held, fenced in, year after year. I was told yesterday of an extraordinary case, I think in Cardiganshire, in which the Commission had taken over 500 acres of land, and had let the lowland to a farmer, as is the practice, planted a belt on the intermediate slopes, but had not planted it all. There has been, I think for 10 years, a kind of secondary belt which is not planted, and which has no prospect of being planted, and which could very well have been allowed to remain as the summer grazing of the farmer from whom the land was taken. A periodic survey to see that Commission land is really being used and is not taken from the farmers and not planted, is necessary. Many farmers have had to yield so much land that they now have no summer grazing. When land is taken, let that need be fully borne in mind.
  Finally, if forestry is to make a substantial contribution to rural areas of the type we are considering, it must develop its own ancillary processing industries somewhere near the point of growth. At present, this is not the case. In Wales,

  1341
  we are literally hewers of wood, so far as forestry is concerned. Once the timber has been grown it is carted away vast distances over the border, where the processes of manufacture are done. Recently, we were told of the action by Messrs. Bowater, the paper makers, in expanding very greatly their paper-making plant in Ellesmere Port. Representations were made at the time for the erection of paper-making plant in central Wales near the forests from which the timber for Ellesmere Port is drawn. That sort of thing ought to be looked at very carefully so that afforestation in Wales is followed through to the finished article.
  At present, forestry does not employ a very large number of people. It takes a very long time to employ any considerable number. The way in which it can make an impact upon under-employment in the countryside and assist in arresting that operation is for planting to be followed in central and North Wales by some of those processes which lead to the finished article.
  The subject of the debate may be essentially economic, but the implications are much wider. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has many times, since I have been a Member of this House and, I know, before, drawn the serious attention of the House to the social and cultural consequences of this economic decline in central Wales. I second his efforts once more this afternoon. The area which we are discussing is literally and physically the heart of a nation. It stands between two fairly densely-populated parts of Wales, the North and the South, but because of its economic depression, its sparseness of population and its poor communications it is almost a barrier of silence between North and South Wales.
  This has led sometimes to unfortunate results in our history. This area should not be a chasm but a link between Gwynedd and Gwent, so that a new and fruitful unity could be forged among all the people of the Principality. I hope that the Minister will grasp the full purport of this Report and will assure us that energetic action will be taken to rehabilitate this beautiful region, so that its fine people may strengthen the culture and economy not only of Wales, but possibly of the British Isles and the British Commonwealth.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. David Llewellyn: Though I represent a city the freedom of which is soon to be conferred on the Minister for Welsh Affairs, to the delight of us all, my roots are in Carmarthen and the hill farms of the Rhondda and of Brecon, so I feel entitled to make a short speech on this occasion. Since it must be short, I cannot follow all the arguments of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) in his most interesting speech.
  I would, however, say a word about the pattern of ownership, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I was surprised to find there is such a high proportion of owner-occupiers in this area, and that it is 60 per cent. now as against 43 per cent. in the early 1940s. Though paragraph 69 of the Report pays
  "the passing tribute of a sigh"
  to the old landlord-tenant system at its best, this extension of freehold is a welcome development which we, on this side of the House, can regard as an extension of the property-owning democracy in which we believe, and which is in direct conflict with the views of the supporters of land nationalisation.
  This diffusion of freehold lies at the root of the Committee's recommendation that
  "any attempt at regimentation would be fatal."
  The most damaging kind of regimentation to which Welsh farmers have been subjected has been as a result of uncoordinated demands on Welsh land by local authorities, nationalised industries, Government Departments and others. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Caernarvon referred to the effect of the Towey Valley afforestation scheme. "Arrogance" was the word he used about the handling of the scheme. It was heartily deserved. I am sorry, with him, that the dark shadow of that arrogance persists.
  To imply, as seems to be implied, in paragraph (e) in page 46 of the Report, that farmers are prejudiced, overlooks altogether the very real ground for that prejudice. To produce a happier future the Forestry Commission will have to proceed more kindly and cautiously than in the past. As the then Minister for Welsh

  1343
  Affairs said in the House on 2nd February, 1954:
  "I want compulsory purchase to be eschewed and afforestation to be fitted in with agriculture and not competing with or overwhelming it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 315.]
  Even the Report that we are discussing today, by Welshmen, shows that in common with the Forestry Commission, at any rate at that time, its authors cannot see the men for the trees. Paragraph 80 contains an alarming statement about labour. It says:
  "Although families are not as large as they were some years ago, the small family farm is fortunately placed when sons and daughters leave school; usually, the resources of the holding do not permit the members of the occupier's family to be allowed the full wage of an agricultural worker and the labour is therefore not economically employed in such cases. Unless a son or daughter is prepared to sacrifice prospects of an independent life, the basic labour difficulties of the small family farm assert themselves sooner or later when sons and daughters marry or seek paid employment away from the farm."
  That argument seems wholly fallacious on two broad grounds. The sons or daughters of the farm who choose to work on that farm are independent. They know that they can get more money if they join others who have gone into industry and away from home, and that they can certainly get much more money by going to work in a Scottish boarding house in Rhyl in the season. They know they can get more money if they join the Cockneys among the conifers, or whoever may be engaged on that particular work. They prefer work on the farm to getting more money outside. It is a false assumption that a farmer's labour is uneconomically employed because he chooses to work for less than he would get elsewhere, or because his holding happens to be smaller than in theory it ought to be.
  Here again, I agree that any prejudice against the smallholding is bad. To argue on those lines, or to reproach the small man because his holding is not as large as it ought to be on paper, ignores altogether the spiritual value of the work of the Welsh farmer on his own land, which he and his family may have worked for generations. It is a false assumption to make that he would work equally hard or better elsewhere.
  It is not only the memory of the Towey Valley scheme which threatens the
  1344
  security of the Welsh farmer. If that were all there would be little enough to contend with. Competition seems to be ever-increasing for Welsh land. When, for example, the War Office took over Sennybridge—and here I voice the opinion of hon. Members in all parts of the House when I express regret for the reason for the absence of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) today; I do not think that any hon. Member has given closer study or more care to these questions—its effects were widespread.
  I do not want to quote anyone in vain, but my recollection is that on a visit to Breconshire, some years ago, an authoritative person told me that as a result of the Sennybridge Range coming into being three-quarters of the farmers who were displaced have been lost altogether to agriculture. That not only affected them, but is likely to affect their children, also. I am not arguing whether that decision was right or wrong, but I am pointing out part of the price which had to be paid for it.
  What I think is particularly galling on many occasions when land is taken is the fact that the best site is by no means invariably chosen. If I may take one instance from the south, we have recently seen the tragedy of the leys on the Glamorganshire coast. We have little enough coast of our own. It is constantly shrinking while the leisure of the population increases; and it is sad that more of the coastline should be taken over by the Central Electricity Authority for a power station.
  That scheme is already draining workers from the land in Glamorganshire and, as it develops and there are ancillary developments, that drain will increase. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that within 20 to 30 years the Vale of Glamorgan will not enjoy the esteem which it enjoys today as a great agricultural vale.
  That has been allowed notwithstanding the fact that there was a perfectly good site at Margam then available. It would have been more costly to use that, but as a result of choosing a perfectly good stretch of the Glamorganshire coast—destroying the village of Gileston in the process and draining existing agricultural labour from Glamorgan—a much better site from the point of view of agriculture

  1345
  was taken and a site better from almost every other point of view was not taken.
  I am not very familiar with what has been happening in North Wales. The hon. Member for Caernarvon referred to the gap there is between North and South Wales. I am not sure about the developments which are constantly changing in the requirements of Liverpool Corporation for water. It appears to me that there there is no planning at all, but a parody of planning. This is how it is seen from the South and hon. Members from the North can correct me if I am wrong.
  It seems that Liverpool Corporation is playing a game of municipal tiddly-winks in its search for water. It flicks a counter into one valley and then into another and there is no guarantee that the counter will eventually fall into the right or the best place. Only a handful of people would wish to deprive Liverpool of the water she needs, but under the present system it seems that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the reservoir will be made where it would cause least damage to agriculture.
  All these unco-ordinated demands more than anything else threaten to depopulate the Welsh countryside. Even if every farm had its water tap, its electric light, its proper road and all the other amenities to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon referred, there would still be no guarantee that in 10 or 20 years' time it would have a farmer, unless the present trend is reversed.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I think it might be of some assistance to the House to say a few words early in the debate from the point of view of the Government about this very important subject. I should like to begin by welcoming the tone and the material with which the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) opened the debate. That helps us to look at this very difficult problem in an objective way.
  I can well understand the deep feeling that this subject would arouse in the hearts of any Welshman, because I can feel myself—coming from a district which is very far from Wales—what a moving and difficult problem it is. Therefore, I welcome all the more the restraint with
  1346
  which the matter was presented. If my intervention was delayed slightly I had the benefit of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) taking us for a little tour round the coast of Glamorgan. That has improved my knowledge of the geography of the Principality.
  We on the Government side of the House welcome this debate today. We feel it gives us an opportunity to hear from all sides of the House the views of Members of Parliament from Wales about this very important subject in general and this valuable Report in particular.
  In the eight months since the presentation of the Report we have been giving most careful study to this serious and complex problem and time has not been wasted. The Report opens up all kinds of new ideas and throws a fresh light on old problems. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to publish later this month a White Paper setting out the views of the Government on the whole subject. Before reaching final conclusions as to what should be done we felt, and I feel personally, very much the weight of the remarks made by my noble Friend the present Lord Chancellor, when he was Minister for Welsh Affairs. My noble Friend said that any permanent worthwhile solution of problems of agricultural organisation in this area would call for co-operation, leadership, energy and foresight amongst individual Welshmen.
  Everyone would agree with that. It is not simply a technical solution which is needed; we must achieve a solution which will command that degree of co-operation from all leading Welshmen and, in particular, from all Welsh Members of Parliament from all sides of the House. So, in the concluding stages of preparing this White Paper, my right hon. Friend will now have the benefit of the views expressed this afternoon in this debate and they will be of very great help to us.
  It may be of some assistance to the House if I express a few general views on some of the subjects raised in the Report and give our comments on them. First, I should like to say again—I was glad that it was said from both sides of the House—what an excellent Report it is. It is most readable, extraordinarily well put together, the analyses are quite fascinating and it gives a picture which everyone can understand. Whether all its conclusions are entirely to be agreed by

  1347
  everybody is another matter. One would not expect that, but it presents the picture with great clarity and it has been of very great help to us.
  I should like to say straight away that we in the Government are second to none in recognising the fine traditional character of those who dwell in these Welsh uplands. We certainly wish to do everything in our power to help to maintain it. I suppose that all Governments have recognised the virtues of the small farmer. From time immemorial, Governments have striven to preserve him. Not only does he provide the nation's food; he is also a stable character who has the virtues of independence, industry and enterprise. He is a firm base for the whole social structure. The small farmer in the Welsh uplands has those civic virtues par excellence.
  The small farmer in the Welsh uplands is tested to the utmost to get his living in those circumstances. I think it is worth saying a word about what it is that makes the fine character that one finds there. It is, of course, the spur of necessity, not only the necessity of earning a living but the necessity of looking after livestock and crops in extremely hard and difficult circumstances. Naturally, the farmer is concerned to make his living out of it, but he is moved, as every farmer is, before thoughts of making his living, by the absolute necessity to look after livestock which is in his care.
  In those conditions, where hardship and exposure are so commonly the farmer's lot, it is a real test of character for a man constantly to be putting the welfare of his livestock before his own personal convenience and comfort. But he does it, and, in doing it, his strong, fine character is developed. It is essential that we should maintain this virtue.
  The character that we want to maintain is brought about by the interplay of hard conditions on naturally stout-hearted people. We shall continue to get that kind of stout-hearted, energetic person going into those farms only if the prospect there is attractive enough economically. As the hon. Member for Caernarvon has observed, the analysis in the Report shows—it is all too depressing—what a small number of young people there are in the farms.
  1348
  Consequently, we take the view that it is basic to the strengthening of the area that the economic prospect on the farms should be improved. It is a matter of balance how one achieves that with the improvement of public services. It is clear, however, that simply to improve public services, simply to increase the amount of public support which goes to the assistance of these men, would, in the long run, defeat its own purpose, because, far from increasing the independence and self-respect of the men, it would gradually erode it by increasing their dependence on the rest of the community.
  Here is the same test that one must apply to all Government expenditure. It must be directed to trying to increase independence rather than the reverse. Therefore, we completely agree with the general approach in the Report that it is basic to increase the economic strength of the region.
  On the controversial subject of amalgamations, I think that, in fairness to the Report, it would be right to call the attention of the House to the terms of reference of the Sub-Commission. I know that the hon. Member for Caernarvon knows them well, but, just to put them on the record, they were to advise on the best use of land in the area with special reference to types of farm, the pattern of ownership and occupation and cost of equipment, and to consider the suitability of some of the land for afforestation.
  Therefore, it was natural that the Report should direct a great deal of attention to the technical farming aspects. I think that everyone agrees that it is a well-balanced Report, but, naturally, it has concentrated a great deal of attention on the technicalities.
  Amalgamations are taking place. I think everybody accepts that a certain amount of amalgamation should take place and that the size of many farms can be increased with advantage. I believe that the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire does not dissent from that view. I believe that its anxiety is that it may go too far, with the result of depopulation. Our broad view is that it should be allowed to come about by a process of natural evolution and certainly not by any compulsory action by Governments.
  When it made its Report, the Sub-Commission did not know that we intended to continue the Hill Farming Acts.

  1349
  As the House knows, my right hon. Friend will soon be asking Parliament for approval of an extension of five years, so that the comments about rationalisation in the Report will to that extent be irrelevant.
  The approval of hill farming schemes has consistently been carried out in the spirit of the 1946 Act. That is to say, every application must survive the test of comprehensiveness; it must be a scheme which is comprehensive for the whole farm, so that when it is completed it will make the farm a sound economic unit. There has never been any difference in application of that principle, either in this part of Wales or in any other of the highlands of the country. We are not contemplating any change in that respect. The only improvement that we might make is to put a little more precision into the definition of what is comprehensive, for the assistance of those who are administering the region, but we certainly do not propose to change from the general spirit of the 1946 Act.
  I think I might give some figures of the progress which has been made in Wales generally with these schemes. By March, 1956, schemes to the value of £10 million had been approved, which is about one-third of the total, and the rate of the schemes coming in has considerably improved in the last two or three years. Over the last three years grant has been paid on schemes to the value of about £1½ million, compared with about £500,000 in the previous five-year period.
  It is true that the schemes take some time to complete. I fully agree with the point made by the hon. Member. It is to some extent, of course, to meet the convenience of individual farmers. We have not felt that a system of loans would be appropriate, but we have always been ready to phase the schemes to suit the conditions of individual farmers. They are often spread over three years to help the farmers with their side of the commitment. We shall continue to watch how they go. We consider that they are one of the most important aids that we can give to the area, and we certainly want farmers to be able to make full use of them.
  The system of production grants, with which the House is familiar, is also helping farmers in the area a very great deal.
  1350
  In the Principality as a whole last year the production grants amounted to about £3⅔ million, again a considerable increase over earlier years. It is evident that these, especially the marginal production schemes, are helping. We have considerably increased the allowance for Wales, and that is a big help to many of the marginal farmers. I can assure the House that we have no intention of making differential schemes of production grants which might operate against uneconomic units.
  Our view on the size of holdings conforms broadly with the view expressed by the Sub-Commission, in page 43 of the Report. There it says:
  "We do not envisage a uniform pattern of large units. We consider that there should be a number of small holdings in favourable areas within reasonable reach of centres of community life, in order to diversify the agricultural economy and to provide farming opportunities for young people."
  The paragraph goes on in, I think, a felicitous fashion to observe the value of the part-time holdings as well as the smaller holdings. That is, broadly, our view. We quite accept that the farmer cannot start on a full-size large holding, and we also accept that there will be a valuable place here for the ancillary workers, forestry workers and others having part-time holdings of their own. We certainly do not look for the time when there will be nothing but large-sized holdings there.
  On the general subject of public services, we certainly agree that the development of public services in this area is an urgent need and should go on just as fast as we can make it go. I am quite sure that the whole House, in reading the Report, will have accepted the point that it is quite impossible to take the public services everywhere in these upland regions. The limitation to that is graphically pointed out.
  The three services together—roads, electricity and water—cost no less than £4,000 a mile, and it is quite evident that it will be impossible ever to take the services to every small holding in the upland regions. But we certainly want to go on with these services as fast as we can, and the result of the last few years is, I think, encouraging over the Principality as a whole, although in this area it has still far to go.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman more or less satisfied that progress has been favourable in the area under consideration this afternoon, or has it been pathetically slow?
  Mr. Nugent: It has been slower than in the Principality as a whole, of course. The picture in Wales as a whole has been, I think, improving satisfactorily. The electricity picture is that by April, 1956, 40 per cent. of the farms had been connected in Wales, compared with 14 per cent. in 1948. That is a very satisfactory increase overall, and connections are going ahead at the rate, last year, of 2,500 per annum.
  We certainly hope to make a considerable contribution in this area under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act. As the House knows, the present economic circumstances prevent us sanctioning schemes yet, but the time has not been wasted. We have now settled the directive to go out to local authorities. That directive, I hope, will be going out in the course of the next week or two. We can get ahead with the preparation of schemes, and I believe that these schemes will be a very real help in some of these most difficult areas. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), the figures in these hill areas are behind the average and we have still far to go, but we certainly wish to use every means within our power to improve the rate of progress.
  On the question of co-operation with forestry, to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon referred, we entirely agree with his view that there must be the closest possible co-operation and co-ordination. Forestry has all the possibilities to which he referred. Not only does it make a direct intrinsic contribution of its own to the national economy, but it supplies what is so badly needed in these upland areas—a large secondary industry to strengthen the whole community socially and sociologically, and to give some indirect assistance to agriculture in part-time work mutually on either side.
  It has, therefore, a most valuable part to play but, of course, for it to do that it is essential that there should be a spirit of confidence between the farming community and the forestry community. I was very glad to hear the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Caernarvon to our Welsh Director, and his comment that
  1352
  conditions were improving now and that there was a prospect that this relationship might improve even more. It is certainly our intention that it should. There are quite a number of specific measures that the Forestry Commission is anxious to take, and I think that with the publication of the White Paper we shall be able to state in detail the various measures that the Commission will take in order to meet the recommendations in the Report.
  May I say in conclusion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we certainly do not underestimate the difficulty of this problem. It is a most tough and difficult problem. We join with the hon. Gentleman in recognising that there is in this area a community of very great value, not only to Wales but to the whole nation. We are most anxious to do all we can to help to strengthen it. To farm at all in that area is a very tough and difficult job. To farm successfully in the Welsh mountains takes a very stout-hearted man, but the fact is that there are numbers of farmers who are doing it well. There are numbers of shining examples who are using modern techiques of farming, and they are making a good living for themselves and producing much valuable food for the community.
  In other words, it can be done. That is a great encouragement to us to continue our advisory and research services on the technical level and to use all the other means we can to try to spread the admirable example that these men and women have set so that it will gradually permeate throughout the area. We do not underestimate the problem, but we are not despondent about it. We can see that there are Welsh men and women who are succeeding with what we wish to make general throughout the area. We believe that so long as we can maintain that spirit and that kind of person we shall eventually, with the co-operation of all, succeed in maintaining the strength of this very valuable part of the nation.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity of interventing in this debate, because approximately half of the area covered by this Report lies within the bounds of my own constituency. While we deeply appreciate the general air of benevolence manifested by the Joint

  1353
  Parliamentary Secretary, we certainly would have welcomed some more specific proposals in relation to this Report. All I can say is that I hope that the good will which he has manifested this afternoon will be translated into positive proposals in the White Paper, which we await with considerable interest.
  I was glad that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary paid such a generous tribute to the type of person produced in this area—a fine type of Welsh character. The area has produced this type over the centuries. After all, this is as much a social as an agricultural problem. All the problems relating to the area have a social and an agricultural content and cannot be considered in isolation.
  I remember hearing what happened on one occasion during a visit to the area by Lord Hudson when he was Minister of Agriculture. He was being taken round by the agricultural organiser, the late Mr. D. J. Morgan. In a particularly bleak part, the Minister pointed to some of the holdings and said, "What on earth can they produce in those places?" The answer which D. J. Morgan gave was, "Men." He went on to tell the Minister of the contributions made by the sons and daughters of those people not only to the cultural and religious life of the community in the immediate vicinity, but in a very much wider field indeed. I believe that the paramount thoughts which should be present in our minds in approaching any of these questions is that it is essential to try to keep a vigorous, healthy rural community in the area.
  It seems to me that the Report raises at least three major points. It raises many others, but I want to touch upon three of them, and in doing so I should like to join wholeheartedly in thanking those responsible for the publication of this Report. Every paragraph in it is exceedingly interesting and stimulating, and I join wholeheartedly in the compliments which have been paid to it.
  I feel that if one looked at this area from the point of view of the master planner, the answer to the problem would be State ownership of the whole area, compulsory purchase of all the holdings in the area by the State, and then the establishment of a system of ranching. I believe the Report uses the South American expression "estancia", that is to say, large State holdings and the type
  1354
  of farming which can best be called ranching. It may be that there are some economic arguments in favour of a proposal of that kind. I am very doubtful whether it would be economically sound. What I am certain of is that it would be socially disastrous, and I am particularly pleased that the Report condemns wholeheartedly that approach to the problem.
  If that is not a solution, what is? This brings me to the three points to which I referred. There is, first, the problem of what I call the foothill farms. Then there is the problem of the upland farms, and then the overall social problem which affects the whole area, and, indeed, very many similar areas throughout Wales.
  With regard to the foothill farms—those are referred to in the Report as farms situated mainly in the western plateau region—the basic problem raised is what is the attitude to be adopted with regard to milk production on these holdings. What is to happen about the continuance or otherwise of these farms as milk producing units? As to the upland farm area, which is largely in the central moorland region, it seems to me that the problem is one of increasing the level of sheep and cattle production, and reconciling the demands of agriculture and forestry. There is then the third problem of providing basic social amenities throughout the area.
  I should like to say a few words about each of these aspects of the situation, dealing with the foothill farms first. I believe that we are in danger of considering this problem as if the whole of the area consisted of upland farms. I should like to present a proper perspective and give one or two figures. Roughly half the farms covered by this survey—approximately 700—are in my constituency, and half of those are concerned with livestock rearing. Over one-third are registered milk producers, and 70 per cent. of those registered milk producers possess T.T. licences. Therefore, it is quite wrong to think of these areas as vast expanses devoted entirely to sheep and forestry.
  Five out of seven of those farms are owner-occupied. I have not the figures for milk-producing farms—I do not think they are given in the Report—but I would say that the figure for owner-occupied milk-producing farms is higher than it

  1355
  is overall. That means that for practical purposes, all the milk-producing farms are owned-occupied and are family farmed.
  From the point of view of population, production and capital, in terms either of £ s. d. or social capital, those milk producers certainly represent over half the problem. Numerically they are one-third of the farms, as compared with one-half of the farms concerned only with livestock rearing. The difficulties in this area, therefore, cannot be solved unless we face the problem in relation to those milk producers.
  Incidentally, the figures reveal a population of from 4,500 to 5,000 cows in the area within the boundary of Cardiganshire. It is said that the farmers in that area should not be engaged in milk production at all, as the conditions are not suitable. But one thing is quite clear. The only reason why these farmers are now earning a living through milk production is that it is the only way at present whereby they can possibly maintain a minimum standard of living. Bearing in mind the size of the unit involved, it would be quite uneconomical for them to switch to livestock rearing.
  The economic factors and, indeed, Government encouragement on a substantial scale during the last 10 years have led to these farmers taking up milk production for their livelihood. I do not think there can be any dispute that during the last 10 to 15 years they have made substantial strides in that sphere. The level of production has increased. The standard of the cattle and of the equipment which they have acquired has increased. The question is whether these people are going to be left high and dry. It is not a question of saying that they should go in for livestock rearing. The plain fact is that, in view of the size of these units, they would not get anything like a living from switching to livestock rearing.
  Milk is their sheet anchor. It is their most valuable market and its organisation is efficient. If anyone doubts that, I would remind him that the first large milk depôt in Cardiganshire and in that part of the West was established within this area at Pont Llanio and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Welsh
  1356
  Affairs, only a few weeks ago, opened what is claimed to be the largest milk depôt in Europe, which is on the fringes of this area at Felinfarth. I think, therefore, that it is vitally important that these farms should be kept in milk production and steps should be taken to see that they have prospects of a decent standard of living from these holdings. If we are not to invoke compulsory powers to force these farms to join together and take up livestock rearing, there is no alternative but to help them through the medium of their existing practices.
  I noticed in the agricultural supplement of The Times of yesterday a statement by Mr. Llefelys Davies, who is immediately concerned with this section of the agricultural industry, to the effect that the Government could help most by making the conditions of small farms conducive to efficiency in production. I think that a major contribution to helping this area and many others could be made by trying to help these small milk-producing farmers to produce more efficiently. I believe that farmers in this category could well be included in the group which benefit under the Livestock Rearing Act. They need assistance to bring their buildings and equipment up to date, and they need, in many cases, better supply roads and electricity.
  One-third in numbers, but at least half from every other point of view, of those farming in this area would be materially helped if assistance were given to the small dairy farmer in the area by helping him to produce his milk more efficiently. I believe that the most effective way of doing that would be to have some form of extension of the Livestock Rearing Act so as to embrace his operations.
  That would be of considerable help in two directions. It would retain those people in agriculture, because the farmer who is now the milk producer in these areas is in the position that, if he cannot make a living out of milk production, he will tend to desert the industry. The other factor is this. To my mind, these holdings provide one of the finest opportunities for recruitment into the industry. Goodness knows, it is difficult enough now for a young farmworker to become a farmer. I do not know of any time when it was more difficult for a young man to become a farmer than at the present moment.

  1357
  There is one paragraph in the Report to which I took strong exception. I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary gave some reassurance with regard to it. In paragraph J, page 48, there is a sentence which reads:
  "We therefore feel that the administration of the existing grants and subsidies needs to be reviewed so that wherever possible they will be directed towards bringing about the type of reorganisation recommended in this Report."
  Nothing, I think, would be more reprehensible than for the people who have the responsibility for administering these grants and subsidies to administer them in such a way as to force amalgamation. I think that, of the two alternatives, it would be almost better to invoke compulsory powers than to follow the insidious way of refusing grants and subsidies, thereby using economic force to bring about the same result. I hope that when the White Paper is published, it will be made quite clear that the Government have no intention of refusing applications under the Hill Farming Act or the Livestock Rearing Act, with a view to bringing about amalgamation which they dare not bring about by compulsory powers.
  A great deal has been said in the Report and by hon. Members in regard to the size of agricultural units. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) as to the over-emphasis on size. I also agree that many of these smallholdings are farmed today by part-time workers. Many smallholdings are held by postmen, forestry workers and people in that category. I think that by operating in that way they are contributing substantially to their own and to the general welfare of the country.
  So far as the upland or central moorland areas as a whole are concerned, this is the present position. Already a substantial extent of those areas consists of large farms. It is not a problem of amalgamation in those areas. We have extensive farms there already engaged very largely in sheep and cattle production. I should like to see a speeding up of consideration of claims under the Hill Farming Act and the Livestock Rearing Act. A substantial amount has been done in this respect, but a great deal more could be done far more rapidly than is at present the case.
  The basic problem in those areas is to achieve a proper balance between forestry and agriculture. I am glad to
  1358
  join with a number of hon. Members in saying that the Forestry Commission's behaviour is far better than it was in the past. It indulged in a case of "attempted breaking and entering" in my constituency of a very extensive character. It was put on probation, and it is still on probation. I am pleased to say that while on probation it is behaving reasonably well at the moment. But let us have no doubt of its standing in regard to the agricultural community involved in this Report. There is no reason, given good will on both sides, why there should not be a very large measure of co-operation between those two sides, but it needs, bearing in mind the past history of the Forestry Commission, a very human handling by it of the problems that arise.
  The two points which I wish to make in this regard are these. It seems to me that one of the basic problems is the production of adequate shelter belts. Within this area there are large tracts of land which need shelter. The farmers need the shelter and the Forestry Commission need the land. One would have thought that there would have been some means of bringing these two claims together. It appears to me that the amount of shelter belt planning which can be done under the Hill Farming Act is far too small to meet this difficulty. It is not a question of small shelter belts for which grants can be had under the Hill Farming Act. It is not a question—and this is one of my main complaints against the Forestry Commission—of planting large forest blocks. I should like to see the Forestry Commission encourage farmers to give up portions of their land for the purpose of planting substantial shelter belts.
  The best way to achieve that is by behaving in that fashion in relation to the farms they have acquired. They have acquired farm lands in this area. What I should like to see the Commission doing is planting substantial belts in that area, then letting the rest of the land as a holding. If it did that, it would encourage neighbouring farmers to give up reasonable amounts of their land for the construction of shelter belts; but instead of doing it, the Commission seems to be concentrating the whole, or at least a substantial part, of its attention on creating these large forest blocks, with all the

  1359
  difficulties for the farming community to which they give rise.
  Another factor to which I wish to draw attention is the importance to agriculture of the Hendre and Hafod system of farming. Tribute is paid to that system in the Report, yet it has been flouted in the Gogerddan area in the last two years. It seems to me that if we are to get a full measure of good will between these two sides of the agricultural industry, all these points must be borne in mind.
  Another matter, to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon, is the need to link forestry with the timber trade. A great deal of good will would be created if the Forestry Commission would throw in the whole of its weight in an attempt to attract to the area rural industries in which timber is the basic product used. It would lend considerable strength to its claim that forestry can really contribute towards arresting rural depopulation.
  I am sorry to detain the House for so long, but, as hon. Members will appreciate, this Report affects my area far more than it does the area of any other Member. I believe that in these upland areas a great deal could be done by scientific research—a good deal has been done already—to increase the sheep population. A great deal more could be done in cattle rearing. I saw some figures quite recently showing that over a million dairy bred calves are born each year and not reared. It seems to me that these upland areas could rear large numbers of crossbred calves from dairy herds. In view of the anxiety as regards their level of milk production, one cannot expect these small dairy farms to do it, but I believe that if there were suitable cross-bred calves, large numbers of them could be reared in these upland areas, and contribute considerably towards beef production in the country as a whole.
  When the claims of agriculture and forestry conflict, there seems to be no machinery whatever for resolving the differences. I will just quote, if I may, from what my own county council had to say in the matter quite recently:
  "In our county"—
  that is to say, the County of Cardigan—
  "some of the best sheep farms have been acquired for afforestation, contrary to the
  1360
  views of the Agricultural Executive Committee".
  It seems to me that there should be far more effective machinery for resolving this problem when it arises.
  As regards social amenity, I would say that my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon has perhaps painted, if anything, too bleak a picture. I do not in any way challenge his motives in doing that, but, to my mind, most of these difficulties in regard to social amenities could be overcome if the speed with which they are being dealt with at the moment were accelerated. If one looks at the figures in the Report with regard to water supplies, electricity, roads and farm equipment, it is idle to talk about the position being hopeless. It is not hopeless. What is needed is a substantial acceleration in what is being done at the moment.
  For example, in water supplies and electricity, if the present rate of improvement could be doubled, the benefits would be enormous. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary lifts his eyebrows at my suggestion. It would mean no more than bringing these areas into line with what is common form in England at the moment and common form throughout a large part of Wales. The difficulties would in great measure be eased if the Government would allow the present water supply schemes to go forward, and if they would allow the 1955 Act in relation to roads to be implemented, and if the Electricity Board accelerated its programme of rural electrification.
  It is not a question of having new ideas or having some revolutionary programme, but of putting into action all the machinery which we have, and putting it into action with vigour and imagination. If the Government of the day are prepared to face these problems, there is no reason why this area should not continue to produce men of the calibre and character it has produced in the past, and there is no reason why it should not retain a healthy, vigorous population contributing to the social well-being of Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole.
  5.7 p.m.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: In rising to speak to this Mid-Wales Investigation Report, in a maiden speech, I will

  1361
  confess my interest from the start, having been born and having spent most of my life in this particular part of Wales. I should like to claim, with modesty, that I know well most of the parishes referred to in the Report itself.
  It is, as other hon. Members have said, an area of hill and marginal farms which have great economic problems. It is an area of great beauty. It is an area from which, in the north, the River Wye, rising on Plynlimon, flows southwards towards the Hereford Division which I am proud to represent, and which, for the last 25 years, has been represented so well by the noble Lord, Lord Cilcennin. The river is not the only link between the survey area and Hereford, because we know that for generations many Welsh farmers have found their way to the great markets of Hereford, and we know only too well that many of them have found the land rich enough to tempt them to remain in the lower parts of the Wye valley. It would be true to say also that the area near to the Black Mountain in Herefordshire is faced, to some degree, with the same problems as those which face the survey area.
  May I now turn up the river, past the scene where the Welsh and English last fought in battle against one another—I know that most hon. Members here today will agree with me that that was a drawn battle—past also the place where the last Welsh prince, Prince Llewellyn, lost his life near Builth. Leaving on our right the mountain where Vortigern, King of the ancient Britons, was struck by a thunderbolt, I am now safely returned to the survey area again.
  There was a Welsh poet who once said:
  "The breath of freedom cometh from the hills."
  That freedom cometh today as ever, but it is on the economic aspects of this area that the investigation has taken place. The Report shows that the main income for the people in this area—if I may disregard for a moment the milk area which has already been referred to—comes largely from the sale of wool, store cattle and store sheep. The Report stresses the amount of benefit that this area has received from Government grants and subsidies. Various recommendations are made regarding the size of holdings and
  1362
  the fixed equipment on farms, and also about the integration of forestry with agriculture. I wish to confine myself to this very real problem which has grown up in Wales since the war by the coming of these great State forests to the Principality.
  This is a revolution. In history we are used to revolutions being started by individuals and individual organisations against the State. In this case the process has been reversed. The peaceful penetration of State forests into this area, however much in the national interest, has brought with it revolutionary changes. One of the several maps in the Report shows that there are certain areas which are not considered economic for agricultural development and are suitable for forestry. That process may come, but let it be gradual. Above all, let the Government see that a fair price is paid to the occupier for the land according to what type and what quality of land it is.
  On page 41 of the Report appears the following rather dry paragraph:
  "The development of afforestation, properly integrated with agriculture, will strengthen the social and economic fabric of the countryside and assist materially in the rehabilitation of the upland areas."
  Many of us agree, but we feel that, if that development is to be successful, the Government must continue to understand the great human problems which exist. They must also remember that, until the coming of the Forestry Commission to these areas, sheep and their flock masters had undisputed supremacy in these areas.
  New forests bring improved telephone and road communications and, as we have seen from the latest reports from Northumberland, they can also bring a great addition to the number of people living in these village communities. They can bring employment and prosperity, which has already been referred to. But where these forests come on to the sheep walks we find new problems, human problems and, sometimes, national problems. I think it very important to realise that the Forestry Commission is planting in Great Britain between 60,000 and 70,000 acres a year, and in Wales something between 10,000 and 12,000. That is a great deal, and therefore it is important that the Government should safeguard the interests of the sheep farmers;

  1363
  and the same arguments apply to the private owners. On page 46 of the Report, it states:
  "Areas afforested should be fenced. Fences should continuously be maintained during the whole of the life of the trees."
  This is one of the points which I wish to make. At present we find that the Forestry Commission maintains its fences up to the thicket stage. But afterwards, when the forest is mature, we often find that neighbouring farmers lose a large number of sheep from maggot and other cause; and very often, even if the sheep are found, it is extremely difficult to identify ewe and lamb. This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  I have myself been a member of the National Forestry Commission's Committee for Wales. I was a member until I became a Member of this House. I should like to take the opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the work being done by its officers and employees in the Principality. But the Forestry Commission will say that they are not bound by law to fence against other people's stock. That is absolutely true, as we all know. But is it not also true that the custom of the country, as practised by the best private woodland owners, is to fence against other people's stock, because they know that bad fences mean bad neighbours? And in Wales, and the West Country generally, to be a bad neighbour is something very bad indeed.
  Some may not think that this maintenance of permanent fences is very important, but I should like to say that nothing better could be done to bridge the gulf between farmer and forester than this. It has been urged by the National Farmers' Union, by the Country Landowners' Association, and now it is urged in the Report made by these wise and respected men. If the future prosperity of areas such as this, and similar areas in England—indeed in my own Division of Hereford—lies in forestry and farming being integrated, as the Report says, then the development must receive the good will of the local people.
  I hope that after due consideration of this Report the Government will take action on it; that they will not merely let it moulder in a pigeonhole in some Ministry, because I believe that the men
  1364
  who have so carefully prepared this Report, and the men and women who are the subject of it, deserve a very great deal better than that.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I should like warmly to congratulate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) on a most delightful speech, to which it has been a pleasure to listen. Like most hon. Members on this side who are present this afternoon, I was pleased to understand that the hon. Member came from the Principality. It was encouraging to hear that there is such a keen interest between Hereford and the Principality on this subject. I will not follow the hon. Member on the clashes between the English and Welsh on the Welsh and English border, although that is an absorbing subject. I am sure that the House will look forward to future contributions from the hon. Gentleman.
  The Report we are discussing is concerned with a relatively small section of the Principality, but it is a most interesting section. I hasten to add my congratulations to those which have been given on the excellency of the Report. It is a production which will, no doubt, be the basis of a very satisfactory piece of action.
  When I crossed mid-Wales for the first time, some time ago, I had a most distressing experience. I felt that I was passing through a part of Wales which was moribund. It is most disturbing to have such an experience. The reason for my feeling may have been due to geographical and economic reasons, the interplay and interaction of geographical and economic forces. But, even so, we should not allow this part of our land to slip through our fingers into dereliction. We should not permit ourselves to be defeated by either geographical or economic forces. Therefore, we should act not only quickly, but decisively. We should, as it were, carry on a blitzkrieg in this part of the Principality.
  It may be said that this area will never enjoy that prosperity in agriculture of the standard achieved in the lowlands of England, or even in the broader valleys of Wales. But this is an interesting part of the Principality. Geographically, it is a plateau, a dissected plateau with an average altitude of 1,300 ft., reaching in parts to 1,700 ft. This is of importance

  1365
  in our discussion. This plateau is divided very deeply by rivers which run in different directions. There is the Ystwyth and Rheidol, running west, the Teifi and the Towy, running south, the Wye and the Ithon, running south-east, the Teme, running eastwards, and the Severn, going in a north-easterly direction. This is a most interesting geographical fact which will have its bearing on my argument today.
  Another interesting feature is that in no part of this area do we find rivers with broad valleys. They are in their upper reaches where, essentially, the valleys are narrow. Consequently, the region has its own peculiar problem from the point of view of farming. The outstanding fact is that the economy of the area is running down and there is very marked rural depopulation. Rural depopulation has its depressing effect upon the agricultural industry and, as a result, we have a vicious circle. It is this vicious circle which the Report seeks to break, It is an excellent, factual Report which presents a basis for good work for the future.
  At the same time, we must face one fundamental fact. British farming is enjoying great prosperity which it has enjoyed for the last ten years. I suppose that it would be true to say that British farming has never enjoyed such prosperity before; yet this area is languishing and limping. Therefore, we must ask ourselves why it should be so at a time when British agriculture is most prosperous. To find the answer we must, I think, reexamine the natural economy of the area. I have tried to do so and have come to the conclusion that a new orientation is necessary, and it is to this that I wish to draw the attention of the House in particular.
  It would be a grave mistake to regard farming as the only industry in this part of Wales, though I agree that it must be the major activity there. It would be fatal if we were to come to the conclusion that the only rural industry was farming, although admittedly it is the main industry. If the area is to survive, and most certainly if it is to flourish, a new balance of the economy is required. No area either industrial or agricultural can survive and flourish if it has all its eggs in one basket. That is the danger here.
  1366
  It is right to say that the chief stimulant to farming is demand. Industry of any kind will flourish when there is a demand for its products, and that is specially true of farming. It requires a market. Assuming, as we think correctly, that the area is, broadly speaking, marginal, then it is of fundamental importance that the market should be on the doorstep; the market cannot be too near. It is our task to provide a market on the very doorstep of the area.
  The question is, where is the doorstep? The answer, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), is in the villages and settlements in this part of Wales. If these places and the small towns decline, then we will have a declining market for farming and a declining farming community. On the other hand, if we can revive and resuscitate these villages and settlements and give them the facilities to grow, then they will become the markets on the doorstep of the farming community. Unfortunately, what has happened, and it is still happening, is that these places are declining, with the result that there is a depressed farming community. If they could be strengthened—if to begin with they could be stabilised and then developed—two consequences would follow. First, rural depopulation would be arrested and then reversed, and secondly local demand for farm produce would be increased, and that would bring new life to the farms.
  How can we revitalise these villages? How can we resuscitate these communities? For forty years rural depopulation has been discussed, and it is becoming largely an academic question. The time has arrived when we must look at the matter in its proper perspective. We must seek the answer. The question is how can we resuscitate these rural settlements? If we can find the answer to that, then we shall have gone a very long way.
  If I may refer again to the configuration of the region; the Rivers Teifi, Towy, Wye, Ithon, Teme and Severn, between them, because they radiate through that country, divide the plateau areas into upland blocks more or less of equal size.
  These uplands are nowhere very far removed from the villages on the floors of the valley. The centres are Ystrad

  1367
  Meurig, Tregaron, Rhayader, Llanbister, Llanbadarn, Fynydd, Llangurig, Llanidloes.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Ardderchog—that is real poetry.
  Mr. Jones: Those are the centres. Flanking those centres and overhanging them are afforestation schemes to which reference has already been made. My suggestion, in support of what has already been proposed by my hon. Friend, is that these ancient settlements should become the focal points of the ancillary industries of afforestation. If they could, that would bring new life to the upper reaches of these valleys and there would be formed a suitable market for the produce of our farms. That, to my mind, is the crux of the problem.
  Up to the middle of the nineteenth century, the stability of peasant economy was based on the equilibrium between various economic factors of the areas. For example, there was a relationship between the size and the number of holdings and the rural crafts in the valleys. There was a definite relationship between them. The rural industries have disappeared and the equilibrium has thus been upset, and that is the cause of our trouble. A vacuum has been created. It was created towards the end of the last century, and that vacuum remains to be filled, and until that vacuum is filled, I can see no solution of this problem. We can say of this area: it is
  "Standing between two worlds,
  One dead; the other powerless to be born."
  It is in that context and against that background that I suggest that afforestation and the ancillary industries can be of great help; indeed, can be of vital influence in this area.
  I conclude by quoting from page 33 of the Report a very significant short sentence:
  "The Forestry Commission is keenly aware of the part it can and should play in stopping the drift of rural population into the industrial towns but it would appear to have come on the scene a generation late, after the people had already gone."
  That is the old story, and it is tragic. It is the old tragic story of being too late. That is why I am anxious to have it on the record that it will be another tragedy if, in about thirty years, somebody on
  1368
  the Floor of this House should have to say, "Action has been taken too late."
  At the present moment the forests are beginning to yield. In ten years' time there will be 500,000 cubic feet of timber, and a few years later more than 1,750,000 cubic feet of timber, and yet there is no major timber-using industry in or near the area. Now is the time to plan the production of wood processing industries within this area. At the present moment, why cannot we see opening in the various villages I have referred to the trimming and sawing of timber for pit props, window frames and doors? I do not see why we cannot have a pencil factory in this part of Wales. Why not have a wood pulp factory as well?
  If all this were done, we could stiffen the rural communities, strengthen them and urbanise them. If we can urbanise those rural communities, then that area will have a market on its doorstep, and that market is essential for the revived prosperity of this interesting part of the Principality.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) for the way in which he expressed our collective appreciation of the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt). That speech, indeed, was one of many excellent speeches which have already been contributed to what I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree is a most interesting and valuable debate.
  What has been said today suggests that the Government have done entirely what the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs promised to do after the publication of the first White Paper which followed the first investigation into a larger area in mid-Wales. What we have heard today would suggest that it was probably a good thing that there was no hasty action taken at that time. Rather, we now have the benefit of this further investigation over a more limited field and in a more limited area.
  This is not a small problem. It is, indeed, a very large problem, and I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the House would try to hide the fact. Some of the figures bear it out.

  1369
  I was impressed by the cost of some of the amenities which are needed in areas of this kind. For example, a farm road suitable to take modern traffic costs 30s. per linear yard, a water service pipe 10s. per linear yard, and a mains electricity supply line 12s. per linear yard, making the cost of these services some 50s. per linear yard, a cost which, in the aggregate, amounts to more than £4,000 per mile. Obviously, the expense of providing those amenities on any considerable scale is a very substantial item indeed.
  We are told in the Report the estimated cost of rehabilitating some of the holdings in the reference area even on the existing pattern. We have been given a figure of about £2,300,000. So we are considering a very large financial problem in a limited area. That problem, of course, becomes much larger in size when extended to the much larger area which was considered, prior to this investigation, before the, publication of the 1953 White Paper. That is the size of the problem.
  I would comment briefly on one or two of the conclusions. One of them, the inadequate size of the holdings, is in strange juxtaposition with something else which has been commented upon by previous speakers, namely, the growth in owner-occupation of many of these holdings. Now 60 per cent. of them are owner-occupied. We are also told that it is probable that some of the holdings are too small. I suppose that the increase in the number of owner-occupiers is necessarily a healthy sign. On the other hand, the inadequate size of the holdings is probably due to the increased cost today of equipping a holding economically and effectively. It may be that years ago holdings of this size were far more feasible as economic units.
  The lack of roads is mentioned in the conclusions of the Mid-Wales Investigation Report and for that reason I would ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider with great care the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, which was passed to secure access to certain stock areas in Wales in particular. I appreciate what has been said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture about the reasons why the implementation of the Act has been somewhat delayed, but I would remind my
  1370
  right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that originally that Act was designed solely for the benefit of Wales.
  It is true that subsequently it was extended to include some areas in other parts of the United Kingdom, but the Act arose from previous debates on this problem and it was first framed as a result of an undertaking given by a former Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs, Lord Kilmuir. Obviously, it was recognised that this was a particular requirement and that there was a unique need for roads of this kind in this part of Wales. I ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, to fight within the Cabinet for priority for the provision of these roads.
  The remoteness of a holding from a community can be a considerable difficulty. Not only may it cause increased expense for the farmer in delivering his products and offering them for sale, but in many cases it may mean lack of any market at all. We should also remember that where there is remoteness of that kind it is all the more disheartening for the farmer's wife and his family. It makes life less interesting and a more bleak affair, and for that reason we should not be tempted to over-emphasise the influence of mere lack of amenities.
  I am not satisfied that people leave these areas solely because they have no electric light. I have the impression that even where these amenities are provided, many young people go in search of a gayer existence in the cities. We must not imagine that the provision of these things will completely stop that process, but we should pay attention to remoteness from a community as one of the influences operating adversely against holdings of this kind.
  The Mid-Wales Investigation Report stresses the need for a change in these areas to cattle and sheep rearing even where at present the emphasis is on milk. That may be extremely desirable, but I caution my right hon. Friend that even in richer areas than this, even where there is comparatively rich land, I have found that it would be extremely difficult to persuade farmers to turn over from dairy farming, because so many of them depend financially upon the regular cheque which they received for their milk—money which they cannot expect with such certainty and regularity for other commodities.

  1371
  I believe that what has been said already in the debate has justified the first investigation into this problem and the undertaking given in respect of roads and also this further investigation by the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission and its excellent Report. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford, I hope that action will result from the Report. In particular, I ask my right hon. Friend to see what can be done to give effect to the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act which was intended to have particular application to Wales.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I should like to pay my tribute to the distinguished panel responsible for preparing the admirable Mid-Wales Investigation Report which we are now discussing. The Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission has added considerably to our knowledge of this complex subject and the Report will probably remain a classic of its kind. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) on the lucid and comprehensive speech with which he opened the debate, and to felicitate the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) on his excellent maiden speech.
  I am glad to understand that there is to be a White Paper on the subject of our debate, but I feel that it should have been published a fortnight or three weeks ago so that we could have had an opportunity of discussing it today. In that sense, I am bound to say that this is a very disappointing debate, because we have not been told by the Government spokesman what the Government's proposals are for tackling these serious problems. It is a great pity that the White Paper was not available in time for this debate. After all, the Minister has had the Mid-Wales Investigation Report since December, 1955. I should have thought that by now there would have been sufficient time to prepare his proposals.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, when he intervened in the debate, made, as he generally does, a very agreeable speech. We are always very pleased to listen to him, but he has not told us anything new.
  1372
  The people of Wales will be extremely disappointed when they read reports of the debate. We have to bear in mind that this Mid-Wales Investigation Report is one of a series of documents which the Government have had presented to them since the party opposite came to power in 1951. In July, 1953 there was the Second Memorandum of the Council for Wales and Monmouth which disclosed an extremely serious situation in the rural areas of Wales as a whole. Subsequently, we had a Government White Paper on Rural Wales, towards the end of 1953, and finally we have had the document which we are now considering.
  All the documents record a similar conclusion, namely, that there is a very grave problem to be solved in the rural areas of Wales. We must remember that the present Report is a pilot survey of one representative area in Wales, but the ills that are disclosed in this area occur far and wide, from Pembroke to Anglesey.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: And Carmarthenshire.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, throughout the whole of Wales.
  The problems disclosed are not merely economic, but are also great social problems. The House must now consider that after all these years and after all these documents have been published the Government have so far done nothing. I indict the Government because I see no results and no action following the publication of these documents.
  The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) mentioned the Agriculture (Improvement of the Roads) Act, which deals with rural roads. That Measure was designed to assist in the maintenance and repair of the roads in the upland areas of Wales. So far, however, no assistance has been given to any of the highway authorities in Wales, although the Act was passed some months ago. I should have thought that the Government would have excluded special areas of this kind from their economy measures. After all, they are not saving much by taking no action under that Act. I ask the Minister, therefore, to look again at the position, to see if a few thousand pounds cannot be squeezed out of the pocket of the Chancellor so that the upland roads of Wales can be repaired properly.

  1373
  Today we expected to hear from the Minister the plans of the Government, because without those plans being before us we cannot have an effective debate. The Government are very much on trial in this matter. In November, 1953, paragraph 15 of the White Paper on Rural Wales stated:
  "The Government are in full sympathy with the broad aims indicated by the Rural Panel: to establish a stable rural economy; to safeguard the position of the agricultural industry; and at the same time to secure the full development of the resources of the rural areas, so that mote people can attain a reasonable standard of living in them and enjoy a full social life. They agree too with the Panel's approach to the strengthening of the rural economy."
  Those are brave words and they are words which we all support. They were uttered nearly three years ago. What we want to know is what concrete steps the Government will take to implement those proposals.
  In the Report before us there are, as I see it, three central points to be considered. First, there is the question of larger farm units, because the Report advocates the creation of larger and more economic farms. On all the evidence that certainly seems to be desirable. The question is, how are the larger units to be achieved? I do not think we can expect that they will be created through natural evolution in any short time or in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it might, take a couple of centuries to happen in that way.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon said, we are against regimentation or compulsion, and it is for that reason we are not attracted to the idea of the rationalisation grant, because that would involve an element of compulsion. The Minister ought to consider bringing the county councils into the scheme. The smallholdings Act works very well, as the Minister knows. Why not empower and encourage the county councils of Wales to acquire larger units? They could then show the way by operating on the principle of marrying the hill farms to the lowland farms. That is a far more desirable way of dealing with this problem than amalgamating the upland farms.
  I suggest also that the county councils in Wales might elect a central committee to supervise this work, so that we might have some uniformity of policy through-
  1374
  out the Principality. I hasten to add that I agree entirely with the Report which states that it does not envisage a uniform pattern of large units, and that there should be a number of smallholdings in favourable areas within reasonable reach of the centres of community life. We do not want a uniform postage-stamp system of large farms in Wales. If, however, we are to bring stability to these areas, it is clear that positive action short of regimentation is required. That is why I suggest that it might be a good thing to bring the county councils, which are democratically elected bodies, into the picture.
  The second point in the Report which is important is that new alternative sources of employment are required in the area generally, because this would strengthen the community and would infuse fresh blood into the economy. The sad part of it is that the Government, whilst paying lip-service to this, do nothing to make it a reality. The White Paper of 1953 stated that the Government were in full sympathy with the encouragement of industry ancillary to agriculture and forestry.
  What happened? My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) have already mentioned the pulping mill which was built to deal with timber from the Welsh forests. On the basis of what the Government said in their White Paper, one would have thought that this mill would have been built in Montgomeryshire or in Merionethshire to deal with timber from the Welsh forests. What an inspiration that would have been in those counties and it would have been a great event in rural Wales generally. There would have been an official opening, to which we would all have been invited, because it would have been an important occasion. It is likely that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs, who has just come into the Chamber, would have been invited—
  Mr. J. Griffiths: We would have had tea and Welsh cakes.
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have had a characteristic Welsh welcome and a very good tea. Why? Because one mill in

  1375
  that area would make a great difference to the prospects of employment and to the prosperity of the area. But what happened in the event was that the pulping mill was built in Ellesmere Port where there is a surplus of labour, where there is a shortage of housing and where there is a shortage of power. Really, it makes us doubt the sincerity of the Government when they compose White Papers with fulsome paragraphs of this kind. I ask the Minister to look again at this matter. If the Government are serious about establishing suitable industries in Wales, they must do something more than they have done in the last three years.
  Some people will say that this lack of action on the part of the Government is a deliberate act to depopulate the Welsh countryside. I do not say it, but this lack of action and this lack of interest over a period of years is a serious matter. So I appeal to the Government to show that they intend to act differently in the future.
  The third point is on the question of amenities and has been mentioned by several speakers already. Rural Wales is well behind the rest of Britain in the provision of electricity and piped water, of rural housing, of sanitation, of roads in rural areas, of rural transport—of all those things which keep people, especially young people, in the countryside. We cannot expect the young housewife to stay with her family in the rural areas of Wales unless she is given the same amenities as her counterpart in the towns and cities. Why should she? What we want to know is what the Government are doing to provide these amenities. It is no use treating Wales in these matters in the same way as Kent and Surrey. There is a long way to go to bring Wales up to the national average. There is a tremendous backlog to be made up as regards rural electricity, and all the other amenities.
  The second Memorandum of the Council of Wales, which was treated in a very cavalier fashion by the Government when we were debating it three years ago, suggested the setting up of an agency to tackle these problems so as to bring Wales up to the average standards of the United Kingdom. We are still very far behind.
  The Government are on trial. The Welsh people are the judge and the jury;
  1376
  they have been very patient for many years, but they will shortly be in a position to give their verdict and to pass sentence.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Tomorrow.
  Mr. Hughes: The Newport by-election is a few days ahead. The issues involved are not small. I was impressed by some words in paragraph 129 of the Report which state:
  "Although our investigation has been economic in its approach we would not be human if we did not appreciate the concern which is felt by many responsible Welshmen at the possibility of the disintegration of a way of life which has endured for centuries. Rural Wales has nurtured a democratic outlook and an appreciation of true values which are of lasting worth."
  It is this outlook and these values which we are today asking the Government to preserve. If they do not take action to preserve these things which we value and hold dear, they will stand indicted, and the Welsh people will never forgive the party opposite.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Garner Evans: I am glad that I shall not be able to follow the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) in a great deal of his speech, because he was rather disgruntled, I thought, this afternoon. One point he made needs a reply. He criticised the Government for not producing the White Paper before the debate. I should have thought that it was much better for the Government to bring out the White Paper when they could bear in mind all the excellent points which the hon. Member for Anglesey has made. I am sure they will be reflected in the White Paper when it is produced.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Surely that is on the assumption that there will be another day to debate the White Paper.
  Mr. Evans: Fortunately, I believe, there are always other days ahead of us when we shall be able to debate it. I hope that it will be such a good White Paper that we shall be able to sing the Hallelujah Chorus in full praise of the Government on that occasion. That is our hope.
  I, too, want to pay tribute to the authors of this most interesting Report. It is a delightful document. On the

  1377
  whole, we must confess that it draws a rather gloomy picture. To me the most significant sentence in the Report occurs at the bottom of page 31:
  "It follows that if rural depopulation is to be checked or reversed the remedy must lie in the promotion of rural activities other than agriculture."
  When it goes on to discuss this problem, the only industry or activity ancillary to agriculture which it suggests is forestry. We all want to see a partnership between agriculture and forestry. We all know that there is a great future for forestry in Wales. We want to make that partnership run as smoothly as we possibly can. Nevertheless, I agree with much of the criticism levelled at the Forestry Commission in the House this afternoon; it is still on the arrogant side.
  One point I would make—perhaps this is a King Charles's head with me—is that the Forestry Commission does not make an all-out effort to recruit Welshmen. There are still far too many Englishmen or Scotsmen in the hierarchy of the Forestry Commission in Wales, and I wish the Commission would make a greater effort to recruit young foresters into the school at Bettws-y-Coed and into forestry activities generally.
  A great deal has been said this afternoon about the building of a paper pulp mill at Ellesmere Port. We have been asked why it could not have been built in mid-Wales. What utter and absolute rubbish!
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Why?
  Mr. Evans: For this reason: the bulk of the timber to be used in that mill is imported timber. We have water communications at Ellesmere Port. The very idea that one could take the timber from overseas up the Severn is ridiculous.
  The culprit in this respect is not the Bowater Paper Corporation Ltd.; it is the National Coal Board, which is quite the worst buyer of Welsh timber at the moment. Let me give an example. Until recently in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) there was a very useful saw mill treating and processing pit props. That mill employed about 20 to 30 people who lived in my constituency, in the Ceiriog Valley, which is now denuded of all industry. There was some mix-up in the Coal Board—I do not know what it was—and, as a result, that mill making pit props
  1378
  at Black Park, was closed down. I hope that the Coal Board will co-operate much more with the Forestry Commission in future to see that pit props are made in Wales and that far less use is made of imported pit props.
  I turn briefly to the agricultural prospects. I do not like the idea which runs through the Report that the solution of our problems lies in the amalgamation of small units, even though it be on a voluntary basis, and the creation of bigger units. I state quite firmly that these smaller units can be made economic and that the Welsh way of life which the present occupiers enjoy can be encouraged if only capital can be provided to enable them to improve their buildings and build up their stock. I am sure that the crux of the matter and the solution of the problem lies in the provision of long-term credits for farmers, so that they can rehabilitate their holdings. On those lines, I am sure, we shall be able to maintain the population on these farms, even on the small and so-called uneconomic units.
  Turning to the question of subsidies, I am delighted that hon. Members have frowned upon the idea that grants should be made only on condition that there is amalgamation. That idea has been scotched this afternoon in the very able speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). Nevertheless, much greater use could be made of subsidies to encourage the rearing of livestock on those farms which have turned over so much to milk production if only we could have a long-term policy guaranteeing to the farmer a fair price for store cattle in three years' time. That security would do a great deal to persuade him to turn from milk production to meat production.
  There are very many things in the Report with which I should like to deal. I must confess that I was very disappointed with the tone of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's speech this afternoon when he discussed amenities and the public services in the rural areas. I believe that an all-out effort must be made to improve the roads and to take electricity and water supplies to the rural areas, because without these amenities we shall lose this great inheritance of the Welsh way of life.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. T. W. Jones: The Report we are considering this afternoon is excellent in every respect, in its material and in its presentation. It reflects great credit on the four gentlemen and their secretary who compiled it. But what should we expect from four Welshmen, except that? If one wants the best English, one gets Welshmen to write it, and if one wants the best Welsh, one goes to Merionethshire. We will have a bit of it before I sit down.
  If the Report is implemented—but what a tremendous "if" with the present Government—that will go a long way to solving the problem of depopulation in rural Wales. The problem of depopulation in our area is tragic, as I have emphasised in the House on many occasions. It has been well put by the compilers of the Report, who have emphasised, as I have done, that it is a problem not only of the reduction in the population, but of something far more important than that. The Report says:
  "Although our investigation has been economic in its approach we would not be human if we did not appreciate the concern which is felt by many responsible Welshmen at the possibility of the disintegration of a way of life which has endured for centuries. Rural Wales has nurtured a democratic outlook and an appreciation of true values which are of lasting worth."
  How true that is. Wales is the most Socialist country in the world.
  A tremendous responsibility lies on the Government to tackle the problem of depopulation and to tackle it with a will, with enthusiasm and determination to solve it. I have held the view all along, and I am confirmed in my view by the Report, that the real cause of rural depopulation is lack of social amenities and social services. The Report goes further than I should have dared to have gone. It says:
  "The main causes of marginality of farming in this area are poor public services and lack of community life."
  Our only hope of preventing a complete dereliction of the rural areas is to introduce into them urban standards of living.
  The young people of today are not prepared to spend their lives in an area completely devoid of social amenities and social services. Who can blame them? These are the very people who should have the first claim on modern amenities and social services. They are cut off from
  1380
  communal life and are living in remote parts of Wales, but instead of being specially considered, they are actually being penalised because they happen to live in those areas.
  Let me illustrate my point in a very simple way. I have spent a fortnight in negotiation with the Postmaster-General. Having had a fortnight's negotiation, I would not have blamed my hon. Friends if they concluded that I am after some tremendous project, a new telephone exchange, or perhaps a new B.B.C. station on Cader Idris. It was not that. I was after a letter box. This letter box is to serve a group of hill farms. I will read a letter which I have received from the Clerk to the Penllyn Rural District Council which will admirably explain the position which is now prevailing in a typically rural area. Before doing so, I should like to explain that I find no fault with the local postmaster in what he did, because he had to work within a prescribed financial limit.
  This is a small question of a letter box, but I emphasise that the case sums up the position in rural areas. The letter reads:
  "Dear Mr. Jones,
  This Council have made application to the Head Postmaster at Corwen to provide a pillar box at Tynybwlch, Glan'rafon in this district. Tynybwlch is situated on cross-roads—Bethel—Soar—Glan'rafon—Maerdy (Denbighshire). A telephone kiosk has already been erected at this point which clearly shows that there is a demand for postal and telephone facilities in this district."
  See how logical these people are. Now comes the illogical:
  "The Head Postmaster has stated in reply that the number of letters likely to be posted in a box at the proposed point would not justify the cost of erection and subsequent clearance, and he therefore regretted that he could not accede to the Council's request.
  The Council expressed their disappointment at the refusal and I was instructed to write the Head Postmaster again pointing out that the nearest posting box to Tynybwlch is at least 1¼ miles away and requesting him to re-consider his decision and to arrange for this facility to be provided.
  A further letter was received"—
  so typical—
  "from him to the effect that he had carefully reviewed the matter but was sorry he was unable to find any sufficient grounds for modifying his previous decision.
  The letter was submitted to the last Council meeting, when I was instructed to write and ask whether you will kindly take the matter further on behalf of the Council."

  1381
  I have had to take up this matter of a letter box with the Minister, but I am pleased to say that this morning I was promised a letter box—[Laughter.]—in spite of the credit squeeze.
  Why should people, because they live in rural areas, be denied these facilities? Why should a person living in that part of the world have to walk two miles to post a letter? It now takes a week for a letter to get there. Indeed, a love letter has lost its fervour before it arrives at its destination.
  I want to deal with another matter, and I refer now to unadopted and unclassified roads in rural areas. On page 35 the Report says:
  "In many areas the condition of roads over which we travelled was very poor and we consider that the principle of special grants proposed by the Government for the improvement of unclassified and unadopted roads in livestock rearing areas, under the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Bill, can be of immense benefit to agriculture and the rural economy generally."
  The other evening I attended a meeting in my constituency at a village called Melin-y-Wig—what a delightful name.
  Melin-y-Wig is a typical Welsh peasant community, where English, like every other language except Welsh, is regarded as foreign. It is about three miles to Corwen, and it has two bus services a week. When I asked why this was so, I was told that it was because, first, the bus could not negotiate the narrow and winding road leading to and from the village, and, second, that when the bus arrived at the main road it could not pick up more passengers because of the interests of another bus company. Is it any wonder that young people cannot be persuaded to settle down in isolated villages of this kind?
  I had much hope of the effect of the Agricultural (Improvement of Roads) Act, which was passed last July. The Merioneth County Council was going to take full advantage of that Act. For months it had been preparing its plans. All the plans were ready to hand to the Minister when I asked him when he would be ready to receive them, and he then said, "I am sorry to tell you, Mr. Jones, that there will be no grants during the current year, due to the financial squeeze." What a Government! After we had spent months and months in Committee discussing the Bill, and after I had praised it time and time again, although
  1382
  it was a Tory Bill; after we had expected so much from it, and the Merioneth County Council had spent days, weeks and months preparing its plans, and had even precepted to the tune of £80,000 to spend upon its unadopted and unclassified roads, we were told that the Government could not afford to implement its own Measure. What hopes, therefore, have we that the Report will be implemented?
  I ask the Minister to be in deadly earnest in this matter. I know that his illustrious father would have been had he had the opportunity to put this into operation. It is well known that when a civil servant told him that something was impossible his reply was, "Get me someone who can make it possible." I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider the Report carefully and implement it 100 per cent. if possible. If he does so, the people of Wales will feel very thankful to him.
  6.23 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: The debate began with a characteristically constructive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), who presented the problem and discussed and criticised constructively the proposals in the Report. He spoke in a manner which we have come to expect from him, and I thank him for the tone which he set at the beginning of the debate.
  During the course of the debate we have had many delightful speeches. I join other hon. Members in offering the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) my felicitations upon his speech. I did my best, not without success, to prevent him from becoming a Member of Parliament for the constituency in which I lived for some time, namely. Brecon and Radnor. He had to go further afield, over the border, to find a political home. His contribution delighted us all, and we look forward to further speeches from him during our debates. We have just had a characteristically Welsh speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), which also delighted us all.
  I shall keep the House for only a short time, because I want to allow the Minister time to reply. Although our discussion this afternoon has centred mainly upon the Report, that Report does not stand

  1383
  alone. It owes its origin to an earlier Report by the Council for Wales. When we debated that earlier Report one of the suggestions which the Government said that they were considering was that the technical aspects of the problem should be examined by a special technical body. Speaking as a layman, who does not profess to be able to follow closely or completely the technical terms of the Report, I join in expressing my gratitude for the good job which the Sub-Commission has done.
  The Council for Wales approached the problem from the point of view that mid-Wales was an area—with only part of which the Report deals—which was disintegrating and dying. The first question the Council asked itself was whether it should be allowed to die. I can tell the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whose speech disappointed me, that it is dying by natural evolution and the natural process of allowing economic changes to work themselves out without any regard being had to the social consequences.
  The Council came to the conclusion that this area was worth rehabilitating, restoring and preserving. The House must bear in mind that the Welsh people approach this problem not as one of so many acres, so many farms, so many head of cattle or so many forests, but as a whole series of communities each with what we call, in our own language, its Cefn-Gwlad—its own traditions, deeply rooted in the soil, and its own distinctive characteristic peasant culture. I ask the Minister to reaffirm that the Government accept the basic premise that this area is worth rehabilitating.
  The second conclusion at which the Council arrived was that this area cannot be rehabilitated or saved out of its own resources; it must have external aid. The Council not only came to that conclusion, but proposed a bold and imaginative plan. Let us praise it for that, whether we accept it or reject it. It said that a corporation should be set up. I believe that the suggestion had its origin in the example of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  I ask the House to realise that this, the biggest job of its kind in America; the wonderful Gezira scheme in the Sudan, and similar projects could not
  1384
  have come into being simply by evolution. They owed their existence to the investment of public money and to planning for an objective. The Council suggested that a corporation should be set up which should be provided with £60 million over 12 years to take this job in hand. The suggestion was put forward, first, because the area could not do what was necessary from its own resources and, secondly—as the Council said—because the local authorities were so weak in their resources of all kinds.
  That is the background to this matter. We now have the technical Report, and we are to have a White Paper. We are entitled to ask the Government to give at least some indication of their views upon a report published eight months ago. They have said that by the end of this month—three weeks from now—they will come to a conclusion upon the matter and publish a White Paper. I presume that they have given some consideration to the question during the last eight months—or is the consideration to begin today and finish in three weeks' time, after which they will publish a White Paper? They have heard the views of hon. Members in the House.
  I want to ask the Minister one other question. We may have different views about the Council for Wales and whether it is properly constituted, but at the moment it is the only body that we have of this kind. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has written an interesting booklet, in which he has suggested changes in the composition and character of the Council for Wales, and I hope that it will be read and studied. It commands my approval and I commend it to hon. Members.
  Before the Government publish their White Paper, do they propose to consult the Council for Wales and ask for its views and comments? I hope that they will do so. They are not obliged to accept those views and comments, but the Council for Wales is the body which began this movement and it ought in courtesy to be consulted.
  I have read the Report with very great care, approaching it as a layman without professing to be able to understand it in all its full technical implications. The whole problem came to life for me in Appendix N (1) in pages 76 to 78 of the

  1385
  Report. It describes a tiny bit of what is called the "reference area",—a valley which is given no name. I do not know where the valley is except that it is in this reference area.
  Having read this part of the Report, I felt inclined to borrow, with deep respect for his memory, the name which one of the greatest of our lyrical poets, Eifion Wyn, gave to his valley Cwm Pennant; and with great daring I will seek to translate his wonderful first couplet into English:
  "Why, Lord, did you make Cwm Pennant so fair
  And the life of a shepherd so frail?"
  Here in this valley we see the problem in miniature. Let us see it on a small scale small even for the reference area. The Appendix tells us:
  "The valley is entered at a distance of about a mile from a village and from a good public road: it is served by an unclassified road, with a tarmacadam surface for about a mile, with indifferent farm roads leading to the farmsteads, most of which are situated on the sides of the valley. The land lies between 900 and 1,400 feet and has a south-easterly aspect."
  Then, the soil is described and these words about this little valley are added:
  "Public water and electricity supplies and telephones are not available in the valley."
  That is where the problem begins.
  The Report then speaks about the farmsteads and their equipment. I hope the House will listen to this and I hope that it will be read outside:
  "The standard of fixed equipment in the valley is extremely low. The farmsteads are old and appear to date from at least 70–100 years ago and none of the farmhouses has modern conveniences. The buildings are quite unfit for the housing of attested stock: the cowhouses are low, lacking light and ventilation, and with cobbled floors; stonework is in need of repointing and in places rebuilding, whilst woodwork is in most cases badly in need of repair."
  That is the valley. I should not be surprised if it had produced poets and preachers—and, indeed, politicians, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has."] It has, and it does still.
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Agitators, too.
  Mr. Griffiths: There are nine farms in this valley. In the Report they are scheduled simply as farms Nos. 1 to 9. Here are the ages of the occupiers of these nine farms in the valley: 50, 45, 69, 70, 83, 65, 54, 81 and 45. This picture applies not only to the valley: it is
  1386
  the general problem. This is a disintegrating area from which the young have flown.
  Consider the whole of the reference area, with its 1,404 farms. Two-thirds of the occupiers are over 50 years of age. The occupiers of only 21 of the 1,404 farms are under 30 years of age. There is the problem. It is a valley of old men and yet this valley, as the whole of the area, has given to our own country and, through our country, to Britain and to the world richly in its peasant culture as well as in its production.
  The Report goes further. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is present, because I would say to him that if he allows these things to happen by natural evolution there will be no hope for the valley. Using its own technical assessment of what is required to re-equip the nine farms in the valley, the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission gives its suggestions in page 78 of the Report. It says that the cost of re-equipping these farms to make them efficient would amount to a total of £43,750. The cost of equipment and services would be £23,550 and the rest would be for public services. That is the position if the farms were to be equipped as a whole.
  The Sub-Commission then illustrates, in a very interesting plan which it has produced for us, how the whole valley would be dealt with if its plan of amalgamation was adopted and the nine farms were merged into two new holdings. Even when that was done, the amount that would be required for re-equipment is indeed substantial. The Sub-Commission says:
  "A reorganisation on the lines suggested would result in a saving estimated at £7,725 in the cost of rehabilitating fixed equipment and £12,475 in the cost of providing services."
  The crux of the whole of this problem if we are to recover this area is whether there is any hope that the owners of these nine farms or the public authorities in the area can provide the money to do the job.
  Mr. Bowen: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if the amalgamation took place, it would result in further depopulation?
  Mr. Griffiths: I do not for a moment deny that. I agree with what has been said about this proposal of amalgamation.

  1387
  I do not think it is the answer. What I am saying—and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) appreciates this—is that whether we accept the method of retaining the nine farms and re-equipping them or whether we accept the alternative of amalgamation, the cost of doing it is such that neither these farmers nor the public authorities can sustain it. We therefore come back to the position that if we are to do anything, capital must be injected into the area.
  I have examined and have tried to give the best of my mind to the problem of amalgamation. I am familiar, as are some of my hon. Friends, with compulsory amalgamation in another industry; I have seen it at work. Believe me, it leaves as many problems as it solves. Here, the proposal is either compulsory amalgamation or, presumably, to let these people die or to wait until somebody comes along and buys them up. That is what is happening now. The Report refers to the fact that one of the nine farms in the valley has already been bought up. How long the whole process would take I do not know, but it might clearly take a long time. In the meantime, the valley will go on dying and, in the end, there will be no one left.
  I have seen all this in my lifetime. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and I lived at the receiving end, in West Wales. For generations we have given the best of our youth to the pits in our mining areas. We know them by their nicknames, as they are called after the villages from which they come. So this process has been going on. What young man will settle down in a valley with houses of this kind, in farmsteads of this kind, and to this kind of life? I know that these areas have produced sturdy characters in the past, but young people will no longer settle down and live there.
  I should like to suggest, in the case of this valley, wherever it is, an alternative to amalgamation, and I hope consideration will be given to it. If we reject amalgamation, we should provide an alternative. I should like to see an attempt made to get these nine farmers to agree together to work the whole of this valley in a co-operative way. One of the most encouraging things in all rural
  1388
  areas is the growth of young farmers' clubs, which are making a new approach and doing a good job. I should like to see that attempt made here, because the growth of such co-operation, the influence of co-operation and the contribution that can be made by such co-operation to Welsh rural life will be increasingly more important. I should prefer to see that, rather than the amalgamation of two farmers and all the rest clearing out. Why should we not for once try to settle this problem in a co-operative way?
  My last point is that, in paragraph 83 of the Report, it is stated that, assuming that efficient farming is brought about in the ways which the Sub-Commission suggest or in any other way, if we are to solve the problem of rural depopulation and save this area from the decay which has been slowly killing it for generations, it is essential that, in addition to having an efficient agriculture supplied with modern equipment and public services, which will require the expenditure of public money, there must also be other industries.
  I speak as a layman, though not without some experience of this problem of attracting other industries in South Wales. It is a tough job, and if it is difficult to attract new industries to Llanelly, it will not be easy to get new industries into Merioneth. We cannot hope to attract any new industries unless the basic services are provided. We must have power and communications, which means electric power and good roads. Therefore, we must do that, and that brings us back to the proposals of the Report of the Council for Wales about rehabilitation and the provision of public services in the area.
  Having done that, we must face the fact that what is now, and is certainly going to be, a most important part of the life and the economic structure of these areas is afforestation. Hard things have been said about the Forestry Commission this afternoon, but I do not altogether share them. We had not heard much about the hardness of landlords in this debate. It is becoming very fashionable to attack public authorities, and the National Coal Board is attacked because it does not use Welsh timber. I confess that when I was a collier I preferred Norwegian timber to Welsh timber. That was many years ago, and now I hope

  1389
  that the Coal Board will use Welsh timber and more and more of it, though we have to realise that steel is increasingly taking the place of timber in the pits.
  There are ancillary industries to this forestry industry, which is growing, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower was one of the pioneers many years ago in building it up. It is now reaching maturity, and, therefore, let us have, first, the basic services of power and communications and then, by Government action—do not let us expect private enterprise to do it—take steps under the Distribution of Industry Act to schedule this area and build other industries.
  I will conclude by saying that we have to make up our minds whether or not we want this area to live. If we do, we have to realise that it cannot live on its own resources, and if we are determined that it shall live we must be equally determined to provide the resources. I hope very much that we shall; I dare not and would not go further than that. I presume that the White Paper which we are to have will be prepared in the whole atmosphere of economy which we heard about yesterday. We shall wait until we receive it. Believe me, we speak for the whole of the people of Wales when we say that we are determined to save and preserve this area. If the Government do not do so we shall be very disappointed with them, but we shall cherish the hope that at no very distant date another Government will do the job.
  6.45 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): I should like to start by thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs for allowing me the privilege of participating in a Welsh debate. I must confess that, for the first ten years of my life in this House, I was too shy even to come into the Chamber during a Welsh debate. This is the second Welsh debate in which I have participated, and I must say that I am immensely impressed with its very high standard. It makes me feel that I want to go away and practise for quite a long time before I attempt to speak in the House again.
  I should like also to support what has been said already in congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford
  1390
  (Mr. Gibson-Watt), on his most interesting and eloquent maiden speech. I have several times been slightly scared of going to those parts to which he referred. My hon. Friend mentioned a threat which I had not heard of before—the danger that one might be struck by a thunderbolt there. However, I should like to say that the knowledge which my hon. Friend possesses on these subjects which we are discussing today makes him a very welcome recruit to our ranks.
  The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) asked why we did not present a White Paper before the debate. I should like to say that we did not choose the date of this debate, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Garner Evans) said, if we had presented our conclusions first we should have been criticised by hon. Members opposite for not listening to what they had to say about this very important Report before making up our minds. I am quite certain that, with a problem like this, it will require the enthusiastic co-operation of all concerned to overcome it, and I think we are right to enter into the fullest consultation before making up our minds, including hearing the views of hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies.
  I should like to say, in reply to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), that we have consulted the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, and have received their comments—
  Mr. S. O. Davies: Wales, please; Monmouth is in Wales.
  Mr. Amory: I have listened to a very great many interesting and constructive suggestions which have been made, and I should like to pay my tribute to the constructive tone of the very interesting speech made at the outset by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), and to say that the large number of practical suggestions which have been made have added greatly to the value of our debate.
  About the Report itself, I am going to say very little. It is a most thorough, comprehensive and courageous Report, and I have already expressed my thanks to the very able gentlemen who were its authors. I have found it an absorbingly interesting document, and must also say that I thought it was extremely well

  1391
  written. I learned many things from it, including all about Hafod and Hendre, about which I did not know anything before. The Report bears out the basic views which have been expressed by the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire. One thing I was interested to note was that many of these smaller holdings, which are now full-time holdings, used to be part-time holdings, because that is one of our problems.
  The Report contains four main recommendations. The first is that livestock rearing ought to be the main farming activity—and, when I say main, I agree with much of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). We cannot change overnight from milk to livestock rearing, and livestock rearing will not be the only form of farming. We recognise that on this matter of changing over from milk to livestock the arguments used in the Report show that really successful farming will, in general, be in livestock rearing, and I think that those arguments are very impressive. Secondly, it is pointed out that forestry has an important part to play, too. Thirdly, amalgamation will, in many cases, be sensible. Fourthly, great emphasis is placed on the development of the public services.
  In general, we agree with all these four points. I entirely share the views of almost all hon. Gentlemen that compulsion would be fatal to the achievement of the objects we have in mind. But when we are making grants of public money for capital improvements we are bound to do everything we can to satisfy ourselves that the holding, when the money has been spent on it, will be economic and viable.
  As to forestry, I heartily agree with what the Sub-Commission has said about its important task, particularly when it is closely integrated with agriculture. Hon. Members have made very relevant remarks about the importance of shelter belts and of timber being regarded as a crop. The Report recommends that there should be still closer co-ordination between the Forestry Commission, landowners and farmers. That view is entirely accepted by the Forestry Commission and the Government. Relations between the Forestry Commission and agriculture have been steadily improving of recent years.
  1392
  I was glad to hear the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Caernarvon to the Director of Forestry for Wales.
  The extent to which forestry schemes can provide good, steady employment is at present underestimated. As we see national forestry gradually developing all over the country towards maturity, we receive encouraging evidence of the contribution that it can make to steady and healthy employment. We are anxious that there should be still closer co-operation between the Forestry Commission and agriculture, particularly at the county level. I know that view is shared by the Forestry Commission and by my county agricultural executive committees. Farmers should be aware of the plans and projects of the Forestry Commission for the forthcoming year in the counties. When once they understand what the Forestry Commission is trying to achieve there will be a better chance of contributions from both sides.
  On the subject of roads, the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act was passed in December of last year, not in July. We have not wasted our time since then. There had to be inter-departmental discussions and quite prolonged discussions with the County Councils' Association. I am glad to say that those consultations and discussions are completed. We hope to send out a memorandum of guidance to local authorities.
  One regret I am bound to express. Owing to the very severe restrictions on capital expenditure which the Government have found it necessary to impose since the date of that Act, we have not found it possible to approve the actual starting of schemes. We are anxious that local authorities should prepare their plans for any project and put in applications for grants. As far as we possibly can we will approve grants in principle.
  I hope that well within the time of the Act—it provides for seven years—we shall find it possible not only to approve projects in principle, but to approve their actual starting and see them carried out. I repeat that we want to see that Act make a positive and practical contribution to the rehabilitation of the areas which we are discussing.
  Mr. Gower: Have there been any applications at all under that Act?
  Mr. Amory: There have been provisional applications. The memorandum of guidance to local authorities, showing the terms and conditions, has not yet actually gone out, but I hope it will do so very shortly.
  I want to refer to the very pleasant visit I paid to the investigation area a few months ago. Since I have been Minister, I have paid eight visits to the Principality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am thinking of taking out a season ticket shortly, or of applying for naturalisation. The next time I go I will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) said and will keep a close look out for the lack of postboxes.
  When I went to the area I was very lucky. It was a wonderful day, with perfect weather. The skies were blue and the birds were singing. I believe that the Welshmen were singing, too. For a short time I wondered whether there was a problem at all, but very soon I saw there was a very formidable one.
  This investigation area is well worth preserving and developing. I saw some good and well-farmed holdings which are economic units, and other land which is not being fully utilised under our present legislation. I am referring to common land. I am glad that the Royal Commission on Common Land has paid a visit to some of the area. I saw some examples of the improvement of hill farms under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, which were a pleasure to see. Public money in those cases is being used to good advantage.
  But I also saw many problem farms that are really up against it because of too few acres, poor fertility, an alarming backlog of repairs to buildings, or just sheer remoteness. Some of the holdings I saw used to be part-time holdings and
  1394
  they are not going to be viable holdings for the future. I also saw instances where many of the recommendations made by the Sub-Commission are already happening. I am certain that the basic thing is that there should be a steady development of public services, properly co-ordinated.
  I hope we shall not underestimate the rate of progress that has been made of recent years, as witness the figures that one of my hon. Friends quoted of grants that have been approved under improvement schemes, and the considerable total contributed under the production grants. I am glad that we have made a start with our experimental hill farm at Pwllpeirian—I am sorry for my pronunciation; that is as near as I can get it. We have very great hopes of that development, too.
  I repeat once more that we are in no doubt whatever that the upland areas of Wales represent land which is well worth preserving and developing. We shall do our utmost to support the inhabitants of those areas by doing what we can to see that the areas support a vigorous and stable population in the future, and that there is a steady rehabilitation of farming.
  I would have liked to say many other things. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will await the White Paper which will be published very shortly, and that they will share our view that we must do everything we possibly can to adopt a forward outlook. We must resolve to plan and develop those areas in a way which will enable them to stand up to the days that lie ahead.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Mid-Wales Investigation Report of the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission.

  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. David Logan: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "having regard to the grave national and local interests involved, this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has convened a conference of his Department, the local authorities and all other interested parties to consider the position."
  My colleagues and I are interested only in doing the best we can for the city of Liverpool. I do not wish to make a political speech, but to deal with a matter which involves everyone in Liverpool, whether they be representatives of the city council or live in Liverpool.
  When a Private Bill of this importance comes to the House of Commons, it is necessary, apart altogether from political partisanship, that hon. Members should do their duty honestly and sincerely for those who live in a great city like Liverpool and in the best interests of the city. In moving the rejection of this Bill, I wish to stress, with my knowledge of Liverpool, that I contend our plea is justified and in the best interests of the city. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board took over the right to come forward here with a Bill and got sanction when that power was transferred to it to hand over to a company. That company started building in the year 1893 after having received a lease from Mersey Docks and Harbour Board of 999 years. Why it was so short a period, I do not know. Now it comes forward and says, "We are not able to carry on" and this great structure, which was and is one of the amenities of Liverpool, has to be done away with.
  I do not know anything about the law of contract. Lawyers in this House would be able to define the legal obligations better than I can. I should imagine that as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board brought in a Bill and obtained the power of leasing, those who entered on a lease of 999 years must have thought that
  1396
  that would have well covered the lifetime of the directors. Yet, after the short time which has elapsed since then, it is sought to get rid of the obligation. I do not know what the contractual obligation would be. I should imagine that, in taking over an obligation like that, if the premises were pulled down and destroyed, or if the company is unable to leave the buildings it now occupies under the lease in the same condition as when it took them over, that obligation on the whole of the six or seven miles of the Mersey front would have to be made good by the vacating tenants.
  I do not want any difficulties to be created for any of my hon. Friends, and it is not in a belligerent attitude that I approach this subject, but I do so with an intensity of feeling because, irrespective of private ownership or public ownership, the people of Liverpool have a right to get what they are justly entitled to. Amenities were given to them years ago because of the pressure of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board by a Bill. The Board stated that it was in such a chaotic state, so congested and with so much traffic, that it was not able to carry on unless it had that Bill. Parliament in its wisdom granted the Bill.
  I appeal to the sense of hon. Members, irrespective of party, and ask if what was chaotic and congested in 1893 is not in a worse condition today on the dockside at Liverpool. Let anyone picture the conditions in 1893 and picture the conditions now. The roads are traversed by heavy haulage traffic coming from all the towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire, from the north and the south, day and night, travelling to and from the docks.
  During the war Liverpool was the only port in the West which was functioning. The men in the docks did wonderful work night and day while bombs were falling. Am I now to be told that powers should be sought to get rid of this railway? That might be all right if one wanted to get rid of an old wringing machine used in the house. It might be all right to get rid of other things one does not want, but when an authority has appealed to Parliament and got this power, protesting that this was absolutely essential for the people of Liverpool, I maintain that this is the wrong time—1956—to protest that conditions are much easier. The conditions are worse.

  1397
  I know the line of docks extending from Herculaneum to Seaforth well. I have travelled them and worked in the docks. I have been in and out of ships coming in and out of the Mersey many a time from Herculaneum down to Langton Dock. I know the efficiency of the overhead railway, not only as a benefit for employers but also for employees. I have seen the great benefits derived from that method of transport. I do not know if we are allowed to gamble here, but I dare to say that no other method of travel, unless it were submarine transport, could take the traffic on Merseyside.
  We should have to provide a fleet of motor cars and to widen the dock side. We should have to make new roads—seven miles of new roads from Dingle to Litherland. We should have to knock down many houses. These things have never entered into the minds of those who flippantly ask that they may get rid of a responsibility which was a business obligation. They want to get rid of it no matter what the consequences may be for the city. I have no love of jerry-builders in Liverpool. I have seen street after street of houses built there in my lifetime, and I have seen them derelict, not having received proper attention from those who controlled them. But surely when a large business has an obligation to the community to carry on a method of transport, we have a right to protect the people who use that transport.
  If the city had to undertake this transport it would mean that the Liverpool ratepayers, nearly every householder, would have to pay 4d. or 6d. a week at least more on their rent and rates. In these hard times of rising prices we do not see how it is possible for the people to carry this burden. I do not know what my colleagues think, but personally I feel that this railway ought not to be closed down without our knowing what those responsible intend to do to replace the service.
  As we all know, Liverpool is a very difficult place to run. In Liverpool, the authority has very heavy expenses. The war damage to houses has been very great, and we could do with 20,000 or 30,000 more houses. We want no more liabilities unless our financial position is eased. In justice to the company who want to get rid of this property, we are anxious to do a fair and honest deal, but
  1398
  if I were in the market buying scrap, I should want to buy it not at the scrap price but at a price lower than that in order to make a profit out of it. I have never been in a business where we sold at a loss; I have always been in a business where we made a profit.
  In their hearts hon. Members opposite have no doubt said, "Let us appeal to the soft hearts of Members of Parliament, make our bit of money out of this undertaking and then get rid of it." But Liverpool is not run that way; Liverpool has to meet its obligations, and the members of the Liverpool City Council—there are a couple present—know that those obligations lie as hard on me as on them.
  I want in no way to be personal in my remarks to any member of the council or to any hon. Member. I am just putting the position as an Irishman to a Jew—
  Mr. Kenneth Thompson: The hon. Gentleman will not make a profit that way.
  Mr. Logan: —that we make a business deal. I want to know which way they intend to approach it and what they intend to do to benefit the city which we all represent. I suggest that the solution which the Trades and Labour Council, the dockers and the City Council of Liverpool have agreed is the best solution to this problem. The people of the city have a right to speak and to ask that those who represent them should do their best on behalf of the people.
  I speak now not to individual members of Liverpool City Council but to the House so that the considered judgment of House may be given on the Bill in the context of the facts which we bring forward. When all is said and done, this is the forum through which we may give expression to our opinion. We want an agreement to be reached in conformity with the expressed wish of organised labour.
  I ask hon. Members to remember the power of those who can cause strikes and chaos in the city of Liverpool. I ask them to remember the difficulties which will be created if transport is not provided for the thousands of dockers who live in the outer areas, having moved there after the bombing—to places like Speke and Maghull—but who work in the docks. It will cause great discomfort and inconvenience to these people. I ask hon.

  1399
  Members, as a matter of honest judgment, to agree to a solution on the lines which I have set out—following the views expressed by those who represent Liverpool and who have to bear the burden of the management of the city. I ask hon. Members honestly and sincerely, and in no partisan way, to vote against the Bill.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Liverpool City Council, the Trades Council and the Labour Party, representing the trade unions in Liverpool, are very concerned about the possibility that this very important railway may be closed down. Because of the situation in Liverpool, this overhead railway runs the whole length of the line of docks; in certain parts it runs into the docks and in other parts it runs along the side of the Liverpool Dock Road. Liverpool's transport problem is perhaps unique. All the workers for the docks must go down from the various parts of the city, by bus or tram car, to the edge of the Liverpool Dock Road. There the overhead railway picks up the workers who want to go into the docks and to the ships, and it takes them very quickly from one section of the Liverpool docks to another.
  It is not necessary for the Liverpool local authority to supply transport to bring the workers from the outskirts, on the south or the north of Liverpool, to a specific dock; it brings them along the nearest route to the nearest station where they can be picked up by the overhead railway. This means that Liverpool has no buses running along the Dock Road; they run from all parts of the city to the Dock Road.
  It would be almost impossible to run a bus service along the Dock Road. There are very many railway crossings taking railway tracks across the road into the warehouses, where trucks pick up the goods which have been brought in by road transport and deposited there and then carry them across the Dock Road, to the docks and down to the front where the ships are being loaded.
  There are at least nineteen of these railway crossings over the road, and it would, therefore, be quite impossible to run a scheduled bus service along the Dock Road to meet the needs of the workers on that road. At a time like this, when
  1400
  it is vitally necessary that the country's trade, and particularly the country's export and import trade, shall be kept going without any difficulty at all, it is of great concern that the overhead railway should be maintained.
  It was the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board which first applied for permission to build an overhead railway. That was in 1882. The Board got permission, but did not immediately begin to construct the railway. It passed to a private company the responsibility of building it and leased the land on which it was built to that private company for 999 years at an annual rental of £1,000. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has never claimed that rent. The railway has continued to be used and the Docks Board has not paid a lot of attention to it. The private company has been responsible, and never once throughout its history has that railway run at a loss. It still does not run at a loss.
  One section of the relevant Act of Parliament laid down that a repairs and renewals fund should be instituted so that there would always be money available for repairs. During the war, when Liverpool became our most important port, the overhead railway was badly damaged by a bomb. On two occasions and at two different places it was broken and could not be run as a complete line. The Ministry of War Transport was asked to look at this, because it was possible that, if this railway was unable to be used when Liverpool was the No. 1 transport, import and export port in the country, there would be difficulty in regard to war transport facilities.
  A special committee was set up and a special inquiry was made and even at that time consideration was given to the question whether, instead of repairing the railway, it would be possible to run buses on the Dock Road. The committee came to the conclusion that it was then impossible for buses to be used on that road. The overhead railway was repaired by the Ministry of War Transport because it was considered to be an absolute essential.
  The money in the repairs and renewals fund has not been used. The repairs have not been done. There is nothing at all wrong with the structure of the overhead railway. The only thing is that the

  1401
  platform and the platform sections upon which the railway runs require some repair, but the railway has not been repaired, renewed or attended to for some time.
  The Act of Parliament which permits the railway to run says that, at any time, the company can give six months' notice to pay out the debentures. It is very peculiar, Mr. Speaker, that on 1st January, while the request for the closing of the railway was pending, six months' notice was given to use the repairs and renewals fund to pay out the debenture stock. On 1st July—just three days ago—in spite of the fact that this Bill had not been considered in this House and that a Second Reading had not been given to it, I am informed that, the six months' notice having expired, the necessary money has been paid out.
  That means that if this House does not give a Second Reading to the Bill and the Amendment is carried—and I am asking the House to carry it, and I shall explain why it is so important in a few moments—and if some arrangement is come to to keep this railway going—and I believe that it is essential for the Port of Liverpool that it should be kept running—there will be little or no money in the repairs and renewals fund to enable any group or organisation in Liverpool that takes on the responsibility of running the overhead railway to do such repairs and renewals as may be necessary.
  That is very wrong indeed. I do not know the law in relation to Private Bills sufficiently well to be sure about it, but I do think that when money is paid out in this way before a Bill has been given its Second Reading it is running very near the question of Privilege. That matter will, of course, have to be looked at, but let us look at the position in relation to this Amendment.
  A couple of years ago the directors of the railway said that they wanted to close it, and asked the local authority if it had any objection to their doing so. The party that is in power in Liverpool now was not in control at that time, and the then leader of the Liverpool Conservative Party said that he could not care less whether the railway went or whether it did not. He said that he would see about getting transport on the Dock Road, knowing very well that it was
  1402
  completely impossible for that road to be used to any advantage by buses.
  In May, 1955, there was a change of political control, and when this matter was given attention, it being in the minutes of preceding council meetings, attempts were made by the Liverpool City Council to see whether arrangements could be made to keep the railway going. It has not been possible to get the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which leases to the company the land on which the railway is built, to come to any conference at all. Although we met the Ministers, the Local Trades Council and Labour Party, the directors of the overhead railway and other people concerned, the Docks Board would not attend any meeting.
  We know that if the Liverpool Corporation seeks to call a conference the Docks Board will not come, and we believe that the only way to get a full discussion is for the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to take the responsibility of convening a conference. That is why we are asking for the Second Reading of the Bill to be delayed, in order to see whether it is possible, by agreement with Bootle, Crosby, Liverpool, Birkenhead, the Docks Board and the N.U.R., whose men work on the railway, for the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to call a conference with the Docks Board to discuss the matter. If such a conference can be arranged, it may be possible to retain this very valuable asset to Liverpool for at least 10 years.
  Why is the Liverpool overhead railway so necessary? The Docks Board and those concerned with this organisation move men about not in two's and three's but sometimes 200 and more at a time. If a ship comes in to a dock a long way along Dock Road, or if it is at Birkenhead, and the men are working at the extreme north end or the extreme south end of the docks, buses could not move 200 or 300 men at a time with their equipment and tools to deal with the ship. Yet such a process goes on regularly.
  It is not as though the railway had ceased to carry as many people as it used to carry. It is still carrying approximately 10 million people a year. There has been no loss in any year. It is expected that

  1403
  there may be a loss, and it is in anticipation of the loss that the directors are asking for a Second Reading of this Bill in order to close the railway and demolish it.
  It is not only the dockers who are concerned. There are also engineers and electricians and others who are necessary on this seven miles stretch of dock road. One never knows at what particular moment 200 or 300 men may have to be moved along the road. It is impossible for buses to do that work, even if they could be put on the road.
  Reference has been made to the cost which would arise to the local authority. The local authority has no responsibility for moving people along the Dock Road. The responsibility of the local authority is to bring people to the Dock Road itself. I know that the Liverpool City Council will be very reluctant indeed to be obliged to supply a fleet of buses. I can give the number of buses which will be needed, and I can also give figures relating to the present shortage of drivers and conductors on the Liverpool transport system. It would be physically impossible, with no Government grant, to supply buses which would be of any use on the Dock Road.
  We certainly could not operate the service if the railway were closed at the end of this year, for no bus is available. Sixty vehicles would be required, unless the whole conversion programme from tramway cars to buses were postponed. At present, the passenger transport department is short of 550 personnel, and another 150 would be required to operate the extra 60 vehicles which would be needed. It is a complete impossibility. If the railway closes at the end of the year, there will be a national labour crisis in relation to exports and imports, and I am certain that the dock workers themselves will have something caustic to say if they are put to any great difficulty in moving from one place to another in the absence of buses or railway transport. The situation will be very serious indeed.
  The engineering report obtained by the Liverpool City Council states that it is possible to repair the railway. I do not know what the financial position will be now that most of the money in the repairs and renewal fund has gone, but it is said that the railway can be put into proper repair and maintained for the next 10
  1404
  years, during which time the whole question of alternative transport could be considered. But that matter cannot possibly be considered between now and 31st December.
  We are always hearing how important it is that the docks and transport should keep working and that exports and imports should be permitted to flow as freely as possible. If a Second Reading is given to the Bill, and the railway closes, within a very short time there will be a national transport crisis in the City of Liverpool. It is wrong, particularly for representatives from Liverpool, to take any action that might force the Liverpool City Corporation to charge its ratepayers an extra 4d. rate in order to meet the financial responsibilities, but that is what it will probably mean. I am putting these things quite bluntly.
  I ask this House to be very cautious before consenting to the winding up of the railway. Let the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation call a conference. I can assure the House that if we get that conference, the Liverpool City Council is prepared to take its share of responsibility. The railway does not run only through Liverpool. It goes through Bootle, and to Crosby, whose local authorities are prepared to take some responsibility.
  It would be wrong to close and dismantle this railway before all the interested parties have had a conference and discussed the financial and labour implications and seen whether it is possible for the railway to be kept going at least for the next 10 years, during which the whole question of transport on the Merseyside could be fully discussed.
  We are asking the House to accept this Amendment, which will require the Minister of Transport to call a conference in order that all the difficulties and facts may be gone into, and that the railway shall continue to be run in the service and to the advantage of the Docks Board and the dockers and workers on the Dock Road until such time as we can find some alternative to it, which cannot be done in six months or even two or three years.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It seems to me that we are facing the problem in which this private company does not want to close the railway, but to keep

  1405
  it. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether any arrangements have been made with the Liverpool Corporation to take it over with some form of subsidy from the Government, or whether that has been considered?
  Mrs. Braddock: One of the reasons why we want the conference is to see what is the position. We want to go into all these matters. We have never had the opportunity to go into them, because we have never been able to get a responsible body to make certain that everyone interested in this matter would come together and discuss any arrangements which required to be made.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: It is with regret that I must ask the House to reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) and seconded by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I say "with regret" because I regret the passing of a landmark which is well known to those who live around Merseyside, and regret, too, that a service that has been of use in the past year—
  Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. Should not the hon. Member declare his directorship interest in this matter before he speaks?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member has had a chance to declare anything.
  Mr. Tilney: I have hardly had time to do that, but I was just coming to it. I declare an interest, which is an odd one, in that I am a director of the board of the Liverpool Overhead Railway and this Bill is endeavouring to do away with the board and with both its directors and their fees. It is certainly a somewhat odd interest to declare, but I was about to declare it in the very next sentence had the hon. Lady given me the opportunity. I have also found out that it is in order for me to speak on this Bill, but I do not intend to vote on it.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the hon. Member a debenture holder who has been paid out?
  Mr. Tilney: I am not a debenture holder. I happen to be a small shareholder because I am a director, and I am
  1406
  quite prepared to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what few shares I have.
  I hope to be as brief as possible, but the point of view of the railway company is a substantial one and a certain amount of time is necessary to put it before the House. This point of view was considered not less than two years ago, when it seemed to my colleagues on the board that there were two alternatives. One was to try to keep the services of the railway going, and the second was to close the railway in an orderly manner. We endeavoured to carry out the first, but economic and technical difficulties made that virtually impossible. So we have come to the House to ask for a Second Reading of the Bill.
  The views of the railway company are set out in the statement which is available in the Vote Office to any hon. Member who may have left his copy behind. I would remind the House that the main object of this Bill is to wind up the company, thereby giving compensation to many employees who have served it faithfully and well for a very long time. I would also remind the House that no other part of the country has a railway such as this one which runs along the line of docks, The railway was constructed about 60 years ago, and it runs an electric rail service along the line of the Liverpool and Bootle Docks. It is carried, as those who live in Mersey side know, on a steel structure for the most part 16 feet above the ground, and it is on a 999 years' lease from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The company also owns certain freehold property.
  With the exception of the tunnel at the south end, in which is Dingle Station, and at the north end, where the railway to Seaforth joins the London Regional Midland, it is virtually a long bridge of about six miles in length. The railway was opened in 1893 and, since then, its traffic has fluctuated to a large extent according to the prosperity of the port. Since the war, its traffic has fallen to some extent owing to the action of the city corporation in taking the traffic away from the railway company to its own buses. Traffic has continued to fall, and it is now estimated that the railway, according to this statement, carries only one-fifth of those working at the docks, but, in point of fact, recent figures show that the traffic is less than one-sixth.

  1407
  Surely, whatever loss there may be, I cannot believe that it can be the case that it would result, as the hon. Lady said, in a national labour crisis.
  Mr. Logan: Has the hon. Member read what we are objecting to and what we are asking for? If he has, will he tell me why he declines to support the Second Reading of the Bill until the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has convened a conference of his Department, the local authorities and all the other interested parties to consider the position? That would mean, if I understand English correctly, until a decision might be arrived at conjointly. What objection can there be to that?
  Mr. Tilney: I am grateful for that intervention. My objection is that there is no reason why a conference should not be called after the Second Reading. My reason for asking for the Second Reading is that this railway company has waited for nearly two years for the city corporation to take some action in the matter. We would always have been willing to attend such a conference. I believe that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board would have accepted an invitation from the lord mayor of a city as great as Liverpool, and I see no reason why such a conference should not be called after the Second Reading of the Bill.
  May I return to my point, that at the peak hour only between 5,000 and 6,000 of the 36,000 people working on the dock estate are carried on this railway?
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know he wants to be fair over these figures. Is it not a fact that there are still over 9 million passenger journeys a year on this railway, which is practically one-third more than in 1938, and are there not some 30,000 journeys per day? The hon. Member is giving the impression that the traffic is declining very rapidly, whereas, in effect, it is more than in the immediate pre-war period.
  Mr. Tilney: It is not correct to say that 36,000 people are carried per day. The number is 28,000 and they are carried both ways generally, which means that the number of people is some 14,000. There are over 36,000 working on the docks.
  Mr. Mellish: They have to do the journeys, whichever way they do them.
  Mr. Tilney: Over the last few years, the company has been increasingly concerned about the condition of the railway. The railway has been examined by expert engineers, who have advised the company that a complete renewal of the decking would be required within a few years, and at a cost of well over £1½ million. Brigadier Parkman, of Messrs. Ward, Ashcroft and Partners, was asked to make this report as long ago as 31st August, 1954. He took five months to do it, and covered 125 pages of field notes. These figures are really not disputed by the city corporation.
  Mrs. Braddock: That is not true.
  Mr. Tilney: The corporation's expert who came and looked at the railway—and I have the evidence here—suggested that not £230,000, as was said in the city corporation's statement, but £330,000 would have to be spent within a year or two, and at the end of ten years that money would be wasted and again £1½ million would still have to be spent. It is the advice of the technical experts that, even if it were possible to have that money, it would have to be used between the running of the last train at night and the running of the first one the following morning, and that technically it would be extremely difficult not to close the railway down for some months, which would automatically mean the end of the railway.
  I am afraid I cannot follow the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange when she says that really nothing at all is wrong with the structure.
  Mrs. Braddock: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by "the structure"?
  Mr. Tilney: I am no technician, but the decking is obviously in a very bad state of repair, and if the hon. Lady had attended all the Commitee meetings upstairs in another place she would have seen some of the examples produced.
  Mrs. Braddock: I asked the hon. Gentleman to say what he meant when he spoke of the structure. I did say that the decking had not to be attended to. The posts and the structure upon which

  1409
  the railway runs are in excellent condition, and the engineers have made a report on that; the hon. Gentleman knows that is true. I referred to the condition of the decking, which comes from the company not having spent money on renewals for so long; that is why it is like that.
  Mr. Tilney: I think the hon. Lady will agree that the railway cannot run without the decking or joists—whatever the technical term is—between the pillars. The corporation's expert confirms that a very large sum of money indeed would be required, and that that money, even if it were possible to spend it, would not put the railway into a decent condition for any length of time.
  Mr. Mellish: I am expecting to have to vote on this matter later on, and I should like to have one matter clear. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the corporation would not come to a meeting on this matter. I have been following this discussion, and I understand the corporation has gone into this whole question as to just how much it would cost, as against the figures advanced by the company. Surely, if the corporation went to that length, there was a desire on its part to help in this matter. How does that marry with the hon. Gentleman's earlier statement that the corporation did not attend any meetings?
  Mr. Tilney: Perhaps the hon. Member would allow me to get on with my speech because I cannot deal with a great many points all at the same time. I was going to comment upon the efforts which the company has made to try and get the corporation interested. Nearly two years have gone by, and virtually no interest has been shown by either party—I regret to have to say "either party"—in control of the city corporation.
  The company has never enjoyed great prosperity. Between 1925 and 1942 no preference dividend at all was paid, except in the years 1928 and 1929, and no ordinary dividend was paid from 1921 to 1945. In fact, the average ordinary dividend over the last 46 years has been just over 1 per cent. The board regret that the company has been so poor that ex gratia payments to past members of the staff have been so small. The net assets of the company now, excluding the structure and any freehold properties, amount to only
  1410
  £90,000. Of that figure, virtually the staff are going to get very nearly the whole, before any other creditor, and before the shareholders receive anything at all. The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has a Motion on the Order Paper to amend Clause 8, to which I hope to refer in detail later.
  The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) might like to know that towards the end of 1954, as it was clear that the whole future of the railway was in jeopardy, the company approached the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, its lessors. That Board indicated that it would not object to the abandonment of the railway. We did not rest at that; we saw the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Liverpool Corporation, in those days under the control of the Conservatives. Neither the Ministry nor the Liverpool Corporation suggested any solution to ensure the continued running of the railway.
  It can be shown that the Board has gone out of its way to try and get help. It was not until the second day of the Committee in another place that any financial offer at all came from the City of Liverpool. It was not put in the city's petition in another place; and when it was put it was a fairly vague offer.
  All structures have a limited life—
  Mr. Mellish: Since the hon. Gentleman is leaving the matter of negotiations now, I should like to ask this further question. The approaches to the city were made when the Conservatives were in power. When the Labour Party was in power, were representations made, and was the response on the same basis?
  Mr. Tilney: Representations were made almost immediately. The gentleman who is the husband of the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division did not appear to be interested. The request was made by the chairman, through the town clerk of the city. I personally attended, very much later on, a meeting called, I think, by the Trades Council, in St. George's Hall in September of last year, at which Alderman Braddock was present. I made a suggestion then of a deal to which I wish to refer later, which has been suggested by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland—a deal with which I fully agree. But at that time the leaders of the city appeared

  1411
  to take no interest at all. I regret to have to say that. In those circumstances, the company considered that the right policy was to close down.
  Mr. Logan: I thought it was an understood thing that when an hon. Member in this House—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopxin Morris): Order. I have listened to a number of interjections—
  Mr. Logan: But he has made—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have listened to a number of interventions which are really debating points and not proper interventions.
  Mr. Tilney: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange said it was impossible for buses to cope with the traffic. But it is interesting to note that, in the two-day strike in 1954, at six hours' notice workers at the docks were carried without any difficulty. So one might have thought that, with notice of very nearly two years, some sort of arrangement could have been made.
  If this Bill is passed, it will enable the company to give compensation to its employees. In the past, the shareholders have subscribed £658,000. At the most, they will get no more than less than one-third of that figure. Virtually, all they will be left with is the undertaking and the scrap value of it. No practical suggestion has at any time been put forward to the company to enable the railway to continue to be operated and the effect of refusing a Second Reading to this Bill must be gravely to prejudice the interests of the employees as well as the shareholders. This Bill was discussed for four days in Committee in another place, and the compensation for the employees was amended up—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. So far as I understand the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, I gather that they are directed to the Instruction which we have not yet reached.
  Mr. Tiney: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Bill, as now amended, carries an Amendment from another place to which I should have thought I might refer. Whereas the date was 1st June, 1955, for the level in wages and
  1412
  salaries, the Committee in another place raised it to 1st April, 1956. So already there has been a very substantial improvement in the compensation, and I hope that I shall be able to tell the hon. Member for The Hartlepools—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is dealing with the Instruction on the Order Paper and we have not yet reached it.
  Mr. Tilney: It has been suggested that there has been a statutory obligation for the company to run this railway. I wish to quote the remarks of counsel in another place:
  "As I pointed out when opening this Bill at the beginning of the week, it is only because we want the authority of Parliament to wind up the company and to compensate the employees that this Bill is required. We do not need a Bill to authorise us to stop running it because, provided the Docks Board agree, we cannot be compelled to go on running it, nor can they. There seems to be some underlying misapprehension about this. Neither Liverpool nor Crosby nor anybody else except the Docks Board have any say as to whether the services should be run, and it is only because we come to your Lordships' House in order to get authority at the later stages, for the winding up and so on, that Liverpool have got any opportunity of appearing here as Petitioners."
  It is regrettable that the Corporation of Liverpool has not seen fit up to now to call a conference to debate this whole problem. As I explained to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland, we should have been very willing to attend it. Whether the Docks Board would have agreed to any financial commitment, it is not for me to say, but the House might like to know what the chairman of the Docks Board said on 7th June of this year.
  Mr. Logan: May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, if he is so anxious to get rid of it because it is a bad bargain, is he prepared—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must wait for an opportunity to make his own speech.
  Hon. Members: He has made it.
  Mr. Logan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Surely, when another hon. Member of this House who is moving a Motion makes an allusion, I have the right to ask a question?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has the right to ask a question to clear up an ambiguity, but, as I understood him, he was putting forward a counter-quotation.
  Mr. Tilney: I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland, will agree that I have given way a number of times, and I must crave the indulgence of the House for making a long speech. I apologise that it has become so long because of the various interjections which have been made.
  I was quoting from the chairman of the Dock Board.
  "I would refer to the statement I made in February, 1955 … I expressed the Board's deep interest in the matter but stressed that they did not possess any statutory power to give financial help to the company and, therefore, did not feel themselves in a position to object to the proposals of the company. It may also be recalled that I cordially welcomed the statement made at that time by the then leader of the city council that if the railway were to he closed arrangements would be made to cope with the diverted passenger traffic."
  Should this Bill be refused a Second Reading, the company cannot be wound up. But the railway can cease to run, which will mean no compensation for the staff, nor any return to the shareholders, meagre though that may be. Either the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange or the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland referred to the shareholders "making their bit", but they are not going to make very much if the ordinary shares stand today at about 25s. 6d. per £10 share—
  Mrs. Braddock: What did they stand at in September last year?
  Mr. Tilney: I do not know off-hand, but if the hon. Lady will wait—they were in 1946, 1948 and 1949 as high as they are today. And the preference shares, which on a winding-up with a very small adjustment, rank equally with the ordinary shares, were very much higher a short time ago. In each of the years 1944, 1946, 1948 and 1949, they were over 80s. I regret to say that when I bought my own—which I had to do in order to become a director—they were very much higher than today.
  Mr. Logan: I do not wish to interrupt the hon Gentleman, but I know nothing about any financial arrangement or any question of compensation. Only last week, after being a Member of this House
  1414
  for 27 years, I had the privilege of dealing with the overhead railway.
  Mr. Tilney: I was endeavouring to answer a question put by the hon. Lady—
  Mrs. Braddock: But the hon. Gentleman did not answer it.
  Mr. Tilney: It has been said that the company should not be exercising its option to repay its debentures. But surely, debentures are a first liability. And as the company having the right to close in any event, the board should not have risked not having enough money to pay compensation to its employers; or by continuing to run and making losses the debenture holders might have suffered. Therefore, we did what any sensible company would have done and took action at a reasonably early moment.
  I suggest that the House should realise what will be the effect of refusing a Second Reading to this Bill. The staff will not get compensation—
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: The hon. Gentleman has said that approaches were made to the previous leaders of the city council. Will he say what kind of approach it was? Was it by Colonel Buckley, one of the directors, and if there was a change last May, that is, May, 1955, can he refer to any—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the House that the object of an intervention is to clear up an ambiguity or to make a personal explanation. Interventions must not be used for the purpose of debate.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: With great respect, the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has been attacking the corporation—both parties—on the ground that no representations were made by them. I am not a Liverpool representative—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter of debate. There is no ambiguity about it.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: The hon. Member has made that point. I am merely asking him for information about when that approach was made and whether it was made by invitation in writing and whether it was made to Alderman Braddock.
  Mr. Tilney: I thought that I had made that clear. I do not know the actual date, but the town clerk certainly has a record of the date when the chairman, Colonel Buckley, sent a message to Alderman Braddock for a discussion. I am not attacking the corporation; I am merely stating what I believe to be the facts.
  We were discussing compensation. The object of compensation is to tide over members of the staff when they have to get other jobs and, if they get jobs which are worse, to help them to keep up their standard of living. Before hon. Members vote against the Second Reading, they must take into consideration the difficulties of the staff which they will force upon them. It may be that certain compensation is unfair to certain grades. I understand that I can refer to that in detail when the second Instruction is called, so I will not comment on it at the moment.
  I apologise for taking up so much time of the House. Many years ago I hoped that the British Transport Commission might have taken an interest in the overhead railway. I went to see the Commission. There was a chance of a ring railway around Liverpool, but the Commission was not interested and, quite rightly, pointed out that its rolling stock would not run on the very sharp curves on the overhead railway. I believe that there is something to be said for a Merseyside transport board, but that is a local and not a national problem and I should oppose any nationalisation of this railway.
  It is the job of the city corporation, which is the authority responsible for providing public transport, to buy the fixed assets of the railway. That has always been my view, and I have never varied it. I made that suggestion as long ago as September of last year. Although the corporation had the chance to take powers to buy, by bringing in a Private Bill this Session, it took no action. I hope that it is not too late. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland will note that I see no reason why the business deal to which he referred should not still be offered, after the Bill has had a Second Reading. I am no Jew, but whether it be with an Irishman or anyone else, I am certain that the board of the company would be only too willing to negotiate, if it is the view of the city
  1416
  that we should meet and possibly come to some arrangement.
  Mr. Logan: I should like the hon. Member to understand that I have as much authority as any other Member from Liverpool—and no more—in dealing with this subject. What I have said tonight is absolutely what I think about the Bill.
  Mr. Tilney: I hope that I have said what I and a great many other people think about it.
  Finally, there were two alternatives before the board, to keep the railway going, or to close it in an orderly manner. I do not believe that there is any future for this railway. It has had its useful life, like many of the elevated structures in New York. We must move with the times, and the railway may be more valuable as scrap in our foundries than as a means of transport for only one-sixth of those working on the dock estate.
  When the Bill is given a Second Reading, the city can still take powers to buy the railway and, incidentally, make its own transport pay, since the city has been the railway's main competitor. If the Bill is passed, compensation will be paid to the employees—the bulk of it at once, I hope—and all liabilities will be met. Although not prosperous, the company has been well served and, in difficult circumstances, competently managed, and it will go into liquidation in an orderly way.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Member assist the House with Clause 8, which deals with compensation? Is it possible for him to indicate whether what Clause 8 provides is likely to happen, or whether the company will agree that all employees, except the manager and the assistant manager, will receive the same compensation?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That appears to me to be a matter which can be more adequately discussed when we come to the Instruction—if we do come to it.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Clause 8 deals with compensation. Generally, when we are discussing a Bill on Second Reading, those responsible for the Bill can indicate whether they are likely to agree to amend it or not during further stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Tilney: I thought that I had given the assurance for which the hon. Member asked. I endeavoured to give it in detail and certainly will later.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) found himself in the dilemma that at one and the same time he was arguing in favour of entering negotiations with a view to keeping the railway in being, which plainly implied his belief that this was desirable in the public interest, and he was also arguing the case that the railway's usefulness to Liverpool and the country as a whole had diminished and that upon that ground a sufficient argument for the Bill could be based.
  On that, I want simply to support the case so ably and, I venture to say, so conclusively presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). There is no getting away from the fact that about 10 million passenger journeys in a year are made on this railway. There is no getting away from the fact that no bus service on the Dock Road will provide anything like adequate alternative transport, mainly for the reason that large gangs of men will not be able to go on buses when they are carrying their equipment with anything like the speed or convenience with which they can get from one point to another on the railway.
  The consequence of that will be of national importance, because the handling of cargoes and the speed of executing repairs will be affected. That is why we say that the Second Reading of the Bill raises matters of much more than local significance. They are matters of national importance. What the hon. Lady said and the case which I am now putting merely confirm the considered view of the meetings of representative bodies during the war and of special committees which were set up to consider the matter. Those committees considered the desirability of closing down the railway and all concluded that it was desirable in the interests of Liverpool and of the country at large that the railway should be maintained.
  The citizens of Liverpool are facing the prospect of being deprived of this service at a time when eminent consulting engineers have intimated that the structure of the railway can be put into a
  1418
  condition good enough to last for another 10 years for an expenditure well under £400,000. That is a perfectly manageable proposition. If the cost were overwhelming the weight of the argument might go the other way, but the cost of putting it into a proper state to enable it to remain effective for another 10 years is the manageable figure to which I have referred. That is all I want to say upon the main issue whether the railway should be kept in being.
  I now turn to this quite extraordinary story of the debentures of the company. I do not want to make any unfair point about it, but it seems to me that the company has "jumped the gun" and prejudged the decision of the House in a quite reprehensible manner. If there is any explanation of this action I hope that it will be rapidly forthcoming. It may be peculiarly appropriate if it is forthcoming from the hon. Member for Wavertree.
  Mr. Tilney: Is the hon. Member suggesting that debentures are not a liability, and that one should borrow money irrespective of whether one intends to pay it back or not?
  Mr. Irvine: No. I am suggesting that it is quite intolerable for a company which has made up its mind, for reasons which may appear good to it, to close down this service, and has decided that to do so it is necessary to sponsor a Bill, so to arrange its affairs that the debentures are redeemed before that Bill comes before the House of Commons, especially when the debenture stock redeemed in that fashion constitutes—as we are told that it does in this instance—the repair fund out of which the railway can be maintained. I should have thought that it was beyond all possible question, an intolerable action.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member desires to defend that proposition. I should have thought that he might well be ready to admit that it was at least a most unfortunate event. That is the position which has arisen, and which raises questions of a very serious character. It is very important that it should be made very clear to the citizens of Liverpool how their interests as citizens and travellers upon this railway have been regarded by the company, and how it has treated the House.

  1419
  If the House rejects the Bill the company will surely have put it outside its power to take action which will ensure that its public obligations are maintained. The hon. Member for Wavertree said that there was no statutory obligation to run the railway. In my view, the company has a statutory obligation to maintain the structure, and whatever may be the obligations of the company in that regard, in the Bill which it has sponsored it has thought it right and proper to incorporate a special provision which empowers it to cease running the railway services.
  When the company was admitting so much as that by putting it into its Bill, it was unthinkable that it should have issued its notices to the debenture holders six months before the Bill came before the House of Commons. It reduces Parliamentary consideration of the matter to a farce. It is the kind of conduct which the House of Commons does not like and which, if the House ever does come to like it, will be a bad day for the House. If there is an answer to my argument I should like to be informed, but the circumstances seem clear enough.
  Mr. Tilney: I thought that I had given the answer, which is that the company has power to close down the railway but not to wind it up. To wind it up and give compensation to a very loyal band of employees it was essential to use some of the assets which balanced the debenture liability to pay off the first charge.
  Mr. Irvine: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for giving me that explanation. Does he agree that two things are proved: first, that there was a statutory obligation to maintain the structure of the railway and, secondly, that that obligation was being implemented out of a repairs fund which is now depleted by the redemption of the debentures?
  Mr. Tilney: I should not like to get into a legal argument with the hon. Member about the statutory obligations, but I disagree that the repairs fund was involved. The repairs fund had been added to in the past by the railway out of occasional profits, and could have been put to any use.
  Mr. Irvine: I have made my point—and I have done so only because I regard it as a serious one for the House to consider.
  Mr. K. Thompson: It is quite relevant to the case that the hon. Member is making to point out that the promoters of a Bill have no knowledge whatsoever when the Bill is likely to come before the House of Commons. It is also fair to say that the Bill will have been before Parliament for a very long time, taking the two Houses as a unity.
  Mr. Irvine: I do not think that there is any substance in that point. I am saying that the only correct course for a company to pursue in a situation like this is to refrain from serving notices upon the debenture holders before the Bill has been considered by the House. That is the propriety of the matter.
  We have to consider the point as fairly as we can. As is mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill—though I do not know how we can deal with that in view of the fact that the whole thing is a fait accompli—under the special Act the company has the power to give six months' notice to debenture holders that their debentures will be redeemed. It is stated in the Preamble that that notice has been given. In the ordinary way, where notice to debenture holders is given in such a fashion and the company is aware of its sustained obligation to maintain the railway, the proper and natural course to pursue when the notice expired would be to invite investments from new investors, and get new funds. In the ordinary way they would be forthcoming.
  What this company does, however, is to cry out from the housetops that it is a poor, struggling, unhappy concern. If ever there was a context in which less encouragement was given for new investment, I should be glad to have it pointed out to me.
  Mr. John Hall: I am interested in this argument. As I understand the hon. Member, it would have been possible for the company to have raised additional funds had it so desired, and had it not in fact—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must once more remind the House, to try to keep the debate in order, that interventions should not be used for the purposes of debate.
  Mr. Irvine: It appears to me that when this situation is stripped of its technicalities it is found that the practical consequence of the notice to the debenture holders and of the redemption of the debentures, at a moment in time when there is no prospect of getting new investment money from any other source, and when every discouragement is given to such new investment, is that the decision of this House is prejudged and the company shrugs itself free of all responsibility for a public service which it has been carrying on for years and which was imposed upon it by Parliament. That is what has occurred.
  Mr. Hall rose—
  Mr. Irvine: I cannot give way. I have given way a good deal already, as the hon. Member will appreciate.
  That is what I object to. That is what the House of Commons should object to. This occasion has the one advantage, if no other, of providing to the House and to the country a classical instance of how a private company can not only ignore, as we often say private companies are inclined to do, the public interest, but can even ignore Parliament and Parliament's power of effectual determination in a matter of this kind.
  I do not know why the corporation was not advised to institute proceedings for an injunction to restrain the notice and the redemption of debentures. I will not make any comment on that, but I believe that there would have been a strong argument for it. The objection seems to me to be a valid one. A company which has this power granted to it by Parliament, when its career is approaching its end in rather special circumstances, should not, in my view, serve a notice that it will pay back its available repair funds to stockholders until Parliament has determined the matter.
  What the company has done has been really to pay lip service to constitutional form in a fashion which I do not like. The company has sponsored a Bill, an impressive, lengthy document, but it is all lip service to constitutional and Parliamentary form.
  The company has put it out of its power already to maintain the structure of this railway. All the facts of the matter are determined and this Second Reading debate is taking place not so much round a table as round a corpse. The company
  1422
  has jumped the gun in this matter, and as the representative of a great Liverpool constituency I record my protest about it. I do not think that the House of Commons has been fairly or well treated in the matter.
  In respect of the merits of the railway, I echo all that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Exchange has said, but I add my serious protest upon the constitutional aspect. Let it be at the very least a warning. Let companies, before they shrug themselves free of these public obligations under private and special Acts, make sure that they commence the mechanism of doing so only after Parliament has made clear its decision on the matter.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Two things, at any rate, have emerged so far in the course of this debate. The first is the considerable esteem which the Liverpool overhead railway enjoys in the minds of people in the City of Liverpool and of their representatives on both sides of this honourable House. The railway is an historic structure, helping the work of a great city. Something else has emerged, too, and not for the first time, since it appears in the statement by the promoters of the Bill and also in the statement in opposition by the Liverpool City Corporation.
  It is that the railway cannot carry on providing its services for very much longer unless, in the short-term, there is an investment of £200,000 to £250,000, and, for the long-term, an investment of about £1½ million or £1¾ million. I think that these facts are fairly common ground between both sides of the House and between the promoters of the Bill and those who are opposing it on behalf of the City Corporation.
  The company has been operating for a very long time—for 60 years or more—and today operates, as we all agree, about 10 million passenger journeys every year. About one-sixth of those who work in the Liverpool Docks and in the ship repairing yards are affected, because they make some use of the Liverpool overhead railway at some time in the course of the year. If the railway had been a viable and self-supporting institution, capable of renewing itself out of its earnings, we should not be discussing this Bill at all today.

  1423
  The company would have been enjoying the experience of running a profitable venture which earned enough to maintain itself, or, failing that, the Liverpool Corporation would have been promoting a Bill in this House to take it over. The whole of the problem that arises today, however much we may romanticise the position about this "dockers' umbrella," is due to the simple fact that not enough people make use of it to enable it to pay its way. There is the problem.
  Mrs. Braddock: It has never made a loss yet.
  Mr. Thompson: The hon. Lady has made one speech, and if she will allow me to make my own I will deal with the point she makes.
  That is the simple position, which is agreed by all those who are engaged in this present discussion on what is to be the future of the Liverpool overhead railway. If the railway, in its lush years, whenever they were—it has averaged 1 per cent. dividends, which gives the House an idea when they were—had earned enough money to encourage and enable those who were its proprietors to maintain the physical structure and the staging in a proper condition, and to have the rolling stock continually renewed to bring it into line with modern ideas of what an overhead railway ought to be—if that had happened, we should not be here discussing it today.
  The simple fact is that the company has never been able to set aside enough money to maintain the staging of the overhead railway in a proper condition or to renew the rolling stock in use upon that railway. That is clear, and if there are any hon. Members in this House who have not recently travelled on the Liverpool overhead railway, or have not recently had an opportunity of going to a museum to see early Victorian rolling stock, they should come to Liverpool and have a look at the overhead railway.
  In my opinion, the Liverpool overhead railway performs a very important function in the City of Liverpool, and its removal will create difficulties in transporting the dockers along the line of docks on the eastern bank of the River Mersey. There is no doubt about that at all. I do not agree with the contention in the statement issued by the Liverpool
  1424
  Corporation in opposition to this Bill that the difficulties are insuperable. I certainly do not agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) that a national crisis is likely to arise if this railway ceases to operate.
  Mrs. Braddock: Wait and see.
  Mr. Thompson: I will give the hon. Lady some advice on what can be arranged, which she can take back to the leaders of the city council. The difficulties will be there, nevertheless. We ought to examine what they are before we decide for or against the Amendment.
  The first difficulty is: what is to take this passenger traffic, this one-fifth or one-sixth of the dockers, from point to point? Is it to be the overhead railway or some alternative means of transport? The question is not whether the Liverpool overhead railway company shall be compelled to carry the dockers, but how the dockers are to be enabled to go to work. If the Bill is given a Second Reading in its present form it does not mean that there will never be any overhead railway service in Liverpool.
  What appals me about the behaviour of the city council in this matter is that it has taken a point of view beginning and ending with the idea that it must oppose the Bill. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) wanted to know when it was and why it was that the Liverpool Corporation made this close examination of the structure and estimated the cost of reconditioning it. I will tell him when; not when the corporation first began to consider whether it should co-operate with the Liverpool Overhead Railway Company in maintaining the service, but when it decided that it would oppose the Bill and try to force the company to continue the service. That was when it went into action, wrong action.
  We are led to believe by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) that the Liverpool City Council, under the leadership of the Liverpool Labour Party, had pure and objective motives in tackling this matter.
  Mrs. Braddock: It was a unanimous decision of the city council, with the hon. Member's party voting for it as well. His leader told him that he should not vote against it.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Lady will observe the rules of the House.
  Mr. Thompson: That novelty ought to be recorded. I have not yet got to the date that is rumbling in the hon. Lady, the date of the motion to which she is referring.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: On a point of order. Is it within the rules of the House for the hon. Member to refer to any rumblings in the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock)?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will he much better if all remarks are addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. Thompson: I am dealing now with a much earlier date. I will come to the unanimous resolution of the city council in a few minutes. The first time that the Liverpool Corporation, or the party responsible for running the affairs of the Corporation, geared itself into action was not to try to help the Liverpool Overhead Railway Company out of its difficulties. Not a bit of it. It was not to persuade the Minister to call a conference and get the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and Bootle and Crosby boroughs and other people into the conference. Not a bit of it. That was in September last.
  It was in July that the Labour Party began to invite us to come to a conference which was held on 29th September, 1955—
  Mr. Mellish: Who called the conference?
  Mr. Thompson: The Liverpool Trades and Labour Council. It passed a resolution in connection with the Liverpool overhead railway and its future in very strong terms, as follows:
  "That this conference calls upon the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to bring the railway under the 1947 Transport Nationalisation Act."
  Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Thompson: I am not complaining about that. I am complaining that the Liverpool Corporation, under the leadership of the Liverpool Trades and Labour Council did not come into action on the ground that we are now being asked to
  1426
  believe that it did. It went into action in the hope of being able to persuade someone to nationalise the railway; whether rightly or wrongly I do not know. When, a short time later, in December, another branch of the Liverpool Labour organisation got itself worked up about this question, on 6th December, there was no question then about getting all these people together to see how the railway could be saved for the City of Liverpool. The National Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers passed a resolution in which it
  "pledges the fullest support to the efforts of the local Trades Council and Labour Movement to maintain the railway as a State responsibility"
  —not as a trading asset, but as a State responsibility.
  As the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said, this House is entitled to be treated with respect. We believe that this railway is serving and, in the past, has served a useful purpose. What we are considering now is whether without a considerable sum of money it can continue to serve that useful purpose. The company cannot find sums of money of the size which would be required to do what is necessary. Neither the House nor the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange should treat this matter lightly. It is not a question of painting over a rotting staging. We are not dealing here either with party ideas or the interests of a railway company, but with the lives and physical well-being of everyone who travels in those trains.
  Let there be one accident, one fatality, one failure to look after the safety of the men on that staging 16 ft. above the ground, and it will be the responsibility of hon. Members of this House, who fail to recognise that the time has come for the railway to pass into other hands, if it is not wound up.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Thompson: If hon. Members will settle between themselves who is to interrupt, I will give way.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member is not worth interrupting.
  Mr. Logan: I want to ask the hon. Member for Walton what he objects to in our Amendment. We ask for all

  1427
  parties interested in this matter to meet together and see what can be done. Why should there be objection to that?
  Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but that is not what the Amendment says. If the Amendment had said that there ought to be a conference at which people would discuss this matter there would be a lot to be said for that, but this Amendment requires my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to call a conference. The whole of my objection to this Amendment, and the reason I feel that the opposition to the Bill is mistaken and misplaced, is that the responsibility for carrying passenger transport in Liverpool rests on the City of Liverpool. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, it rests on the City of Liverpool. Liverpool Corporation, naturally, has not had to discharge this small area of that responsibility because the railway company was doing it. The moment the railway company can no longer do it it devolves on the city council to do it.
  I am sorry, I am taking far too much time. If hon. Members were enjoying it they would be encouraging me. So long as they are not, I am happy. [Interruption.] There is no need for the hon. Member for Bermondsey to get angry. It is my belief that the city council can and should undertake this responsibility, if necessary alone. It is within the ordinary capacity of any great city to call a conference and invite to that conference all those who may be interested in what is going on. The Borough Council of Bootle is interested in this matter, as is the Borough Council of Crosby. Altogether, 1 million to 1½ million people are interested in this matter.
  Why should not the leaders of the Liverpool City Council accept their responsibility, call such a conference and thrash out a policy which would enable them to carry on providing this overhead railway service as long as it is necessary for it to be provided? That may be three, five or ten years.
  Mr. Logan: As a member of the Liverpool City Council, the hon. Member knows that we have no right to involve the City of Liverpool in this responsibility, which would involve a tremendous cost to the whole of the city, if it can be avoided.
  Mr. Thompson: That will not do. The hon. Member, who is also an alderman of the City of Liverpool, in which I have the honour to be a councillor, knows that we cannot, in common justice, wish that responsibility on to the railway company. The simple fact is that it rests on the city council, and if the present leaders of the city council have neither the courage nor the imagination to deal with the problem themselves then the sooner they get out of the way and make room for those who have the better.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: I want to get back to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I think that the House has drifted somewhat from the Amendment, which states:
  "having regard to the grave national and local interests involved, this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has convened a conference of his Department, the local authorities and all other interested parties to consider the position."
  The interested parties, I presume, would be the Minister, the Liverpool Corporation, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, probably the Dock Labour Board, the trade unions concerned on Merseyside and the employers' associations. There can be nothing wrong with such a proposal.
  Mr. Graham Page: Are not the borough of Bootle, which the hon. Member represents, and the borough of Crosby, which I represent, also deeply interested?
  Mr. Mahon: I agree, and I apologise to the hon. Member for that most regrettable omission.
  Those, I think, would be the appropriate bodies and people, and in my view the partisanship which has been displayed on one side of the House this afternoon is unnecessary. This is not a matter for the interests of the railway employees alone, nor is it a matter for the interests of the shareholders of the Liverpool Overhead Railway alone—nor, for that matter, for the interests of the Liverpool Corporation alone. The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) said that he was advancing modern ideas. I ask him whether it is a modern idea that, when

  1429
  private enterprise fails, it is the duty of the corporation or the nation to take over that responsibility?
  If I were advocating not the nationalisation of the overhead railway, which has failed, but the nationalisation of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, there would be a different attitude on the other side of the House. It is not incompatible with my way of thinking that I would advocate the nationalisation of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. If it were about to fail, it would then be said, "This is failing. We can no longer carry out our responsibility; let the State do it." That is exactly what has been said this afternoon.
  If I am knowledgeable about anything it is about the Liverpool dockside. I want to get away from the interests and personalities which have been displayed today, for it is the interests of the city of Liverpool and the port of Liverpool that count. We cannot divorce the interests of Liverpool from the national interests. I well remember very great personages visiting the City of Liverpool in darker days; I remember Admiral Evans of the "Broke", Ernest Bevin and other important people saying this when visiting Liverpool in the dark days when the Western Approaches were the only approaches open to the nation. Similar days can come. Do not let us imagine that they cannot. Difficulties can come to this nation when we are least expecting them. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that Liverpool's efficiency should be maintained and improved, as, I think, all right hon. and hon. Members will agree.
  I have travelled on the overhead railway many times since I was a child. I have seen the deterioration that has occurred, as have all those of us who are near to it. I have never lived more than a mile from the dock front all my life, so I should know something about the condition of the railway. I also know something about the condition of the docks, and the dockers' conditions, and working-class life. These little private companies cannot be divorced from the interests of the people as a whole. Let us get away from that idea—it is old-fashioned.
  Since 1893, which is a long time ago, this railway has given great service and has been an acquisition in the growth of the great Port of Liverpool. It was
  1430
  probably built by Irishmen, just as the Liverpool Docks were built by Irishmen, and I might have a little more affection for it because of that. Some of the figures in relation to it are impressive. In the First World War it carried millions of essential workers, and in 1919—in 12 months—it carried 18 million passengers. In the Second World War it carried 14 million passengers in a year—that was in 1945.
  There is another point. I want to compliment the railway on the fact that the accident rate has been almost nil. Even at this moment this railway is carrying 30,000 people a day and not one accident has been registered. Surely that is a factor worth considering. In the last three years work has become stabilised in the port of Liverpool, and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue so. This railway is a barometer of the condition and prosperity of Liverpool. It has carried 9½ million people per year, which is approximately 30,000 per day. The figures are quite impressive.
  It has been suggested—and I think that there is some confusion as to what sort of railway this actually is—that the decking is the most important part. This decking is a sort of half pipe laid across the steel structure. It is about 24 ft. wide and is one of the most important parts of the railway. When people on Merseyside speak of decking they usually refer to timber, and I thought that there might be some confusion about that.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Walton that we cannot lightly dismiss the condition of the railway, and I considered it very gravely when I was making my assessment as to which way I would vote. The condition is very important. If there was an accident it would be a terrible one. The trains travel quickly and, as the hon. Member for Walton has said, they are not modern. They should be lighter and stronger; they should travel more quickly and should be extended.
  Those things would have been possible if the money had been forthcoming or if there had been a different sort of approach, but I am now arguing the usefulness of this railway. I do not want it to go. In one way or another I want it to be maintained in the City of Liverpool. I am not interested in the method. Whether we should all get together, or how we should get together, I do not care. The

  1431
  thing is that if private enterprise can no longer deal with this everyone interested should get together to preserve the railway. That is what the Amendment is asking for.
  I do not want to weary the House with description, but if we are to put buses on the dock road the condition of that road is important. Under the overhead railway we already have two lines of goods traffic. There are, therefore, two passenger lines running north and south above, and below there are two goods lines also running north and south. There are four railway lines top and bottom. These are intercepted by main docks—not small docks, but docks with names such as Gladstone which is known all over the world as one of the greatest docks in existence. There are others—Alexandra, Langton, Hornby, Brocklebank, Sandon and Huskisson docks.
  Parts of the road are wide, and other parts are narrow. There are timber yards and warehouses, and then at Stanley Dock there is a bottleneck. The Stanley warehouse is the largest in the world—a massive warehouse if ever there was one. On the inside of the warehouse is Stanley Dock itself. In my days when I pushed a hand cart along that road, too frequently for my liking, I experienced the narrowness of that bottleneck. It would be impossible to run a proper schedule of buses with reasonable timing along Liverpool docks. Any honest man who has ever tried to get a private car along the Liverpool docks at the peak hours will admit how difficult it is to do so. Let it be remembered that it is at peak hours that this labour travels.
  These are the ordinary difficulties with which we have to contend. There is a congestion on the docks which exists for seven miles right through my town in the county borough of Bootle, where all the important docks are. This congestion runs through part of Liverpool, and then after the Stanley Docks one comes right into one of the main entrances of the Mersey Tunnel. The Mersey Tunnel outlet—one of two in Liverpool—runs on to the dock road, at which point the traffic is growing.
  A social change is taking place on Mersey-side. At one time our fathers lived north and south. Our houses and railways ran north and south. Most of us
  1432
  lived near the docks. But there has been a change. Housing and slum clearance are going on apace. The people have gone out of Kirkby, Netherton and Huyton. They are travelling east and west. There is already an extra financial and physical strain on them. An hour spent in travelling in the morning and in the evening is an extra hour out of a man's day. These things are very important.
  People have to travel east and west, and then they have to travel north and south. For instance, a man who comes from Kirkby has first to travel east and west down to or from the Dock road. If he is coming from Kirkby to the Gladstone Dock he travels about 14 miles, and he wants to travel in the quickest possible way. It is not possible to travel along the Dock Road in a bus at any great speed. These are important social and industrial factors which we have to consider. What is the distance between Sandon Dock Station and the west side of Sandon Quay? Even when he gets off the overhead railway, a man has to walk three quarters of a mile on many a morning before he gets to his ship and his place of work.
  It is important that all these things should be considered, and not the financial interest of the Liverpool Overhead Company, or the interest of Liverpool Corporation alone. I am appealing to the Members of this House to consider this in the way that I consider it. We want to save this overhead railway in Liverpool, which is a good railway, because of its usefulness, and all the other interests must go on one side.
  The Dock Labour Board in Liverpool has 16,000 workers, but that is only a small number when we consider the number of ships' workmen, sailors, and coal heavers who travel on the railway, and this bears out the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland. How big is a coal heaver's shovel? Will he get it on a bus? When twenty coal heavers are sent from one place to another, can they very easily get on board a Liverpool Corporation bus? The coal heavers have used the overhead railway with great facility. May I inform the unenlightened that dockers do not carry tools; they have

  1433
  a hook; but joiners, sailmakers, carpenters, fitters and others are constantly travelling with tool kits, and the Dock Labour Board has to transport these men at all hours along that one road. They cannot very easily get away from that road to take a bus. The traffic must be on the dock road.
  I know that it would be illuminating if the National Dock Labour Board, employers and trade unions were brought into discussion. I want to deal with the point which was made by the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). He said that to repair this railway adequately—I do not want to put words into his mouth—would cost £1,600,000.
  Mr. Tilney indicated assent.
  Mr. Mahon: There is an estimate by an engineer commissioned by the Liverpool Corporation that to put the railway into reasonable running order, not the sort of order and condition envisaged by the company, would cost £230,000.
  Mr. Tilney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Actually the amount, with the rolling stock required, was £330,000, and that would have lasted only ten years, when £1½ million or more would have to be spent.
  Mr. Mahon: I am glad that the hon. Member has intervened, and I accept his statement. The other figure given by the Liverpool Corporation for annual maintenance was £15,000.
  My father, if I may introduce a personal note, was and is knowledgeable of the conditions on Merseyside. He has spent a lifetime in the trade union movement, and he is accepted as an authority by everyone who knows Merseyside. He was at one time a member of a very important committee called the Merseyside Dock Access Committee, which dealt with the congestion which existed on Merseyside from the point of view of moving traffic and the loading and unloading of ships. The House will remember the national outcry about the position at Birkenhead, where the congestion was just impossible. This Committee sat to consider the conditions obtaining at the Liverpool Docks at that time.
  The overhead railway was bombed in two places, and a decision had to be taken whether it was to carry on. It was imperative that the railway should be
  1434
  repaired, and it was repaired. The point which I am making is that in those days it was felt essential to the life of the nation and to the good commercial running of the port of Liverpool. The Merseyside Dock Access Committee continued to sit after all this and consider the whole of the long-term policy for the best operation of the port of Liverpool for a number of years after the interim report was submitted to the Minister. In fact it was not until November, 1945, that its final report was made.
  The Committee went very thoroughly into all aspects of the operation of the port, however, calling before it representatives of the various bodies interested in the working of the docks and the flow of cargoes passing through the Mersey. The Committee called before it representatives of the company concerned here today. I have the names, and they should be given. The chairman of the company was Mr. Brownbill, Mr. Rostron was the general manager, and Mr. Prescott was the assistant manager. I think it will be accepted that they are the names. Those gentlemen attended a meeting on 31st March, 1944. At that meeting Mr. Brownbill, the representative of the company, said:
  "In my opinion the overhead railway today is doing a wonderful work and you could not possibly handle dock labour in this port without it. We carried last year about 13 million passengers."
  I am not saying that; none of us is saying that. That is said by a representative of the company; when the company was relieved of financial strain, that was a true exposition of the position. He further said that this passenger traffic is peculiar in that
  "the bulk of it, of course, is dock labour. It has to be carried in the two peak periods, one in the morning and one in the evening."
  I submit that statement to the House for its consideration. Mr. Brownbill further said:
  "Another thing is this, What is the alternative to the overhead railway? Some people seem to think that you could do it by means of buses. In my opinion that is an absolutely impossible position. You have to remember that you not only have to carry the workmen, but you also have to carry a certain quantity of the workmen's equipment"—
  and he goes on to describe it. That is what is said by the people working for the company at that time.

  1435
  I appeal to hon. Members of this House who have not made up their minds to get rid of any ideas of partisanship. We are dealing with working class people of all shades of political opinion. They must get to work in the best possible way, and it is our duty to allow them to do that. We must get them decent homes, with adequate transport and right working conditions. In my submission, the Liverpool Overhead Railway is part and parcel of these essentials to the life-blood of Liverpool.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am happy to have an opportunity of following the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon), because, until he rose to speak, practically all the speeches in this debate had referred to the citizens of Liverpool. In fact, this railway serves more of his constituents in Bootle and my constituents in Crosby than those who actually reside in Liverpool. Therefore, both he and I are deeply concerned with the fate of the overhead railway.
  I rise to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill and to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan). I do so perhaps for different reasons and with objects different from those put forward by him and by his seconder, the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I would say at once, of course, that I realise that if the Bill is not given a Second Reading the company has power to close down the railway at once; legally, it could do so tonight, if it wished. But I am quite sure it would not take such irresponsible action, bearing in mind the public service which the railway is undertaking. I cannot conceive that the company would take that immediate action.
  There is really no panic about this. The railway is safe for several years, for 10 years, to come. There is no panic about dwindling revenue or about the passenger traffic dropping. In fact, this is not a public service which is becoming disused. It is a going concern. Every year 9½ million passengers are carried over 6½ miles of railway which is a good figure for such a short railway. I know that 35 years ago double the number of passengers were carried, and 20 years ago the railway carried only half that number.
  1436
  In the 60 years of the railway's existence there have been those sort of fluctuations. But for the past three years the figure of passengers carried has kept steady at about 9½ million, so that it would appear possible to budget for the future with reasonable certainty about what the traffic will be.
  Mr. Tilney: I think my hon. Friend should know that this year traffic has fallen at the rate of over 400,000.
  Mr. Page: Yet last year the traffic rose. As I say, there are these fluctuations, but the figure keeps at about 9 million or 10 million. That is in passenger journeys, which means that about 15,000 people use the railway every day, most of them twice a day and some on more occasions than that.
  The revenue is not dwindling. It is about £168,000 which is a little more than the expenditure. It does not leave much for profit, but the fares have been raised only 75 per cent. since before the war. Those of us who have to travel about in London know that here the fares have gone up much more than 75 per cent. I should have thought that an increase of fares could have been borne by the people using this railway. The fares were increased in 1954, and resulted in a substantial increase in revenue. It did not cause a recession in passenger traffic.
  Mr. David Jones: Is it not the fact that this overhead railway has to compete with corporation transport in Liverpool and that if the fares were raised it would drive people to use the buses?
  Mr. Page: I was coming to that point.
  The increase in fares, made only a couple of years or 18 months ago, did not result in a drop in the number of passengers carried. It shows that there is a public need and a desire for this railway and that passengers will not be driven on to the buses if there is a slight rise in the fares.
  I said that the railway was safe. At the moment, there is no real danger from the structure, nor will there be for several years. If the railway is to be continued indefinitely, however, it would be wise to start replacement soon. As I understand, the only reason for closing the railway is that the company cannot find the money for replacement, the £1¾ million

  1437
  expenditure starting in about five years time. If the House refused a Second Reading to the Bill, in effect we should be saying to those interested, "Go away and confer, and see whether you can work out a proper scheme to keep this railway going." But were the House to give a Second Reading to this Measure surely we should be fixing a definite date for the closure of this railway.
  Sir Victor Raikes: No.
  Mr. Page: To my mind, that would be a major disaster for the efficiency of the port of Liverpool. It would add considerably to road dangers and traffic congestion not only in Liverpool but at Bootle and Crosby, and many of my constituents would suffer hardship. Most of those who live in the very densely populated area of Seaforth and Litherland are dockers who use the railway to get to and from their work. Of course, only about one-tenth of the line runs through my constituency, but that one-tenth is the end of the line on which there are two stations which probably supply more passengers than any other part of the line.
  It would be a very serious hardship to my constituents if the railway ceased to run. If the dock workers have to he conveyed by bus to their work, the congestion, the delays and the traffic dangers will be really terrifying. Crosby, Seaforth and Litherland, the areas which I have the honour to represent, are dormitory areas for Liverpool. Only two roads give access to that constituency from Liverpool, and if buses are put on those roads the bottlenecks there will be extremely dangerous.
  The loss of productive time in the docks has also been mentioned. That, of course, will be caused by the inability to move the dock workers so conveniently by bus transport as they are now moved on the overhead railway. Dock Road itself is quite inadequate because of its lay-out and surface, and because it is already fully utilised for dock transport, to cope with an extra service of some 60 buses. There is already serious delay in getting goods to and from the docks by road.
  I believe that the solution to the problem lies not in the closure of the railway, but in its extension. If marshalling
  1438
  yards were built for road transport outside Liverpool, and if the railway were extended and used for the carriage of freight at times when it was not dealing with peak passenger traffic, it could, I think, be made to pay. But that, perhaps, is looking too far ahead.
  Up to now, I may have carried hon. Members opposite with me in my arguments, but now I must join issue with them. I believe that the conduct of the Liverpool Corporation in this matter, not only during the past 12 months or so, but for very many years, has been disgraceful. I say that irrespective of whether Liverpool had a Conservative or a Socialist council at the time. The corporation comes here today through the representatives of Liverpool constituencies championing the cause of the overhead railway, whereas for years it has tried to cut its throat by increasing the number of buses on new routes on the road and skimming off the cream of the traffic. Cutting the throat of the railway is, perhaps, too humane an expression, because that would be quick and sharp. It might be more appropriate to say that the corporation has been razor-slashing the railway by putting subsidised buses on the road in order to take away its traffic. If anything has made it impossible for the company to save the money with which to replace the structure of the railway, it has been the competition introduced by the Liverpool Corporation.
  Neither do I think that the conduct of the Docks Board has been any less reprehensible. Originally, the Docks Board took power to build and run the railway, but now it is only too happy to scuttle away from its responsibilities under the enabling Act. In documents issued to hon. Members, the Docks Board has graciously said that it will help anybody who wants to supply a transport system to replace the railway by telling them how to do it. Apparently, it will give no other help.
  The Docks Board and the Liverpool Corporation wring their hands in a sort of mock sorrow and alarm and say, "This company must not die." I grant that hon. Members who sit for Liverpool divisions are not quite so hypocritical. They say, "Let it die" hoping to resurrect it as a nationalised railway. If it is to be resurrected, Liverpool Corporation has a great responsibility for having it

  1439
  under its wing, not the sole responsibility, because other authorities, Crosby, Bootle, and particularly the Docks Board, are concerned.
  Those authorities should get together and work out a constitution and finances for a joint board and then come to the House to seek statutory powers to maintain the railway. My own authority, Crosby, suggested that a long time ago. It was told that its big brothers, Liverpool Corporation and the Docks Board, would do something about it. Nothing has been done. I suggested to a number of people who have authority in this matter that if the local authorities would not call a meeting, I should do so. The suggestion that a back bench Member of Parliament could do more than the high and mighty members of the Liverpool Corporation was treated with scorn.
  If those authorities cannot get together on their own, I ask the House to reject the Bill, leaving the Minister free to call them together. There is nothing new in the Minister intervening in the affairs of this railway. During the war, in 1941, the Minister of War Transport had to decide whether the railway should continue, and again in 1945 the Minister had a report on it and decided that it was absolutely essential to the dock. Because the local authorities have not been able to get together, I hope that the Minister will intervene to get them together so that some scheme will result which will keep this essential public service running.
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I want to speak from a point of view different from that of hon. Members who have spoken earlier. I am a member and a voluntary officer of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association which represents a number of the people employed on the Liverpool Overhead Railway. Whatever may have been the basis of consultation between the company and Liverpool Corporation, my union is dissatisfied with the compensation provisions of Clause 8. My union has been anxious to negotiate for a long time, a fact which has been known to the company, but so far we have heard nothing.
  I hope that we shall have a breathing space so that we can have consultations.
  1440
  It is unfair that Clause 8 should make discriminations between sections of the staff and I shall vote for the Amendment in order that we may have an opportunity further to press the claim which we have been prepared to put forward.
  9.30 p.m.
  Sir Victor Raikes: In supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) to the extent that neither of us has ever been a member of the Liverpool City Council or a director of the railway in question. We must first consider what advantage or disadvantage will result from giving the Bill a Second Reading or rejecting it.
  It has been made quite plain throughout the debate—and it has not been challenged—that if the Second Reading is rejected the overhead railway will be legally entitled to stop running on 31st December of this year. If the railway were closed down on that date, I agree that, for a time, at any rate, there would be a considerable degree of chaos among transport in Liverpool, but I do not agree that the rejection of the Second Reading will have quite the effect that certain hon. Members on both sides fear. If it is rejected, the railway can be closed down, and one thing is quite certain, namely, that no staff compensation can be paid, because the main object of the Bill is to enable compensation to be paid and the whole concern wound up. It cannot be wound up without the will of Parliament, but it can be shut down.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) made a very fair point. His view was that no real consultation had taken place in regard to the compensation payable under Clause 8. The difficulty which arises is that it is not possible for the House to discuss the Instruction which will be moved after the Second Reading, if it is agreed to. I think that I am just in order in saying, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), that, if the Second Reading is carried, the company is prepared to agree to the Instruction which will be moved afterwards. I thought that I should take the opportunity of saying that, and I know that my hon. Friend's assurance, though me, will be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Logan: Does the hon. Member mean to say that if the Bill is rejected the railway will be closed and there will be no compensation? In ordinary English language, does it not mean, "Until we meet and there is an opportunity for the interested parties to discuss the pros and cons no compensation will be paid"? If so, does not that meet all that is required?
  Sir V. Raikes: I will deal with the hon. Member's point shortly. I know that he and I may differ about various matters, but we are both in agreement that the best solution to this problem must be found. All I am maintaining now is that, if the Bill is rejected, it prevents the payment of compensation.
  Mr. Mellish indicated dissent.
  Sir V. Raikes: It is all very well for the hon. Member to shake his head at me. I am quite prepared to give way. I am not trying to make an unfair point. I have made it clear that the Instruction will be accepted if the Bill is given a Second Reading. It is necessary for a Parliamentary Bill to go before the House of Commons before the railway can cease to run. If the railway ceased to run, quite apart from compensation, certain overhead charges would still fall to be paid. I am not denying that, and I am not speaking as a spokesman for the railway.
  I now come to the next point, which is a very important one. It is the point raised by the hon. Member for the Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan) of whether it is better to reject the Bill on Second Reading and not allow it to go to Committee for a settlement, or whether it would be wiser, as in my view, that it should be given a Second Reading, and then we might effectively have the consultations which both the hon. Member and I wish to take place. I repeat that it would be a great disadvantage to the City of Liverpool if the railway were closed down on 31st December and no other steps were taken to keep it open, at any rate for a time. My first point is that if the Bill is rejected now and the railway decides to close down, compensation will be held up indefinitely.
  I come now to the further points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland, whose views I always respect. It is true that the Liverpool Overhead
  1442
  Railway has comparatively few assets and is agreed under present circumstances to be incapable of paying for considerable repairs; it could not run the railway for any length of time. I think we are all agreed also that for a period, in one way or another, the railway should continue.
  From the point of view of the railway, however, I would say this. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to some extent attacked the corporation because the railway had been facing subsidised competition from it. I am not criticising the corporation one way or the other. All I say is that one cannot have it both ways. Since the war, seven applications for additional buses, which compete with the railway, have been granted and the licensing authority has rejected the opposition of the railway. I am not complaining of that, nor do I particularly complain, although I think it was tactless, that even at this stage, when the matter was being discussed, on 22nd June yet another bus service was started by the corporation to take people to Gladstone Dock, an area otherwise dealt with by the Liverpool Overhead Railway. The corporation may be quite right in doing that, but, if so, it is an additional reason for the overhead railway to say, "We cannot wait on indefinitely. We cannot carry on against subsidised competition indefinitely. We have warned the corporation over a period that the railway would have to close down."
  The corporation, whether the former Conservative-controlled body or the present corporation, has been very tardy over discussions to tie up this matter.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) is a member of the corporation. It is rather impertinent for the hon. Member to criticise the corporation of which his hon. Friend is a member.
  Sir V. Raikes: If the hon. Member is telling me that it is impertinent of me to criticise any corporation of which an hon. Friend of mine is a member, his idea of the working of Parliament is extremely different to mine. My hon. Friend has made his point of view perfectly clear. My view is that had the leaders of both parties on the corporation during the past few years acted more rapidly, they could

  1443
  have avoided the difficulty which has arisen. I am perfectly entitled to say that, and, incidentally, it is entirely correct.
  At this stage, it is my view that we could quite easily have a conference called, whether we give the Bill a Second Reading or not. I think I have a right to make this point, because I am not tied up with the corporation or with the railway. I think the overhead railway company would probably be considering closing down anyhow, but, if there is to be a meeting of the interested bodies, we are merely, in my view, going to bang our heads against the ground if we are to have the meeting called by the Minister with the idea that, somehow or other—and that has been the trouble over the whole thing, both with the former corporation of Liverpool and the present one—if they could keep the thing hanging about, the Minister of Transport would come along and the British Transport Commission would take the whole show over. It would avoid a great deal of trouble.
  The Minister is going to reply, but I think I am right in saying that in fact if the Minister of Transport wished to take over this overhead railway he would have no power to do so. To all intents and purposes, the British Transport Commission is an independent body. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend when he replies will be able to say that the Ministry of Transport could order the British Transport Commission to take over a declining asset, particularly under present conditions.
  If I am right about that, and if the Ministry cannot do it, what is the effect of the sort of meeting which my hon. Friend very honestly wishes to be called—a meeting called and presided over by the Ministry of Transport? The Ministry cannot take the whole thing over, because it has not the power to do it. The only result would be further delay, in which nothing whatever would be done.
  If, within the next month or two months, we could have a meeting of all interested parties, after the Second Reading of this Bill, I have very little doubt that an arrangement could be come to and that this overhead railway could be purchased at scrap value. If it were purchased at scrap value, perhaps the cor-
  1444
  poration, with the help of other bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, could take it over for a limited period of time. I may be told by hon. Members opposite that that is too late, and that we could not get the powers for the corporation to do that between now and 31st December, and I do not think we could. At least, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have noted that Clause 2 of the Bill says that—
  "the appointed day" means the thirtieth day of December nineteen hundred and fifty-six or such other date as the Company may with the approval of the Minister determine;
  If we are to have a conference of the interested bodies, by all means let us have a representative of the Ministry in the chair, but do not let us put this thing on to the Ministry. It is really no good trying to do that. I am quite certain that the appointed day could be advanced from 30th December, if necessary, to 31st July, provided that reasonable guarantees were made. The corporation would cover the situation as far as the expenses of the overhead railway company were concerned; they would have to do that. On the other hand, if we turn this Bill down and have the sort of conference which my hon. Friend has in mind, we shall be beating back on the question of nationalisation and everything else, and holding the matter up for another year. It has been held up too long already, and it is not the fault of one party or the other or of the corporation of Liverpool. If we meet in a sensible way and tackle this as a local problem in which local interests are concerned, the appointed day could be put off for three months or six months and we could get what all of us are aiming at, with compensation in a proper time rather than everything being held up indefinitely. I support the Second Reading. If the Bill passes it will be of advantage to everybody.
  Mr. Logan rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: We are discussing a Private Bill and, therefore, a non-party matter and no official view is being put from the Front Opposition Bench. The issue is whether we

  1445
  shall give a Second Reading to the Bill which, in spite of what has just been said by the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) would lead to the closure of the railway, or whether there should be a delay during which the Minister could call together the interested parties with a view to finding a way to save this railway from closure.
  The House has a responsibility, in making up its mind, to examine the position of the railway and see whether this public service, which has served the docks of Liverpool for so long, should be closed or whether there is some way in which it could continue to operate. We are not considering the closing of a branch line in the ordinary sense. There is nothing comparable between this overhead railway and the branch lines of the British Transport Commission which we have frequently discussed and against the closing of which hon. Members have strongly protested.
  This is not a small branch line carrying a mere handful of people day in and day out, operating at a loss and drawing upon the funds of the Transport Commission. It is a privately-owned railway which is still carrying 9 million passengers a year; that is to say, there have been more than 9 million passenger journeys every year during the last three years. The number carried by the railway works out at about 30,000 journeys a day.
  What is more, this railway has not been losing money. It has succeeded in paying interest on its debenture stock of 4 per cent. and has not had to call upon the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to meet its guarantee of that interest. Dividends have been paid, although small, but even so it has been operating without losing money. The difficulty is that the railway has now reached a point at which, as is agreed on both sides, a certain amount of money would have to be spent in order to maintain the safety of the railway in the future by an immediate expenditure of either £230,000 or £330,000. That would be necessary immediately, which means in the next two or three years. Over a longer period, if the railway were kept in being, there would have to be considerable capital expenditure.
  It seems to those who have put forward this Amendment, and wish to delay the Second Reading, that in those circum-
  1446
  stances it is reasonable for the parties interested, the Docks and Harbour Board, Liverpool Corporation, the trade unions and the Overhead Railway Company, with the Minister of Transport, to get together to consider whether during this interim period of the next year or two money can be found in some way and the railway kept open. Then they could decide whether to spend a far larger sum on the railway over the next 10 years, or when it becomes necessary.
  Among other reasons why further consideration should be given before a Second Reading is agreed to, in my personal view is the difficulties of Liverpool Corporation in providing alternative transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Hahon) made a very convincing speech concerning this railway, with which, as it were, he has lived since his youth. I went to Liverpool last week to have a look at the railway. I rode along it from end to end and made inquiries about it.
  I was shocked at the thought of that railway being closed and the Dock Road there being the sole means of bringing thousands of workers to the docks daily. Anyone who has travelled along the Dock Road and seen the 20 level crossings used by railway wagons coming from warehouses to the docks and being held up by those wagons which are continually crossing the streets, cannot help but realise that there will be considerable delay in getting workers to the docks if the overhead railway is closed and buses have to be provided on that road.
  Not only will there be considerable delay but the cost to Liverpool Corporation will be considerable. There will have to be a capital investment by the Corporation in 60 new buses and it will also have to spend considerable sums on resurfacing the Dock Road and endeavouring to make it more suitable for use by those heavy vehicles. It may well be that it would be better to make an existing asset worth-while by prolonging its life and spending the same amount of money on that existing asset, the overhead railway, rather than having to put new capital investment at this time into the transport undertaking of Liverpool Corporation. I think that that is a relevant factor which must be considered by this House before it decides about giving the Bill a Second Reading.

  1447
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) made a good point when he raised the question of how the matter had been handled in this House. I think it is regrettable that when coming to this House to seek these powers in connection with the closing of the railway the company should, in effect, have prejudiced the position by deciding to pay off its debenture stock. There is no question that the company had made up its mind a year or two ago that it was going into liquidation and that it was far better for its shareholders—who, apparaently, were the only people with which it was concerned—if it ceased to spend adequate sums on maintenance and distributed what it could by repaying debentures and increasing dividends, as it did last year, by using those funds which had been set aside for renewals and maintenance to pay off debenture stock. In other words, it has dissipated what money it had available and thereby prejudiced the position over the closing of the railway. I consider that behaviour shocking on the part of the company.
  Equally regrettable is that the Docks and Harbour Board does not appear to have risen to its responsibilities either. The Docks and Harbour Board is a public authority with public responsibility. It guaranteed the debenture stock and had to give its consent to the repayment of the debenture stock. The Board gave that consent and, unfortunately, stated that it viewed with equanimity the closing down of the overhead railway. In other words, the Board does not seem to have given sufficient consideration to the difficulties of transporting labour to the docks for which it is responsible.
  It is because the Docks and Harbour Board has not been brought sufficiently into these discussions, because no initiative appears to have been taken by the Ministry, because the Liverpool Corporation is concerned about its ability to provide adequate facilities and because of the existence of this asset that I feel that there is justification for asking the Minister to take the initiative now, to bring the parties together and to have consultations. It can then be decided whether or not the Bill should proceed at a later stage.
  It seems to me that those of my hon. Friends who have pressed for a delay
  1448
  have a very strong case, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he cannot give the House some guidance on the matter. Surely the Ministry cannot view without alarm the disappearance of this railway, which carries so many people daily, particularly when its disappearance will lead to considerably increased congestion on the roads in the area and will affect road safety.
  A wider national issue is involved, since the closing of the railway may well reduce the efficiency of the docks. That being the case, surely the Minister of Transport should consult the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the National Dock Labour Board, which is the statutory authority having the great responsibility of regulating labour at the docks.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider advising the House not to proceed with the Bill at this stage, but to reject the Motion for Second Reading, thereby enabling discussions to take place so that we do not dissipate a national asset which could be kept in being with the expenditure of a small sum in the immediate future and which could continue to serve as a public service. We need to keep this public service alive.
  The present position indicates to us the strength of the transport policy advanced by those who advocate that transport should be operated by public authorities with public responsibility and not left in the hands of private enterprise. This situation could not have arisen in the case of a publicly-owned transport undertaking. Consultative machinery exists which prevents branch lines from being closed without adequate consideration, up to the Minister himself if necessary. In this case no such consultation has taken place. The House is, nevertheless, being asked to give authority for the line to be closed. I ask the House to reject the Bill, for the reasons which I have given.
  9.59 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): It has several times been my duty to speak in the House on Private Bills dealing with transport introduced by the British Transport Commission or some other body, and I have always found it a somewhat delicate task to undertake, because

  1449
  the Government do not accept responsibility for Bills of that kind. On this occasion, the Motion for rejection, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan), brings my right hon. Friend very definitely into the controversy, since it asks the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading until the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has convened a conference to discuss the matter.
  When first this Bill was introduced, it was the duty of my right hon. Friend to present a Report upon it. That Report was prepared after careful consideration of the provisions of the Bill and of the conditions in Liverpool. The Minister, having considered the provisions of the Bill, concluded that the issues raised for the decision of Parliament were essentially local ones which should be determined in the light of the evidence adduced and on which it would be in-appropriate for him to express an opinion. It was not the function of the Minister to prescribe what alternative services could or should be provided in circumstances such as those.
  In taking this view, my right hon. Friend was not merely seeking to avoid accepting a responsibility which it was possible for him to accept. There was, of course, no statutory obligation upon him, but he did also carefully consider whether, in these particular circumstances, he ought to express a view to the Committee in another place which was considering the Bill in detail.
  The effect of the discontinuance of this railway would be that some alternative system of transport would have to be provided. As has been made plain in a number of speeches tonight, the Liverpool Corporation is, in fact, the principal local transport operator. But the corporation, like any other operator, has to seek from the licensing authority a licence to start new services. If for any reason there was dissatisfaction with the decision of the licensing authority, the matter would come to my right hon. Friend on appeal. As he has, in the last resort, an appellate jurisdiction, it clearly would be most improper for him to have expressed any views on this matter at an earlier stage.
  There would also be another consideration. As a result of the discontinuance of this overhead railway, there might very well be—and many hon. Members to-
  1450
  night have said that there certainly will be—a considerable increase in traffic congestion upon the roads. The local authority would have to take the initiative in considering the framing of any regulations to deal with those traffic problems, but, again, when those regulations had been prepared they would have to be submitted to my right hon. Friend for his confirmation. There, again, because of that duty that he might have to exercise at a later time, my right hon. Friend thought that it clearly would be improper for him to express any views upon the Bill.
  In the course of this debate, one or two things have clearly emerged. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has expressed regret at the prospect of this overhead railway ceasing to operate. There was complete agreement that, from the point of view of providing an efficient service for moving the dockers and other people along the docks and at the same time relieving congestion upon the Docks Road and avoiding the problem of level crossings, it was desirable that this railway should continue. I am bound to say, however, that listening to the debate as one with no very great knowledge of Liverpool, I was very much surprised that, apparently, practically no negotiations had taken place between the parties likely to be affected and, indeed, that there seemed to be no clear understanding why these negotiations had not taken place.
  The House was told that the company had always been most willing to meet the corporation and anyone else in order to consider what steps should be taken to deal with its financial difficulties. We were told, especially by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), that what she had specially in mind in asking that the Minister of Transport should intervene was to ensure that all responsible and representative bodies should come together in order to consider the future of the railway. I cannot see anything to prevent them from meeting together. There is absolutely no need for my right hon. Friend to convene the meeting, and certainly I must tell the House very definitely that he has no intention of doing so. There is no reason at all why the corporation and the company should not meet.

  1451
  The hon. Lady thought that the Docks and Harbour Board might be helped by the initiative of the Minister. I hope that the Board would be willing to attend any meeting held to discuss this problem. If they have shown a certain unwillingness to come, it is because, I gather from the published speeches of the chairman, they do not consider that they have any statutory power to make a financial contribution towards solving the problem; I gather also that they have no intention of doing so. But I understand that this would be a meeting of all those likely to be affected in any way, and would not commit them in any way. I hope very much that they would be willing to attend.
  In the course of two speeches, hon. Gentlemen referred to the possibility, which I think was pressed at the meeting of the Trades Council last summer, that the British Transport Commission should take over this railway. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Sir V. Raikes) is perfectly correct in his reading of the Act of 1947. My right hon. Friend the Minister has no power at all to direct the British Transport Commission to take over the railway. I think I ought, however, to add—because I want there to be no misunderstanding of this matter—that at the present time we are anxious to help the British Transport Commission to fulfil its obligation to make its income and expenditure balance taking one year with another. [Interruption.] I am rather surprised at the jeers coming from hon. Members opposite, because it is completely inconsistent with what has been said today that my hon. Friends are only anxious to nationalise unprofitable concerns. We are most anxious that that should not happen, and we are most anxious also that the British Transport Commission should not take over anything which is not likely to be profitable.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: The reason for such an intervention was the action of the Government in preventing the British Transport Commission from meeting its obligations by increasing its charges to meet the heavy increased costs it had to face. That was the reason for the jeer at such a nonsensical observation by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  Mr. Molson: I am sorry if my observation was nonsensical. The intervention of the hon. Gentleman is really on something which has no bearing upon this Bill. One very obvious reason why the Government are anxious that there should not be such a large increase in the charges by the British Transport Commission is that at the present time, as a result of the present existing charges, there has unfortunately been a decline in the traffic. It looks as though it has reached the point at which further increases might result in a reduction in their revenue.
  That brings me to my last sentences. I have been asked what advice I would give to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston has pointed out that, by giving a Second Reading to this Bill, the House would not in any way be prejudicing any further discussions and negotiations of the kind that I have indicated. Indeed, it would have exactly the opposite effect. If the advice of some hon. Members opposite and of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) were accepted, the only result that I can foresee is that it would then be impossible for any effective negotiation to take place. It would be impossible for compensation to be paid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—to the employees, and the final result would be that the company would cease to run the railway without, in fact, being wound up.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is the Government's view, if they have formed a view, about the action of the company in redeeming the debenture stock in the circumstances, having regard to the considerations which I mentioned?
  Mr. Molson: No. I am dealing with the Amendment that has been moved. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I do not associate myself with his criticisms, but it is a matter that could very well be considered by a Select Committee, and it is not one upon which it is necessary for the Government to express any views.
  Mr. Logan: Is it not possible and part of the Parliamentary Secretary's duty, in view of the chaos which now exists in Liverpool with regard to transport and what is likely to happen, that there should be an attempt at conciliation? I want a conciliatory body to deal with this matter. I want him to tell the

  1453
  House what happened at the meeting. It is all right for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to laugh—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now trying to make a second speech; that will not do.
  Mr. Logan: May I ask the Minister whether at the conference which we had he declared to me that at that moment he could not intervene, but that when the Bill was brought forward he would then see what could be done? I want to know what he is going to do.
  Mr. Molson: I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's question in this way. If a conference were called by the Liverpool Corporation and it were generally thought that it would be of value to have a neutral chairman, an official from my Department nominated by my right hon. Friend to sit as a neutral chairman and
  to bring his experience of transport to bear in order to help to bring the parties together, my right hon. Friend would be very willing to agree to that; but it would have to be on the clear understanding that the chairman was acting as an entirely independent chairman and as an "honest broker" between the various parties and that he would not have the authority to commit my right hon. Friend in any way.
  I therefore conclude by saying that it seems to me quite clear that the House would be wise to give a Second Reading to this Bill. That would not in any way prejudice the future and it would enable the whole matter to be further considered in Committee.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 100.

  Division No. 252.]

  AYES

  [10.15 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fort, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Freeth, D. K.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Arbuthnot, John

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Glover, D.

  Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Ashton, H.

  Godber, J. B.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gower, H. R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Balniel, Lord

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Barber, Anthony

  Green, A.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Barlow, Sir John

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marples, A. E.

  Barter, John

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Gurden, Harold

  Mathew, R.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maude, Angus

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Body, R. F.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

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

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Bryan, P.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

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

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Partridge, E.

  Channon, H.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Redmayne, M.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Keegan, D.

  Russell, R. S.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Kirk, P. M.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Shepherd, William

  Drayson, G. B.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Duthie, W. S.

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

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vickers, Miss J. H.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Mr. Norman Pannell and

  Sir Victor Raikes.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvill (Colne Valley)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hannan, W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hastings, S.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Monslow, W.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

  Holman, P.

  Page, R. G.

  Blackburn, F.

  Holmes, Horace

  Paget, R. T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Parker, J.

  Boardman, H.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pearson, A.

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Popplewell, E.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Royle, C.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Steele, T.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Deer, G.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Thornton, E.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Wade, D. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Logan, D. G.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  McInnes, J.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mahon, Simon

  Zilliacus, K.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Hale, Leslie

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mrs. Braddock and

  Mr. Denis Howell.

  Question put and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. David Jones: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to amend Clause 8 of the Bill, so as to provide a better basis of compensation.
  There are about 190 members of the staff of the Liverpool overhead railway who will be affected when it is closed. We take the view that whether they be employed in the general manager's department, the clerical department, the operating department, the permanent way, or the shops department, they should be treated alike for the purposes of compensation. We think that the position which they occupy ought not to be the determining factor, but rather that the basis should be length of service which they have given to the company. From what was said on Second Reading, I have reason to believe that the promoters of the Bill will not look unfavourably on our proposition.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to second the Motion.
  In supporting this Instruction, I declare my interest as a member of the Railway Transport Salaried Staffs Association, some of whose members will be affected by the closing of the railway. The position at the moment is that the clerical staff and supervisors in the general manager's department are going to have one scale of compensation and the rest of the clerical staff another. The simple proposition is that the same scale of compensation should apply to all the staff. I hope, and have some reason to believe, that the spokesman for the company will be able to give an assurance on that point, and it is to try to get such an assurance that I support the Motion.
  Mr. Tilney: On behalf of the company I am deputed to accept this Instruction, but there is a slight amendment to what was said by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). I will not

  1457
  go into the details, nor do I want to put it in legal language, but the House will appreciate that in a matter of this kind it is very difficult to make a hard and fast dividing line.
  The board hopes to give two weeks' salary or two weeks' wages to all conciliation grades who have been with the railway for 15 years on 1st April this year, or who are 55 years of age or more. That is approximately the suggestion. The actual details can be worked out upstairs in Committee, though I think that I must put in one rider. It is that if the Committee insists on the company paying out large sums of money for any other purpose of which we have no knowldege at the present time, it may be extremely difficult, and, also, that it may be necessary to pay only 75 per cent. immediately to all grades and 25 per cent. as soon as the money is available, but before the ordinary or preference shareholders are paid.
  Mr. Hynd: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the company will consult the unions concerned and perhaps try to arrange details with them without troubling the Committee upstairs?
  Mr. Tilney: Certainly.

  FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. G. B. Drayson: The reason my I objected to the Bill receiving an unopposed Second Reading on Monday was because it contains matters of vital importance to my constituency. Already 40 farmers, mostly my constituents, have petitioned the noble Lords in another place against certain provisions of the Bill, as did the West Riding County Council and a number of other bodies.
  Clause 3 of the Bill is the cause of most concern. By a 1925 Act the Fylde Water Board undertook to discharge 6½ million gallons of compensation water per day from the Stocks Reservoir into the River Hodder, both of which, of course, are situated in my constituency. Among other things, the Bill seeks to reduce the amount of compensation water to 3 million gallons per day, subsequently amended to 3 million gallons between October and May and 4 million gallons between May and September. That is still considered to be unsatisfactory even with a provision in Clause 4 for a water bank of 150 million gallons.
  It is still estimated, even if these conditions are complied with, that the river will lose about 960 million gallons of water per year. There would be nothing in return and certainly no financial compensation is proposed. I believe that 1 million gallons of water today is considered to be worth £100 so that the Fylde Water Board would be getting water to the value of £96,000 per annum.
  The present compensation water is based on a yield from the catchment of 33⅓ per cent. and the new proposal would reduce that to only approximately 20 per cent. I am informed that at no time has any Government committee suggested a figure of less than 25 per cent. to keep the river in proper condition. I suggest that the needs of the Fylde Water Board are not so urgent as has been made out. It has also been found that the Stocks Reservoir has never had less than 100 days' supply available up to the present, even during the drought of 1955.

  1459
  The Board has recently sunk two bore holes which, it is hoped, will be yielding at the rate of 8 million gallons per day in two years' time. There is no reason whatsoever why the Board should not sink further bore holes. If the Board relies on the River Hodder, it will be reduced from a full flowing river to a barren beck. Water is already taken from it by the Blackburn Corporation, Preston Corporation and Fulwood Urban District Council.
  It should be appreciated that the Fylde Water Board is permitted to receive up to 2 million gallons per day from the Manchester Corporation's Haweswater Aqueduct. Nothing has been said about what further approaches have been made to Manchester Corporation on that issue. That source does not seem to have been explored at all and it appears that the Board would rather take water free from the Skipton division than have it from the Manchester Corporation and pay for it.
  The Fylde Water Board estimates that its demands at present are 14½ million gallons a day which will rise to 21 million gallons a day in 1976, a difference of 6½ million gallons. That could easily be met by a vigorous boring programme and additional supplies from Manchester Corporation's aqueduct. From our knowledge of these things, we can be sure that the estimate for 1976 is likely to be on the top side. That is the statistical side of the problem.
  I should like now to say a few words about the agricultural, cultural and human aspects of the proposals. It is contended that a loss of this flow into the river would be a disaster to agriculture in the area where there is some of the best agricultural land in the North of England. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) is not still in his place, because we have bitter memories of his visit to the Hodder Valley when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. When he saw the nature of the land, he immediately returned to his office and instituted some of the most savage increases in farming rent that have ever been known in that part of the country. In fact, farmers in that area are only just beginning to recover from
  1460
  the blow he dealt them then—and now comes this proposal to reduce still further their available water.
  Since 1925, when the rate of compensation was fixed, there have been great changes in the nature of farming in the district. Whereas it was once principally a stock-raising area it is now largely devoted to milk production, and especially to attested herds. This means that there is a greater demand for water for cleaning and general dairy purposes. For the attested herds, too, it is essential to have an adequate supply of clean drinking water, and for the rivers themselves to be fast-flowing and unlikely to carry persistent water-borne infection. The reduction in the flow would add considerably to this risk.
  The Hodder River, through part of its course, is the boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire, so that Lancashire farmers are also vitally concerned in this matter. They also consider that the reduction in the compensation water to the river would have the effect of lowering its level, and that it would cease to be an effective boundary between the two counties. It would be quite impracticable to adopt a fencing programme adequate to meet this situation, and even if it were tried there would be a considerable loss of marginal grazing land.
  The area about which I am talking, which is on the West Riding side of the river, is shortly to become wholly attested, and will be designated as an eradication area. That is not yet the case on the Lancashire side of the river, and so there will be an added danger of contact between the attested herds on the Yorkshire side and the unproved stock on the other side.
  Mr. Richard Stanley: Does my hon. Friend mean that Yorkshire farmers are so good, with wonderful herds, and that Lancashire farmers are not? Does not he know about the idea of milk farms in Lancashire?
  Mr. Drayson: I do not want to go into the question of the relative merits of Yorkshire and Lancashire farmers at present, although I think that the Yorkshire farmers, in spite of their climatic and other difficulties, are some of the finest in the country.

  1461
  My point is that the Yorkshire side of the Hodder is about to become an attested area, and that if there is no effective barrier between the two counties there is a danger that the good cattle on our side may cross over and rub noses with the less worthy beasts on the Lancashire side.
  Sir John Barlow: Does my hon. Friend realise that the number of acres per cow in Lancashire is far greater than it is in Yorkshire, and that the cattle in Yorkshire, proportionately, are far fewer in number than in Lancashire?
  Mr. Drayson: Yes. The point I am trying to make is merely with regard to the area of Lancashire and Yorkshire where the Hodder River and Valley forms the boundary between the two counties. It is a distance of only about 10 to 15 miles. I am dealing only with the cattle in that area and am not making any suggestions about the general quality or stock throughout Lancashire itself.
  Apart from the valley being one of great natural beauty, there is high-quality fishing in the river, too. There is no suggestion in the Bill that there should be any compensation to the riparian owners for any loss in value that they suffer if the compensation water is reduced. That is a matter which could be very well dealt with, as the fishery boards keep a careful check of all the fish which are legitimately removed from the river, and over a period would be able to see whether they were reduced materially in numbers. Some system of compensation could, therefore, be worked out. As I have said, there would be a considerable effect on the value of the land if it was found that the fishing rights were seriously affected.
  This part of the country has been greatly improved in recent years. The standard of farming has gone up and it is playing its full part in its contribution to the national economy. These claims of agriculture rank no lower—in fact, they are higher—than those of a public water undertaking seeking the easy way to augment a possible future demand. I say that the proposals in Clause 3 are not justified either in principle or because of any recent change in circumstances, and I hope that before we see this Bill again suitable adjustments will have been made.
  10.37 p.m.
  Sir Roland Robinson: I am sure that the House listened with great interest to the remarks on the glories of Yorkshire from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson). On the other hand, many of us know that the good things of the country do not stop at any county boundary and that more or less the same conditions prevail on one side of the Hodder as on the other. Indeed, by hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) represents some of the finest farming lands in the country. We in Lancashire are indeed proud of them.
  I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton need feel so badly about the Fylde Water Board. It is not trying to steal anything from anybody, but it is charged with the responsibility of providing water for the people of its own area. It is not a matter of private enterprise it is a statutory body which has been set up to see that the people have their necessary water.
  Some of us are very keenly interested. As Member for Blackpool, South, I am affected very much. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) is equally concerned, as are my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). I shall try to put the case so that we need not take up too much of the time of the House at this rather late hour.
  The Fylde Water Board is a statutory body and it has the duty of supplying water to the people over an area of some 211 square miles. It covers four large and important holiday resorts—Blackpool, Lytham St. Annes, Fleetwood and Thornton Cleveleys—in addition to the remaining urban and rural districts of the Fylde. It has a resident population of 280,000 people. What is important, too, is that, these areas being holiday resorts, there is in the season a tremendous influx of population from Lancashire and from Yorkshire and, indeed, from all over the country who have to be catered for. Last year, about 7 million visitors came to Blackpool alone during the season. They all had to be looked after.
  It is not a matter of holidaymakers only. Fleetwood is one of the most important centres of the fishing industry. It needs a great deal of water for supplying

  1463
  ships and a tremendous quantity to provide the ice for fish packing. It is a matter of preserving the food for the people of the country. Fleetwood also has a new electricity power station, which is consuming a quarter of a million gallons of water a day.
  In Thornton Cleveleys there is a large and expanding factory owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, who know that during the next 18 months they will need a further 2·2 million gallons of water a day in order to carry on. The Atomic Energy Authority, which is working within the area of South Fylde, will need another 1 million gallons of water a day within the next year or so. These matters are important.
  Water is needed sometimes to help the people outside the area. Recently, there was trouble because for nearly two years the Fylde Water Board has been supplying an extra 2·2 million gallons of water per day to help Blackburn. Now the demand for water is so great that the Board can no longer fulfil the corporation's demand, and Blackburn has had to draw upon the supplies of the Manchester Corporation to make up the deficiency. At the same time, the Board is helping Preston and Fulwood, which are drawing bulk supplies to the extent of ½ million dollars a day. [Laughter.] Well, we all know that water is worth a lot of money to people. I meant to say "gallons."
  In this year, the safe supplies which the Water Board may rely upon are only 15 million gallons a day, while the present demand and consumption is 15½ million gallons per day. We are, therefore, steadily going down by that amount of the difference. The seasonal demand is rising. Apart from bulk supplies, the record figure was reached on 31st July, 1955, when more than 19 million gallons of water were used. Now at the beginning of the holiday season, the Fylde Water Board's normal supply in the reservoirs was down by more than 1,100 million gallons. The situation of the Water Board is, therefore, urgent and serious.
  There are remedies. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton asked how we could get more water to meet the demand. The first and easiest, and the most immediate, way would be to reduce
  1464
  the amount of compensation water which has to be put into the River Hodder. There are two other schemes. One is the development of underground water and the other is to build new reservoirs in a slightly different area. The last two suggestions are costly, and neither would give the amount of immediate relief which is necessary in the circumstances. My hon. Friend has made objection to the first suggestion, about reducing the amount of compensation water. Many years ago these things were based on ordinary rule-of-thumb: two-thirds of the water went into the reservoir and one-third to the river. In point of fact, the river has been rather fortunate because the proportion was based upon an erroneous calculation of the amount of water available. The river has had rather more than its third.
  This matter has been considered again. Those interested in the matter should be concerned mostly to see that whatever happens the water is not wasted and is put to the best use for the people, whoever they may be. The proper answer is that the matter should go to the Committee where evidence can be taken and the whole matter thrashed out in the proper way.
  The Bill has been considered in another place, where there was considerable opposition. Evidence was heard, and it was decided that the figure of compensation water during the winter season, from October to April, should be 3 million gallons a day, and in the summer, from May to September, to help people in fishing and with cattle, it should be 4 million gallons a day. In addition to that, the Water Board should provide a reserve bank of about 150 million gallons to be available to be put into the Hodder River at any time at the request of the Lancashire River Board, with a proviso that not more than 6 million gallons should be put in on any day. That seems a very reasonable solution.
  There have been objections from the point of view of those keen on fishing and other objections from the point of view of farmers, because of the fencing for their cattle fields. Others have thought of the problems of pollution. After all, this is clean water and may help with the problem lower down the river. The Hodder is a flashy river: water flows

  1465
  away quickly and the Water Board has the job of ensuring that it provides an even flow throughout the year. Under the proposed scheme the supply would never fall below 3 million gallons. Without the reservoir and the regulation of the flow there would be many times when it would fall below 3 million gallons. Last year, during the dry summer, the amount of water which would have come in naturally was only 1 million gallons a day.
  By providing this water I believe we should be helping the fishermen of whom my hon. Friend spoke. How much difference will it really make? A test was made on the night of 27th–28th March this year to see what would happen over a 12-hour period when the flow was reduced from 6½ million gallons to 3 million gallons a day. This is what happened at three check points. At Slaidburn it was down to 1·75 inches, at Newton it was down to 1 inch and at Burholme it was 1·425 inches. Yet my hon. Friend said this would be turning the river into a barren beck. It seems to me that he has very much overstated the case.
  In some ways it is a matter of technical argument which should be properly considered by the Committee. There is no principle at stake. It is recognised by this House that there will be variations in the amount of compensation water. In the last three water Bills, the Manchester Corporation Bill, in 1954, the Cardiff Corporation Bill, in 1955, and the Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill, in 1955, alterations in the amount of compensation water were made and accepted by this House. I suggest that my hon. Friends should let the Bill go to the Committee. It may be that the interests of my hon. Friends the Members for Skipton and Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) are rather different from what they realise. We already supply those two authorities with 27,000 gallons of water a day. If, as seems possible, we have a reorganisation of the water supplies of the country it seems to be odds on that the Fylde Water Board will be responsible for supplying Clitheroe Rural District Council and Bowland Rural District Council and my hon. Friends may find conflicting interests among their constituents. In the interests of all it would be far better if,
  1466
  after argument by counsel and examination of witnesses, the matter were decided by the Select Committee.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Fort: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) has certainly stated his case as persuasively as that case can be stated, although at the end of his speech he seemed to spike the argument of those of us who object to much in this Bill by pointing out that if we did not toe the line in a year or two perhaps our constituents would be at the mercy, for their water supplies, of those with whom we may feel we have to deal roughly this evening.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), I have constituents who object to this Bill living alongside the Hodder, which divides them from Yorkshire. We have not had the good fortune to have all our cattle attested and the area declared a clean area. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) said Fylde is raising its standards of animal husbandry towards the same end and it is expected that we in east Lancashire will be close behind them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton very exhaustively set out the main reasons for the objections to the Bill, and I have only one or two points to emphasize and one or two weaknesses to draw to the attention of the House in the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South has made. He rightly pointed out that under present arrangements the Fylde Water Board in its compensation water is taking about one-third from the catchment area, with two-thirds going into the reservoir. He described the concessions which were made when the Bill was considered in another place, but he failed to add that under the new proposals the average compensation water, if the House agreed to the Bill, would amount to only one-fifth of the water of the catchment area, which I understand is a good deal lower than in any other part of England where water is being taken from a non-industrial river. I think the House should be chary of accepting what I understand is a new principle in the amount of compensation water which is being put back into the river.
  Even it we accept the Bill, there are two points on which we feel that the pro-

  1467
  moters have treated our constituents roughly. One is a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton, that if damages to farming are proved—as I think they certainly will be on the boundary question—no provision is made in the Bill for compensation. The second, on which he touched and on which I want to enlarge for a few minutes, is the compensation for the angling associations.
  One of the local angling associations, that in Accrington, acquired in 1951 a stretch of water, the best part of three miles, on two banks of the river at Newton-by-Bowland, at a total cost of £1,900. It subsequently acquired another stretch of water on the very edge of my constituency at an annual rent of £150. In making those agreements with the riparian owners the angling association, and also the riparian owners, assumed that the fishing would be that of a river carrying 6½ million gallons a day of compensation water. The association and the other parties to the agreement are now convinced that with the marked reduction which will take place—and the figures given for March are not those for much of the fishing season—in the fishing will far from justify the amount of money which that angling association and no doubt others have paid for their fishing rights. If the House accepts the Bill, it would be only fair for the Promoters to insert compensation Clauses to deal with those features which have been left uncovered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South told us about the increasing demand for water in the statutory area of the Fylde Water Board, and he painted a pretty black picture of the way in which it is increasing, but he should have added that even in the very dry summer of 1955, when the flow in the river fell from its average of 24 million gallons a day to 16 million gallons a day, the Fylde Water Board still had, at the end of the drought period, 100 days' reserve in the Stocks reservoir.
  To all of us who are objecting to this Bill, it really seems that the promoters have been at least exaggerating their immediate danger. I have no doubt that what has been said about alternative water supplies is entirely correct. It is commonsense that the alternatives of the
  1468
  boreholes and the Manchester Hawes-water supply, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton referred, would cost some capital to bring into use, but the fact remains that even at the present time stocks of water are available and, one would have thought, are likely to be available for the next few years until the alternative sources can be developed.
  Furthermore, I understand that if there were a really drastic drought one year and the Fylde Water Board's area was facing a dangerous shortage it would be possible for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to operate a Defence Regulation of the last war which would allow emergency supplies of water to be drawn from the Hodder to meet the requirements of the Board. In these circumstances, I suggest that the House should seriously consider whether the promoters have made out a case strong enough to allow this Bill to go forward at all on Second Reading, whether it would not be more sensible to reject it now and to allow the promoters at a subsequent Session to bring forward a new Bill covering the points which the objectors have raised tonight, or whether we should allow the Measure to go forward to a Committee, at very considerable further expense to what are not rich organisations. I think that we should all listen carefully to this debate in order to make up our minds whether or not, in the light of the information put before us now, we divide.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am the last person in this House to underestimate the importance of amenity. I am even prepared to lend a sympathetic ear to the arguments of the fishermen, whose delight in the sport I do not share or even understand, but which I am prepared to encourage as a simple, innocent pleasure of which there are too few in this life of ours.
  I will be frank with the House and say that I look with great care at any proposition which comes before us which might tend to reduce or to wreck one of the few beauty spots near my constituency. The Hodder Valley is one such beauty spot, and one which is a constant source of weekend joy to hundreds of my constituents who visit it, particularly in the brief summer we have in that part of the world.

  1469
  That being so, I have given, I think, objective and dispassionate thought to this Bill, and I must say that at the end of that consideration I believe that the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) are quite unanswerable, and that it would be a frivolous piece of discrimination against the people in the Fylde Water Board's area for us even to try to reject the Second Reading of this Bill tonight.
  It is rather interesting that on this matter there is now, and has been for some time past, an alliance between Blackburn and Blackpool. The Chairman of the Blackburn Water Authority, Alderman Beardsworth, is, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, a member of the Lancashire River Board and for many months he has been conducting a one-man campaign in support of the plea of the Fylde Water Board for the introduction of this Bill.
  He has done that for a very simple reason. We in Blackburn have a constant headache over water supplies, and it really is quite frivolous for the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) to say, "Well, they are not really desperate. For most of the time they can just get by." But we in Blackburn, despite, I should have thought, a quite adequate supply of rainwater, are always on the edge of a water crisis. We know what it means, and that it is very easy for hon. Gentlemen to come here and say, "Find some alternative methods of supply." We have not been able to, and we are in a constant hand-to-mouth position.
  As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South said a little earlier, we have been very grateful to the Fylde Water Board for giving us a valuable 3 million gallons of supply, as long as it can manage to do this. Only recently, however, it had to come to us and say, despite our difficulties, "We are sorry, our demand is pressing so strongly against the capacity, that we think we will have to ask you to do without." So we have had to make desperate appeals to Manchester to come to our help, and substitute another source of supply for that which we got from Fylde.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And Manchester is short of water.
  Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is right, and I am coming to that point.
  It is ridiculous for opponents of the Bill to come here and say, "Oh, you can go to Manchester". Are they not aware that when Manchester helps us they have to say, "We are very sorry, but we cannot guarantee this water indefinitely. It is only temporary. We are drawing on our reserves at the rate of 7 million gallons a day, and although we will help you out we cannot promise to do this for ever"?
  I understand that there was a meeting in Blackburn yesterday with the Manchester officials, when we thanked them for the help they had brought us, and said, "Do keep it up as long as you can." But it is wrong for the opponents of this Bill to come along and say, "The Flyde Water Board can enter the Manchester queue and get supplies from there." It is just nonsense. This might mean a water crisis in Blackburn as there is in Blackpool and that area.
  I challenge the opponents of the Bill. Before they ask us to interfere with a vital matter like this, of maintaining essential water supplies for a growing area, before they say, "Oh, there could be some alternative sources of supply", they must be a little more specific. We have the hon. Gentleman the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) saying, "Why do you not have a vigorous boring programme?" If one did, one would have just the same objections coming from certain sectional interests who have been raising a hail of protest over this.
  I have here a report of the Ribble Fisheries Association. A gentleman who has been circularising, us all, the secretary of this association, has been the fountain-head of the opposition. He helped to fight the battle before the House of Lords Committee, and I was interested to find that this is not the first of these little efforts at increasing water supply which this association has opposed. He describes, in fact, how, when Blackburn Corporation sunk a borehole in the Dun-sop Valley, the association stepped in to object, and fought until it had the amount of abstraction reduced. So boreholes will not meet with the applause of the Fisheries Association.
  What then, if Manchester is out as a source of supply, is the alternative? "Oh", says the association glibly, "they

  1471
  can build a reservoir". Do some hon. Gentlemen opposite really say that the remedy is for the Fylde Water Board to build a reservoir? Will they get capital approval from this Government? Blackburn desperately wants to build a reservoir, and in principle have decided that they must build a reservoir, filtration plant, etc., at a cost of £4 million. But can we get Government sanction? We have desperate need for a modern sewage plant and dozens of other capital works, on which the Government are clamping down. They have just slashed our new building programme in the interests of the economy campaign, and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "You do not need do this. You can build a reservoir". It is on the objectors to this Bill that the onus lies to prove where is the alternative source of supply. We have heard statements made about interests which are going to be affected. I should have thought that the House of Lords was not particularly unsympathetic to agricultural interests, and yet it has turned down the objections and has authorised the Bill with certain modifications.
  Most of the outcry is coming from the pressure of the fishing fraternity, who have turned out to be a much more powerful lobby than I would have ever expected. Their claims, however, are quite spurious. What is never explained by the objectors is that the fisheries officer of the Lancashire Rivers Board has gone into this whole question of the state that the Hodder would be in if this extraction were to take place. When the Lords turned down objections, officials of the Lancashire Rivers Board got together with the officials of the Fylde Water Board and said, "Let us come to the best possible compromise so that the interests of both sides are safeguarded." As a result of that, the Fylde Water Board said that they could have £25,000 for the improvement of the Hodder by means of weirs and dams.
  I have here the report of the Fisheries Officer of the Lancashire Rivers Board. He says that a good deal of nonsense is talked about fishing interests, and he lays down a plan of how the money should be used. He concludes with these words:
  "There is no doubt whatever that if the full approval, consent and co-operation of all parties interested in the River Hodder could be obtained, the River … will be improved
  1472
  without any detriment whatever to farming, land drainage or other riparian interests."
  What we are being asked to do when we are asked to oppose the Bill is to give precedence to sectional and selfish interests over a great and urgent need in an important area of Lancashire.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) represents the bulk of Blackburn. I represent a section of it. The logic of her case I simply cannot understand. It is that because Blackburn rightly draws a certain amount of water from this area, it is therefore right that Blackpool should also draw some water from this area. The fact that Blackburn draws some water from this area means that there is even less water there than there would otherwise be, and less water to spare, and for that reason such water as is left has got to be carefully conserved for the natural users of the area.
  The natural users of the area, for all she may say—the farmers, the fishermen and others—are very worried that the 6½ million gallons of compensation water which, according to their understanding of two Statutes in this century, is to be sent down there, is to be unilaterally reduced. It seems to me to be an extraordinary state of affairs.
  Why is it that the landladies, tourists and holiday makers in Lytham St. Annes and Blackpool should have more claim to this water than the people who live on the banks of the river and farm and fish there? What is there in principle which entitles people miles away from the Ribble, the Hodder and the Calder to take preference to those who live on its banks? When there is a limited amount of water and when water is hot politics in Lancashire, as it certainly is, that is the question which justifies us in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill.
  If there were plenty of water, as there was in the old days, no doubt we could spare it for such worthy people as those who go to the coast for their holidays. But when water is in such short supply, and so valuable, I do not understand why it is that because Blackburn must take water from this area for its industrial needs, Blackpool and North Fylde should also take more water. Surely the argument is the other way round. It is because Blackburn needs the water that Black-

  1473
  pool, Lytham St. Annes and other seaside resorts should not have it. That must be so. That seems to me a perfect justification, for us for opposing, in principle, this Second Reading.
  The principle is that when one gets a state of desperate water shortage, as in the County Palatine of Lancaster—which, incidentally, must be one of the wettest places in England—then those who wish for more water, must bore holes or get water from the sea and soften it, or go to other places rather than rob other people; and to rob other people is what the Bill proposes. It proposes to rob the agricultural and fishing industries in an area where this commodity is far more valuable than it is, for example, in East Anglia, Dorset, Wales, or the West Country. It is desperately valuable in the Hodder or Ribble Valleys, set between vast urban conglomerations. Robbing them of water is rather like robbing a child's money box. Why should not rich places like Cleveleys, Lytham St. Annes and Blackpool get their own water instead of taking it from somebody else? At this late hour I close on that note, and am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary must agree with it.
  11.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): The House has been presented in the course of this debate with a wealth of statistical and other information. There has been argument as to the effect upon fishing, agricultural, and other riparian interests of the reduction of the compensation water from the Stocks Reservoir. There has been argument as to the needs of the Fylde Water Board and the practicability of its meeting those needs otherwise than by reducing the compensation water.
  From the welter of statistics I propose to select only one set; that which was
  1474
  given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), who stated that the average daily water consumption of the Fylde Water Board is running at present at 15½ million gallons against an availability of rather less than 15 million gallons—a situation which has to be seen in the context of a very heavy summer increase of demand in the area served by the Board. It is no part of my duty to vouch for these facts, although, if they be substantiated, they certainly constitute a very powerful argument, or for any other facts which have been urged for or against the Bill.
  What I submit is that the right conclusion can only be arrived at, not by discussion on the Floor of this House, but by hearing in Committee the contentions of counsel on both sides and the examination of witnesses. This is not a matter of principle, but one which can only he decided by Committee procedure. Already in the Committee stage in another place substantial modifications have been made to the Bill: the reduction in compensation water originally proposed has been modified and a "bank", as it is called, of 150 million gallons a year has been made available for discharge into the Hodder river. Further examination here might result in further modifications being made to the Bill, and it would be quite wrong, as a matter of principle, to say that in no circumstances should there be any reduction in the compensation water without giving the promoters and the opponents of the Bill the opportunity to state their case and fight it out in detail before the Committee. I therefore recommend the House, without prejudice to what might happen in Committee, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1954–55
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1955, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto

  SCHEDULE

  DEFICITS

  SURPLUSES

  No. of Vote

  Navy Services, 1954–55 Votes

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  3,882,386

  4

  2

  —

  —

  230,585

  16

  2

  2.

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  —

  780,178

  9

  5

  3,112,815

  8

  1

  —

  3.

  Medical Establishments and Services

  14,784

  4

  10

  —

  —

  21,551

  0

  11

  4.

  Civilians employed on Fleet Services

  —

  —

  2,830

  17

  8

  4,779

  18

  1

  5.

  Educational Services

  —

  —

  26,916

  4

  3

  430

  6

  8

  6.

  Scientific Services

  —

  —

  259,239

  7

  2

  211,604

  6

  6

  7.

  Royal Naval Reserves

  —

  —

  58,701

  9

  0

  1,792

  9

  2

  8.

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

  Section I.—Personnel

  1,685,835

  4

  9

  —

  —

  197,615

  14

  10

  Section II—Matériel

  172,647

  17

  1

  —

  —

  4,549,152

  18

  8

  Section III.—Contract Work

  —

  2,233,719

  18

  1

  666,167

  8

  0

  —

  9.

  Naval Armaments

  —

  1,589,382

  7

  6

  7,617,182

  5

  11

  —

  10.

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  324,080

  6

  5

  —

  —

  313,379

  0

  6

  11.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  362,189

  10

  6

  —

  —

  171,666

  15

  5

  12.

  Admiralty Office

  201,701

  0

  10

  —

  —

  7,627

  1

  8

  13.

  Non-Effective Services

  101,885

  19

  8

  —

  —

  65,553

  10

  4

  14.

  Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair

  3,217

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  15.

  Additional Married Quarters

  —

  155,880

  9

  8

  155,880

  9

  8

  —

  —

  Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

  51,369

  18

  6

  —

  —

  —

  6,800,097

  17

  7

  4,759,161

  4

  8

  11,899,733

  9

  9

  5,775,738

  18

  11

  Total Deficits: £11,559,259 2s. 3d.

  Total Surpluses: £17,675,472 8s. 8d.

  Net Surplus £6,116,213 6s. 5d.

  appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £6,116,213 6s. 5d., viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  17,675,472

  8

  8

  Total Deficits

  …

  11,559,259

  2

  3

  Net Surplus

  …

  £6,116,213

  6

  5

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire to make some observations on this matter and also to interrogate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because in my view we have now reached a very serious situation. Our duty in Committee of Supply is to be an instrument of constructive criticism of the administration. In the Motion appeared the words "temporarily authorised." How long is "temporarily"? Is the Treasury power of virement justified when millions of pounds are at stake and when our hard-pressed people are the most heavily taxed in the world?
  I charge the Treasury with having exceeded its authority derived from the virement of expenditure. The fifth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts said:
  "Your Committee have reviewed the exercise by the Treasury of their powers under the annual Appropriation Act to sanction provisionally, subject to subsequent confirmation by Parliament,"—
  which I interpret as meaning that I am fully justified in speaking within the limits set and taking objection to the Treasury taking advantage of this authority—
  "the application of surpluses on any Votes of a Service Department to meet deficits on other Votes of the same Department. They see no reason why Parliament should not sanction the virement temporarily authorised by the Treasury."
  I emphasise the last words. That is a very perfunctory Report. It has no explanation, no explanatory memorandum. It would have been serious in the days of the Monk Resolution of 100 years ago when only shillings were involved. Today, when millions of pounds are involved, it becomes our duty to take a stand, no matter what the time of day.
  I have before me the national accounts of public income and expenditure. For National Debt service alone we are finding £674 million, for the Army Votes £462 million, for the Navy Votes £337 million and for the Air Votes £431 million. What I shall say will apply to all the items on the Order Paper, but I believe in avoiding repetition and in putting my case in as few words as possible, and so I propose to confine myself to the
  1478
  Navy figures, although what I have to say applies to the others as well.
  It is time that the House of Commons took action to prevent this prodigious spending and manipulation of millions of pounds. I understand that no alteration in an Estimate may be made without Treasury approval. How can we have effective Parliamentary control if we allow the financial manipulation of millions of pounds, such as we see on the Order Paper? Erskine May says that the Commons do not vote money unless it is required by the Crown.
  We have already voted £124·3 million not required this year. The Order Paper gives a figure of £87·8 million, and further savings of £36·5 millions have been made. This is a national scandal of incompetent estimating and the irresponsible handling of millions of pounds.
  One of the duties of the House of Commons is the scrutinising of Estimates and expenditure, but how can it carry out that duty if virement is used to this extent? The Treasury are using it to an extent never intended in time of peace. The Treasury provides millions of pounds for the Service Departments, but does not act similarly when dealing with civil needs. In that case it watches every shilling. The absolute power of the Treasury and the military conflicts with the financial control of Parliament.
  The Monk Resolutions of 1879 are out of date. In the last war I had dealings with the Army Council in connection with a secret weapon, and my confidence in that Council was shaken as a result of that experience. General Weeks and General King restored it. I should like to know if I am correct in my estimation of the way in which the Council functions. I understand that a minute is made to a short statement that the Army Council has reported that excesses are likely to arise on certain Votes and surpluses on others.
  For the purpose of greater accuracy, and so that I shall remain in order, I have with me a copy of Erskine May. I know that I should not be in order in dealing with the surpluses and deficits, but I am in order in speaking as I have been speaking.
  In the alleged public interest the Treasury have authorised financial

  1479
  juggling to proceed by this power of virement. We are not allowed to ask questions or to discuss the transactions of the Treasury and the Army Council. This subordinates Parliamentary control to that of the Treasury and the military. One hundred years ago it was a matter of dealing with shillings; today millions of pounds are dealt with. The House has a duty to watch this procedure, even at 11.30 p.m.
  To say that it is only temporary is equivalent to issuing a blank cheque for use as one likes. I believe that we are suffering from a legacy of the last war. I accept my share of responsibility, but it is now 15 years since we voted millions of pounds, blank cheques of credit, and colossal increases in taxation. Ten years after the war we are still spending £1,600 million on armaments. In addition to having a greater percentage of our national income than that of any other country utilised in this way, we suffer from the effects of the strain of two world wars.
  11.30 p.m.
  The millions of pounds which have been voted should never have been used like this. Erskine May states that the Commons does not vote money unless it is required by the Crown. This year, we have voted the millions to the extent that I have mentioned. We need to remind ourselves of the procedure by which these millions of pounds are granted. The Crown makes its needs known to Parliament. This means that the Crown has asked for £123 million more than was required. The House of Commons grants the sums demanded, and so we are responsible and cannot contract out of our responsibility. The Committee of Ways and Means sanctioned the issue from the Consolidated Fund, but it was never intended that our millions of pounds should be played about with in this manner and I refuse to be a party to it.
  I was going to quote from the Economist but, in view of the time, I do not propose to do that. I do, however, say that in days when we are economising at the expense of poor children's food and of people's dinners and in many other ways, this Committee ought to have been packed with Members, on both sides, doing their duty in the way that it
  1480
  was intended that effective Parliamentary control should operate.
  I am a product of large-scale industry. Between the two wars, we had to estimate to a matter of shillings to enable us to quote for contracts when we were subjected to world competition. Had we estimated in the way that Estimates appear on the Order Paper, we would have lost our jobs time after time. The time has arrived, therefore, when this Committee in particular, and Parliament in general, should take more notice of what appears on the Order Paper and what appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  As is stated in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 7th June, 1956, I asked the Leader of the House a question about a Motion which appeared on the Order Paper. The Motion was in these terms:
  "This House urges Her Majesty's Government to move for a Select Committee which shall consider and report on … the voting of credit and the need for a detailed examination of Departmental expenditure and any other suggestions which would assist the House and facilitate business."
  Since 1945, a large number of young men and a few young women have come into the House of Commons. They have brought new ideas, they have come in determined to do their duty. In my view, we should be giving them greater facilities in carrying out that duty than we are doing. The time has arrived when the House of Commons should agree to these matters being referred to a Select Committee so that we can do our duty in a more enlightened and modern manner than we have done during the past 10 years in voting the millions of pounds in the way that we have done.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) knows from previous debates that I welcome the active interest which he takes in Parliamentary control of expenditure, and I should like to congratulate him on the rare feat of having made a speech on this Vote which was entirely in order. I will do my best to answer him.
  First, however, I hope the hon. Member will not mind if I react rather violently to his allegation that the Treasury has behaved in a manner not authorised by the House of Commons. The Treasury's action in this is directly authorised by successive Appropriation Acts. On this occasion, we are discussing

  1481
  expenditure incurred in the year 1954–55, and the hon. Member will find that the power given to the Treasury to exercise virement on a temporary basis and subject to certain conditions, which he did not mention, was directly given by the House in the Appropriation Act, 1954.
  The history of this matter is less than 100 years old. We are today carrying out a procedure based on a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in 1864. Since then, so far as I can ascertain, the Public Accounts Committee, a Select Committee of the House on the advice and guidance of which we largely rely in these financial matters, has been content with the present arrangement. It is true that 15 years later, in March, 1879, a Mr. Monk moved a Resolution which is not the direct predecessor of the Resolutions to which he has given his name, but that made no fundamental difference. What we are doing is based on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee 92 years ago.
  Briefly, the procedure is this: The Appropriation Act empowers the Treasury to exercise virement on a temporary basis, but subject to the strict condition that the total expenditure of the Service concerned must not exceed that which has been directly voted by Parliament. Moreover, if the Service Department were to embark upon expenditure which should undoubtedly be brought at once to the notice of Parliament, the Treasury would not agree to exercise those powers but would insist on the Service Department bringing forward a Supplementary Estimate. If the hon. Member will look at the records, he will find frequent occasions where, despite this power given to the Treasury, a Service Department has laid a Supplementary Estimate.
  In the present case, before the end of the financial year 1954–55 the Service Departments intimated to the Treasury that they would seek the exercise by the Treasury of virement. The Treasury, having examined the matter, reported to the House before the end of the financial year that, in the circumstances, it felt that a case had been made out. The hon. Gentleman may ask why the House did not hear about it earlier. The answer is that the House can hardly proceed further until the Appropriation Accounts are completed and have been examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  1482
  If the hon. Member will look at the Appropriation Accounts for the Service Departments for 1954–55, he will find that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on them is dated in each case "March, 1956." It is only after that date that the matter can come to the Public Accounts Committee. He has quite rightly drawn attention to the 5th Report of the Public Accounts Committee dated 15th May, 1956, in which the Committee say—I think I am entitled to read this to the Committee—that they saw
  "no reason why Parliament should not sanction the virement temporarily authorised by the Treasury in their Minutes laid before the House in February, 1956."
  The Public Accounts Committee is a formidable body, and it is advised by the principal individual watchdog on behalf of this House, the principal official watch-dog, the Comptroller and Auditor General—who is the official, not of the Government, but of the House. I think, therefore, I am entitled to say to the Committee that if the Public Accounts Committee, advised by so great an authority as the Comptroller and Auditor General is satisfied to recommend that Parliament should sanction this virement, I am acting reasonably in coming forward to this Committee and asking for the sanction.
  If these Resolutions are agreed to in this Committee and on Report, I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that the matter must be finally enacted in the Appropriation Bill which will be submitted in a short time, before the end of this month. We are abiding by a strict system which has been laid down for us over many years. If the Public Accounts Committee were at any time to question anything we did, we at the Treasury would certainly pay very great regard to that.
  I hope the hon. Member will not too often criticise if money has been saved. It is quite true that these accounts indicate that there has been underspending of some £136 million offset by overspending on other Votes. I think it fair to say that in the Defence Departments it is particularly difficult to estimate expenditure before the beginning of the year. There may be extra needs, or needs may be diminished by international changes during the course of the

  1483
  year. Although I know that my right hon. Friends in charge of the Defence Departments do their very best, and I know the Treasury scrutinises their Estimates as carefully as it scrutinises any other Estimates, nevertheless there is bound to be a greater margin of error in the Defence Estimates because of the nature of the services than in the Civil Estimates.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept the line of reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman up to this point, but, seeing that we are now dealing with millions and the economic situation is so serious, has not the time arrived when there should be a tightening up of estimating?
  Mr. Brooke: If I may say so with respect, that is a matter for debates on the Service Estimates in the spring. Certainly the hon. Member will get the full support of the Treasury in any plea he makes for strict estimating, but he will appreciate that here we are dealing with expenditure incurred in 1954–55 on Estimates which were presented 2½ years ago. I hope the hon. Member will agree that I have answered his questions as fully

  SCHEDULE

  DEFICITS

  SURPLUSES

  No. of Vote

  Army Services, 1954–55, Votes

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1.

  Pay, &c., of the Army

  7,156,951

  18

  1

  701,102

  8

  10

  —

  —

  2.

  Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces

  —

  —

  1,875,535

  4

  3

  5,006

  12

  8

  3.

  War Office

  103,179

  16

  7

  —

  —

  8,931

  13

  7

  4.

  Civilians

  —

  —

  1,518,990

  4

  10

  177,095

  14

  5

  5.

  Movements

  —

  —

  1,518,990

  4

  10

  177,095

  14

  5

  6.

  Supplies, &c.

  —

  3,200,822

  4

  11

  8,782,604

  0

  11

  —

  7.

  Stores

  —

  1,663,406

  13

  5

  51,322,133

  13

  3

  —

  8.

  Works, Buildings and Lands

  —

  —

  5,987,589

  17

  9

  663,774

  13

  8

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  1,725,196

  7

  11

  1,444,521

  2

  4

  —

  —

  10.

  Non-Effective Services

  —

  8,321

  3

  6

  263,496

  15

  1

  —

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  —

  4,399,813

  16

  11

  1,613,893

  5

  10

  —

  —

  Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

  62,302

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  9,047,630

  6

  -

  11,422,063

  5

  3

  73,454,861

  13

  -

  854,808

  14

  4

  Total Deficits: £20,469,693 11s. 3d.

  Total Surpluses: £74,309,670 7s. 4d.

  Net Surplus £53,839,976 16s. 1d.

  Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  as I can and have taken his speech seriously.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  74,309,670

  7

  4

  Total Deficits

  …

  20,469,693

  11

  3

  Net Surplus

  …

  £53,839,976

  16

  1

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

  (1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £2,785,920 11s. 1d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

  (2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

  III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1955, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £28,041,822 3s. 3d.. viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  44,524,266

  12

  6

  Total Deficits

  …

  16,482,444

  9

  3

  Net Surplus

  …

  £28,041,822

  3

  3

  SCHEDULE

  DEFICITS

  SURPLUSES

  No. of Vote

  Air Services, 1954–55 Votes

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1.

  Pay, & c., of the Air Force

  3,441,536

  3

  7

  19,020

  4

  0

  —

  —

  2.

  Reserve and Auxiliary Services

  —

  —

  210,746

  11

  9

  1,297

  7

  11

  3.

  Air Ministry

  137,729

  15

  5

  38,499

  17

  1

  —

  —

  4.

  Civilians at Outstations

  213,461

  3

  10

  —

  —

  644,453

  19

  10

  5.

  Movements

  98,378

  8

  9

  —

  —

  597,190

  7

  4

  6.

  Supplies

  —

  —

  19,715,397

  15

  1

  24,129

  17

  8

  7.

  Aircraft and Stores

  —

  5,452,288

  17

  11

  497,708

  6

  7

  —

  8.

  Works and Lands

  —

  3,068,336

  11

  5

  20,210,652

  6

  2

  —

  9.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  —

  787,589

  12

  3

  348,134

  17

  2

  10.

  Non-effective Services

  —

  —

  218,659

  8

  6

  13,959

  8

  0

  11.

  Additional Married Quarters

  —

  4,000,000

  0

  0

  1,254,346

  14

  3

  —

  —

  Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

  13,193

  7

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3,904,298

  18

  10

  12,578,145

  10

  5

  42,895,100

  14

  7

  1,629,165

  17

  11

  Total Deficits: £16,482,444 9s. 3d.

  Total Surpluses: £44,524,266 12s. 6d.

  Net Surplus £28,041,822 3s. 3d.

  Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
  1486
  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised:

  (1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Air Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £2,745,653 5s. 9d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953.

  (2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

  CLEAN AIR BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  CLEAN AIR BILL

    Clause 3.—(REQUIREMENT THAT NEW FURNACES SHALL BE SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE SMOKELESS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 25, leave out from "building" to second "to" in line 27 and insert:
    "or in any boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed."
    11.45 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    If this Amendment were not made, an undesirable result would follow. If a boiler or plant were installed on land outside a building and a furnace had already been fitted in that boiler or plant before its installation, it would escape from the restrictions and control which the Bill otherwise places upon out-door installations. The Amendment closes that gap.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 3, line 43, leave out "as part of" and insert "in".—[Mr. Powell.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 5, at end insert:
    "not being furnaces of boilers with a maximum heating capacity of fifty-five thousand or more British thermal units per hour."
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    When the Bill was passing through the House considerable anxiety was felt about the exemption from Clause 3 of furnaces to heat domestic premises and it was argued that many such furnaces, where the domestic premises were very large, such as a block of flats or a hotel, might be entirely comparable in their smoke producing capabilities with industrial plant. Eventually the suggestion was made that the way to achieve the desired distinction between small domestic appliances, which no one desired to control, and the larger appliances comparable with industrial appliances was to find some distinction of size or capacity.
    Their Lordships took up this suggestion and they have produced the Amendment,
    1488
    which makes a maximum heating capacity of 55,000 B.Th.U. per hour the dividing line. I understand that that dividing line is adopted because it is the largest British Standard specification for purely domestic plant of the character which we have in mind. It would exclude from control by the Bill appliances suitable for heating buildings containing up to five to seven bedrooms. I think that is the kind of distinction which the House wished to see drawn.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I still feel that it is rather odd that we could not get agreement for the modest and to our mind very simple Amendment which we on this side of the House put down earlier and which followed precisely the provisions in the Manchester Act. We believe that this Amendment meets the point and we are therefore satisfied.
    Mr. David Jones: We are thankful in this connection for small mercies. We are pleased to note that the Ministry is prepared to listen to the plea of another place, although it was not prepared to listen to sound, solid arguments advanced for this kind of thing being done when the Bill was examined in Committee. I argued the point, based on information supplied by people who know a good deal about this—the Association of Municipal Corporations. We are glad that at last the Government have decided to listen, even in an indirect way, to what the Association of Municipal Corporations suggestion ought to be done.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendment agreed to:
    In page 4, line 5, at end insert:
    "(5) This section shall apply in relation to the attachment to a building of a boiler or industrial plant which already contains a furnace or the fixing to or installation on any land of any such boiler or plant as it applies in relation to the installation of a furnace in any boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land."—[Mr. Powell.]

    Clause 5.—(REQUIREMENT THAT GRIT AND DUST FROM FURNACES SHALL BE MINIMISED.)
    Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 4, line 35, at end insert:
    "not being furnaces of boilers with a maximum heating capacity of fifty-five thousand or more British thermal units per hour."—[Mr. Powell.]
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Throughout the Bill in Committee Amendments were made to bring outdoor installations under the same kind of control as indoor installations. Those Amendments, however, were not applied to Clauses 6 and 7, which relate to large furnaces consuming either pulverised fuel or solid fuel at a very high rate.
    However, during the passage of the Bill through this House it was also decided to reduce the limiting rate of burning which would bring furnaces under the control of those Clauses, and in view of the fact that many more furnaces, and much smaller furnaces, are now covered by those Clauses it seems possible that outdoor installations might now fall within the category of Clauses 6 and 7. The effect of this Amendment is to ensure that they also will be covered in respect of grit and dust.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause A.—(GRIT AND DUST FROM OUTDOOR FURNACES, &C.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 34, at end insert:
    "A.—The four last preceding sections shall apply in relation to the furnace of any boiler or industrial plant (being a boiler or plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land) as they apply in relation to a furnace in a building:
    Provided that—

    (a) in relation to a furnace which is not in a building, the references in those sections to the occupier of the building shall be construed as references to the person having possession of the boiler or plant; and

    (b) in relation to a furnace which is already contained in any such boiler or industrial plant, the references in subsection (2) of section six of this Act to the installation and to the purchase of a furnace shall be construed as references to attaching the boiler or plant to the building or fixing it to or installing it on any land and to purchasing it respectively."

    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is the main Amendment giving effect to the result which I have just described.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 19.—(VESSELS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 15, after "are" insert:
    "within the seaward limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and are".
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This seemed a desirable Amendment in order to ensure that waters outside the territorial limits of the United Kingdom should not be covered by the Bill. It is of very little practical effect, since it is difficult to foresee a local authority taking action against a vessel more than three miles from the coast, but it seemed desirable to have the wording right.
    Question put and agreed to.

    New Clause B.—(EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATIONS AND RESEARCH.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 26, at end insert:
    "B.—(1) If the local authority are satisfied, on the application of any person interested, that it is expedient so to do for the purpose of enabling investigations or research relevant to the problem of the pollution of the air to be carried out without rendering the applicant liable to proceedings brought under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, the local authority may by notice in writing given to the applicant exempt, wholly or to a limited extent,—

    (a) any chimney from the operation of sections one, five, ten, fifteen and eighteen of this Act;

    (b) any furnace, boiler or industrial plant from the operation of subsection (1) of section three of this Act;

    (c) any furnace or oven from the operation of sections six and seven of this Act,

    in each case subject to such conditions, if any, and for such period as may be specified in the notice.
    (2) Any person who has applied to the local authority for an exemption under this section may, if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the authority on the application, appeal to the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, by notice in writing given to the applicant and the local authority, give any exemption which the authority might have given or vary the terms of any exemption which they have given."
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    On Report stage in this House the desirability was pointed out of having some exemption from the provisions of the

    1491
    Bill where experiment in the reduction of pollution of the air was deliberately being carried out, and this new Clause provides the means of that exemption. It will be seen that it is the local authority, that is, the enforcing authority for the purposes of the Bill, which will give such exemption as it thinks to be expedient for the purposes in question, and it need only give exemption to the extent to which it considers it to be necessary in the circumstances, though there is a right of appeal to the Minister by an aggrieved applicant.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: We are all very anxious indeed that there should be the widest and fullest amount of research and experiment going forward. Indeed, we hope that that will be one of the main consequences of the Bill's going through. We are, therefore, prepared to accept these limited exemptions for this purpose. But may I take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether he has any remarks to make as to when the various parts of this Bill will be likely to come into operation? How quickly can we expect any action in the laying of Orders?
    Mr. Speaker: I doubt if that would be in order on this Lords Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 29.—(APPLICATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1936, &c.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (4), and insert:
    "(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that where a port health authority or joint board has functions, rights or liabilities under this Act—

    (a) any reference in this Act to a local authority or its district includes, in relation to those functions, rights or liabilities, a reference to the port health authority or board or its district;

    1492

    (b) for the purposes of this Act, no part of the district of any such port health authority or board is to be treated, in relation to any matter falling within the competence of the authority or board, as forming part of the district of any other authority."

    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is something more than a drafting Amendment. Port health authorities have some of the functions, but not all of the functions, of local health authorities. It was, therefore, necessary to amend subsection (4) of Clause 29 so that the port health authority was the smoke control authority only in so far as its health functions extended. But that for the rest, those powers of control would remain with the local health authority.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF ALKALI, &C. WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1906.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 26, leave out "In section six for subsection (3)" and insert "For subsection (3) of section six."
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 19, at end insert:
    "(3) In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (2) shall be omitted."
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is purely drafting.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
  Lords Amendment considered.
  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL

    First Schedule.—(MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS IN RELATION TO TEACHERS ELECTING UNDER S. 10 OF THIS ACT.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 55, at end insert:

    "The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956.

    Section eleven …

    In the definition of basic rate', the reference to the annual rate of the pension shall be construed as referring to so much only of the pension as would have been payable apart from the election."

    11.56 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises the question of Privilege, and if the House agrees with it I will cause a Special Entry to be made.
    Mr. Vosper: This Amendment is really consequential to the enactment of the Pensions (Increase) Bill. Clause 10 of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill makes it possible for a teacher to surrender his or her lump sum in return for an increase in pension. But it also makes clear, in conjunction with the First Schedule, that that increase shall not count under the Pensions (Increase) Acts then in force and those Acts listed in Schedule 1. This Amendment adds the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956, to the other Acts listed in the Schedule and makes clear that the basic pension is the pension before election to add the lump sum is made.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: It is fitting that the last stage of this repulsive measure should be an Amendment designed to make quite certain that no teacher shall get a penny more than he might conceivably be entitled to. It is fully in accord with the spirit of the whole Bill. However, we must all accept the fact that, if the Bill were to pass with-
    1494
    out this Amendment, it would create all sorts of anomalies and give rise to repercussions elsewhere.
    We know that we cannot hope now to rescue from its ill effects those who will be injured by this Bill. There are some teachers who will benefit from certain provisions of the Bill, and we might do them real injury if we were in any way to delay the passage of the Bill any further. We can say of this Bill, as was said of King Lear,
    "… he hates him
    That would upon the rack of this rough world
    Stretch him out longer."
    Question put and agreed to.

  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES)
  11.58 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move,
  That the Draft British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  These Regulations are in fulfilment of a pledge I gave on Second Reading of the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill to correct some anomalies which, I think, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) knows full well about. They have been fully agreed with the seven trade unions concerned and are fully retrospective. They cover not only those who are still in the employment of the Commission or the Parcels Company, but those who might have left this employment but were in this employment at the proper time. So full protection is given. This implements not only my pledge but has the full agreement of the unions.
  11.59 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Since the Minister has given the assurance that these Regulations have been fully agreed by the trade unions, which I also understand, there is obviously little that need be said concerning them. I take it that they mean now that all employees, whether employees of the British Transport Commission as such, or whether employed in the companies they

  1495
  control, directly or indirectly, will be treated on a parity—that there will be complete equality in the way in which those employees are treated? Looking at these Regulations, one cannot help realising that, while they are necessary to prevent anomalies and to bring everything into line, they would not be necessary but for the continuation of disposals, upon which the Government have decided.
  It is interesting to note in these Regulations that there is a provision relating to those who
  "had been continuously employed as an officer or servant since the 31st December, 1951."
  Those words are added, and they quite clearly were not included in the previous Regulations because it could not have been foreseen, and certainly was not accepted by the Government, that they could be employees of the Commission in the road haulage undertaking who would be continuously employed some eight years after the Government policy was announced.
  In other words, at that time it was not considered likely that there would be people who would be employed by the Commission after 31st December, 1951, and then still be in the employ eight years after. That can easily happen now, in view of the fact that the parcels company, we hope, is not to be disposed of for some time, and we naturally hope not at all, and quite clearly some employees might be with the parcels company for considerably longer than eight years from 31st December, 1951. They might have joined it after that date, and then there would be a subsequent eight years.
  I only mention that to draw attention to the fact that these Regulations have had to take into account the earlier Government policy relating to disposal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) (Amendment) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

  INSURED PERSONS (DISCLOSURE OF ADDRESSES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]
  12.2 a.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance will not be unacquainted with the matter that I wish to raise tonight. She will be aware that I have had correspondence with the Ministry recently about the matter, and because the outcome of that correspondence was unsatisfactory on 14th May I put down a Question to the Minister. The Minister's reply to that Question was as unsatisfactory as his reply to my correspondence, and for that reason I felt that this matter ought to be ventilated further. Hence the reason for seeking to raise it on the Adjournment.
  I am well aware of the line which the Minister takes. He takes refuge in the fact that from 1911 every Minister has adopted the policy that, because these names and addresses are obtained under Statute, and because it is accepted that they are secret, he would be guilty of a breach of faith if he disclosed to aggrieved persons the addresses which I am seeking that he should disclose. The Minister does not feel that there should be any exceptions to the general rule which he has laid down.
  I think that most people would agree with the broad principle that the information which the Minister obtains under statute law ought not to be divulged to any third person, but there ought to be exceptions, and if there are not exceptions it means that, in the case in which I am interested, the Minister is guilty of condoning what is a basic wrong by witholding information and thus witholding elementary justice to the people on whose behalf I am speaking.
  The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of unmarried mothers in this country who have gone to the courts and have obtained affiliation orders. After an order has been obtained, the man against whom it is made disappears, and, despite every effort by the unmarried

  1497
  mother to trace where he is, she is unable to find him. In cases of this kind, the distress, anxiety and worry to the unmarried girl is almost beyond understanding.
  Of course, the same applies to a married mother—a woman who, for some reason, is parted from her husband and obtains a maintenance order for herself and probably for her children. After the order has been awarded, the husband disappears and she is left with the responsibility of trying to bring up a family when the man who should act as the breadwinner has disappeared. She consequently has no money and no income in the ordinary way, and it does not take much imagination to understand the worry and the anxiety which both married and unmarried mothers are faced with in these circumstances. Very often it means that, after trying for some weeks to trace the man who should be paying alimony or maintenance, they are forced to go out to work.
  There are very many people in this country who feel that the place of a mother is with her children in the home, and especially if they are young children. Yet, because the Minister refuses to disclose the information which would enable these mothers to stay at home, many have to go out to seek employment in order to maintain themselves and their children. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try to understand what that means, particularly in the case of a married mother. It means that the children have not only lost their father because he has disappeared, but it also means that at a time when the strain in the home is very great the children are bound to be affected. It is a time when the care and affection of their mother is needed more than ever in order to help repair the damage; but the mother has to leave them for most of the day and they have to fend for themselves.
  I now come to what I think is a rather remarkable thing. It is that some of these mothers, faced with the circumstances which I have described, go to the National Assistance Board, and while the Minister refuses to disclose to the mothers the whereabouts of the fathers, I am given to understand that once a mother goes to the Board and thereby becomes a charge on public funds the Minister does disclose the whereabouts of the father.
  1498
  The Minister discloses it, however, to the Board.
  I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to speak to some of these unmarried mothers—and some of the married ones—and try to appreciate all that they are going through. If a man in this country steals a bottle of milk, or "pinches" a turnip out of a field, or commits the smallest crime which is indictable, then the whole force of the police is placed against him in order to try to bring him to justice.
  I cannot understand why we are so keen to catch a man who is guilty of such an infinitesimal crime of that character, while we are prepared to do nothing to catch up with the man who may owe £200, £300, £400 or, in one case which has been brought to my attention, £500. In circumstances of that kind, why should the Ministry refuse to help these unfortunate mothers, whether married or not?
  Before I came to the House, I knew of a woman in circumstances such as I have outlined. Her husband had gone, she did not know to which town, but she did know to which county. I did not then have the facilities to find out where this man was which I might now have, but with a number of friends I waded through the electoral registers for that county and eventually we caught up with him. Is it not wrong that ordinary citizens should have to go through that rigmarole with all its trouble and expense when a single word from the Ministry would avoid it?
  It is because of that that I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the general principle involved. Tonight I have deliberately refrained from referring to any of the letters which I have received on this subject, because I did not want to mention names, addresses or details and thus embarrass those concerned. I cannot believe that there would be a great public outcry, a great betrayal of confidence, if the Ministry agreed that where a court order for maintenance or an affiliation order has been granted—and that is all I ask—and where the man has disappeared the Ministry should help those who would benefit from such an order to catch up with the man by giving the mother or wife concerned his address.
  I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to appreciate that tonight there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of mothers

  1499
  suffering a great deal of anxiety and worry because of the very circumstances which I have tried to portray. The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend are in charge of one of our greatest social services. It is a social service which is known for its humanity, its understanding and its kindness. The attitude which the Ministry adopts towards the issue which I have raised tonight is a blot on an otherwise admirable administration. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to tell me that her Ministry will meet my request. If she can tell me that, her name will be blessed by countless mothers.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I desire to support the very earnest plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I am led to do so by a very distressing case, with which I recently dealt, in my constituency. It concerned a married woman separated from her husband who had deserted her and against whom she had obtained a maintenance order on the ground of desertion a considerable number of years ago. He disappeared and was apparently traced to Canada.
  There, after considerable effort, the order was registered in one of the courts in Ontario. Unfortunately, before the Canadian authorities could take steps to enforce the order, the court of appeal in Ontario declared that the Ontario Act for the reciprocal enfocement of maintenance orders was ultra vires. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court, and we were told to await its decision. The original registration was in August, 1953, and eventually, a few months ago, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court and it then became possible to take steps to try to enforce the order in Canada.
  As soon as we tried to do so we found that the man had returned to this country, We tried to trace him, but were unable to do so. He was a pensioner, and so I eventually communicated with the Ministry of Pensions. The answer I got was to the effect that it knew little about the man, but it could not help in any way in supplying information with regard to tracing him.
  1500
  That is a concrete case of a woman who had a separation order, made immense efforts to trace her husband, was unfortunate in her efforts to enforce the order in Canada, had been doing all she could for many years, and is now unable to do anything more simply because the Ministry refuses to supply the information which is in its possession.
  One can understand the reluctance of the Ministry to supply information generally, but surely it can exercise a measure of discretion in certain cases. If a case of this kind, or of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend, were brought to the attention of the Ministry, surely it would be proper for the matter to be investigated, and for the Ministry to exercise its discretion if it were found to be justified, and supply the necessary information to enable the woman concerned to take action to enforce the order.
  I am authorised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle)—who was unable to remain tonight—who is Deputy Chairman of the Magistrates' Association, to say that he and many other magistrates are extremely concerned about the position. They feel that a great deal of injustice results from the failure of the Ministry to disclose this information. I hope that the Ministry will see its way to change its attitude in regard to this matter.
  12.18 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): We all have considerable sympathy with the situation of the deserted wife or mother, and we understand the distress, worry and anxiety to which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) referred. My remarks will also cover the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzmann). The hon. Member for Jarrow need not ask me to talk to unmarried mothers to learn about their problems, because for seven or eight years I served in the city of Birmingham on the committee which looked after unmarried mothers and have real and practical experience of the problem. The law gives certain rights of maintenance to the women about whom we are talking tonight.
  It is scarcely necessary for me to state that the Ministry has no desire to protect the husband or father who absconds

  1501
  to avoid his responsibilities under a maintenance order. However, the proposal made by the hon. Member for Jarrow, that the address of the absconding husband or father, as supplied by him to us for National Insurance records, should be given to the wife or mother who has secured a maintenance order, raises rather difficult and delicate issues, and has much wider implications, which must be considered.
  The Ministry obtains addresses and a great deal of other personal information in connection with the operation of the National Insurance Scheme. The scheme is universal and compulsory. Addresses and certain other information are obtained from all insured under the scheme. Further, when claims for benefit are made, it may be necessary to ask for quite detailed information about an individual's personal circumstances. Although National Insurance became universal only in 1948, this kind of personal information has been obtained from large sections of the public under the old schemes since 1911.
  It is clear that from the outset it was appreciated that the question of using any of this information, including addresses, about private citizens for purposes other than those for which it was obtained, raises issues of grave importance. The issues are practical and political and there are fundamental moral considerations which we have to take into account.
  The hon. Member for Jarrow said that he was well aware of the line taken by the Minister in this matter, which is based on the fact that there have been many Governments, of differing political complexions, since 1911, and all of them, whatever the party in control, have followed the policy, laid down in 1911, that personal information, including addresses, obtained by the State for the purposes of insurance schemes must be treated as confidential.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I would like the hon. Lady to understand that I am not asking for any information except the address.
  Miss Pitt: The information we have in our Ministry is personal and confidential. I quite understand that the hon. Member is concerned tonight only with addresses, but we must consider the whole of the confidential information.
  Mr. Weitzman: Is there any disclosure of this information to the police for any purposes?
  Miss Pitt: I am coming to that. The answer is "Yes", but with qualifications.
  Where exceptions have had to be made to this policy of confidentiality, the Government of the day seem always, and rightly, to have taken a conservative—with a small "C"—and cautious attitude in weighing the considerations and judging whether the case for making an exception to the general policy has been demonstrated so strongly that it ought to prevail.
  The practical reasons for treating information, including addresses—I must deal with the whole of the picture—as confidential are not far to seek. The addresses and other personal details are obtained from insured persons because that information is necessary to the proper administration of the insurance scheme. It is important, therefore, that people should not be tempted to withhold or to falsify information about themselves and their circumstances. To put the extreme case, if the Ministry were to break faith with the insured population and make available addresses and other information to all and sundry, the operation of the scheme could be seriously impaired.
  I have already indicated that there are other considerations of a more general character which we ought to take into account. They are perhaps less immediately obvious than the practical point which has been raised tonight but they are none the less of great importance to all of us. Perhaps I may summarise it in this way. As the State becomes more and more involved in our private lives, as is the case with the development of our social service schemes—particularly National Insurance—it becomes more and more important to limit the use of information which we ask for to the purpose for which it is necessary. This view should command the widest support.
  On the other hand, it was seen from the early days of the insurance scheme, that a policy limiting the use of personal information in insurance records to purposes of the insurance scheme, could not be applied with complete rigidity. The conclusion was reached that in certain

  1503
  circumstances it was right to make exceptions. Since the early days, it has been the practice to give the police names and addresses from our records in cases of serious crime—I emphasise "serious"—but not in cases of petty crime such as the hon. Member for Jarrow referred to. This departure from the general practice dates back to 1913. Everyone would accept the over-riding interest that society has in the apprehending of a criminal guilty of a serious crime.
  Over the years, other proposals have been made for departing from the principle of keeping information about insured persons confidential. Each of these has been weighed by the Government of the day against the principle that all records should be confidential. It will be seen therefore that both the principle of treating as confidential the personal information which the private citizen has given to the Government for insurance purposes, and the practice of making exceptions where the interests of Society are of overriding importance, have been endorsed by many Governments over 40 years.
  We believe that this approach to the question is as sound now as it was in 1911. Although the circumstances of the people on whose behalf the hon. Members have spoken tonight command great sympathy, and the case for using insurance records in order to help is obviously worth serious consideration, to do as they ask would amount to something more than making one exception to the general rule.
  Addresses would have to be made available to wives and mothers. There are two important practical differences between the results which might flow from that and the situation which exists when addresses are given to the police or to other Government agencies. The central records of the National Insurance Scheme contain more than 30 million names and addresses. There is a formidable number of people with the same Christian name and surname. In the case of the commoner names and surnames, the number of those which are identical is really astonishing. There are plenty of cases, in less common names, even where other particulars are supplied, in which the Ministry can say no more than that Mr. X appears to be the person sought, and that the last known address—which may be
  1504
  out of date even in our records—was so and so.
  When information of this kind is given to the police or to another Government agency, these can, and indeed must, take steps to satisfy themselves that the person whose address they have obtained is the person they are looking for. This may not be easy. If they are on to the right person, he may not want to be found. If he gets foreknowledge of the inquiry he may slip away. On the other hand, if the person whose address is given is not the one sought, there may be embarrassment, distress and grave trouble if a direct approach is made. Where family relationships are involved, as in the case with which we are concerned tonight, the circumstances may be very difficult and delicate.
  Just imagine Mrs. Smith, who has a maintenance order against John Smith from the magistrates' court. Suppose we do our best with age and other details to identify the particular John Smith. Mrs Smith then goes to the address. If she is met on the doorstep by the John Smith who lives there she realises at once that it is not her husband. But, suppose Mrs. Smith is told by the lady who answers the door that she is married to the man who has absconded, I think we can well imagine the difficulties which might result. This is not really a totally imaginary situation; it can happen and lead to much more serious trouble than that of temporary embarrassment.
  Another point for serious consideration is that once the Ministry gives the addresses of insured persons, although that may be for a particular purpose, all control is lost over the purposes for which that information could be used. It might well be used for purposes for which emphatically we would never give the addresses in the first place.
  There has been some criticism tonight, and I know it has been levelled at the Minister earlier, that while refusing the address of a deserted wife, he has been willing to give it to the National Assistance Board if the wife is claiming national assistance. Successful maintenance proceedings could then perhaps prevent a charge on public funds, but the essential difference in the two cases lies in the points I have mentioned. The National Assistance Board makes careful and tactful inquiries in order to establish the

  1505
  identity of the person concerned and gives a firm undertaking not to divulge the address for any other purpose.
  Some consideration to this problem was given by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce on the question of tracing missing husbands. It was dealt with in a paragraph which, I hope, I have time to read to the House. After discussing various suggestions, the Commission said in paragraph 1148:
  "We are satisfied that it would be wrong to require Government Departments to disclose the husband's address, whether to an officer or a court or to the wife. Against the right of a wife to maintenance must be placed the right of the husband to have his privacy respected; in our view the latter must prevail."
  This problem, therefore, was carefully and sympathetically considered by the Royal Commission, which found it intractable. The considered statement of those responsible people was that so many Governments had followed this practice over many years and they felt that all who came to examine the matter would agree that it was one which should be handled with the greatest care and tact.
  1506
  The present position, as the hon. Member knows, is that in order to try to help as far as we can we are prepared to send on letters to third parties if they are sent to us in sealed envelopes, which should be addressed to the Liaison Officer, Records Branch, Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, Newcastle-on-Tyne. But the Ministry takes no responsibility for the contents of the letter.
  For the reasons I have given, it seems to my right hon. Friend that it is of considerable public importance that the confidentiality of these records should be preserved. But, as I have indicated, it has been thought necessary from time to time to make disclosures where the broad public interest so demands.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.

SHIPBUILDING
  Russian Orders
  Russian Orders
  Bristol
  Bristol
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Rainfall
  Rainfall
  Seychelles Survey (Coetivy Island)
  Seychelles Survey (Coetivy Island)
ROADS
  New Bridge, Clifton (Approach Road)
  New Bridge, Clifton (Approach Road)
  Tower and London Bridges (Traffic Congestion)
  Tower and London Bridges (Traffic Congestion)
  Sinderby Bridge, Yorkshire
  Sinderby Bridge, Yorkshire
  Driving Tests, Middlesbrough
  Driving Tests, Middlesbrough
  Learner Drivers (Insurance)
  Learner Drivers (Insurance)
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Medical and Dental Officers (Pay)
  Medical and Dental Officers (Pay)
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Malta
  Malta
  GREECE (INTERCEPTION OF BRITISH AIRCRAFT)
  GREECE (INTERCEPTION OF BRITISH AIRCRAFT)
  ANGLO-SOVIET TRADE
  ANGLO-SOVIET TRADE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
  CYPRUS (ANGLO-TURKISH NEGOTIATIONS)
  CYPRUS (ANGLO-TURKISH NEGOTIATIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Members of Parliament (Post Office Services)
  Members of Parliament (Post Office Services)
  Blocked Sterling Balances
  Blocked Sterling Balances
  Housekeeper Allowance
  Housekeeper Allowance
KENYA
  Prisons and Detention Camps
  Prisons and Detention Camps
  Colonel Young (Resignation)
  Colonel Young (Resignation)
TANGANYIKA
  Rail Facilities (Coalfield Areas)
  Rail Facilities (Coalfield Areas)
SINGAPORE
  Housing
  Housing
  People's Action Party (Public Meetings)
  People's Action Party (Public Meetings)
CYPRUS
  Constitution
  Constitution
UGANDA
  Elections
  Elections
NYASALAND
  African Congress Leaders (Prosecution)
  African Congress Leaders (Prosecution)
SCOTLAND
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hospitals (Ancillary Staffs)
  Hospitals (Ancillary Staffs)
  B.C.G. Vaccine
  B.C.G. Vaccine
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Drugs and Appliances (Cost)
  Drugs and Appliances (Cost)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Care of Children
  Care of Children
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pensions (Purchasing Power)
  Pensions (Purchasing Power)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  KIDNAPPINGS BY COMMUNISTS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: 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—

  (1) whether any further representations have been made to the Soviet Government in protest against its practice of kidnapping;

  (2) by how far the number of those kidnapped from the British sector in Berlin exceeds one hundred; and

  (3) whether the British Government has made it plain to the Soviet Government that few will believe in its repudiation of Stalin unless his methods are repudiated by the immediate release of these people.]

  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is that protests or enquiries have been made in respect of individual cases of kidnapping and Her Majesty's Government have frequently urged the Soviet Government to take steps to put an end to these activities. No new cases are known to have arisen in the British Sector in the last four months. The answer to the second part of the Question is that, as far as I have been able to ascertain from the British records available, the number of cases since the end of the war in which individuals in the British Sector of Berlin have either been arrested illegally and removed to the Soviet Sector, or have disappeared in suspicious circumstances, is 103.
  As regards the third part of the question, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear, on all appropriate occasions, that they greatly deplore these activities, which are inconsistent with the
  414
  desire expressed by the Soviet Government for a relaxation of tension.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his extremely full and satisfactory reply. May I hope that the representations will be earnestly pressed so that the subject is not allowed to go to sleep in any way?

PICTORIAL STAMPS
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received within the last couple of months from the British Travel Association, the Scottish Tourist Board, and various persons, letters which strongly support the proposals made in this House for the introduction of small pictorial stamps of low values to portray to the world in extensive fashion some of the scenic beauties and historical monuments of the British Isles; and whether, with regard to the trial photographic designs exhibited during the debate on May 17, they will themselves arrange for trial stamps of a similar nature to be designed and printed in colours, with a view to judging their suitability for issue.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, letters supporting the introduction of small low-value pictorial stamps have been received from the two organisations referred to by the noble Viscount and from some members of the public. As I told the noble Viscount in the debate on May 17, my right honourable friend is considering various aspects of stamp policy. I do not think that there is anything further I can usefully add to this at present.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware that after many years in Parliament, this is the most astoundingly non-co-operative Answer I have ever received? May I also ask the noble Lord this supplementary question: what is there to prevent the Postmaster-General from carrying out the very reasonable request contained in the last lines of my Question? Is it not a very simple job?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I regret I am not sufficiently conversant with the noble Viscount's Parliamentary career to know the tone of the Answers he has received over the years. With regard to his second question, I do not think that in point of fact the noble Viscount's request is at all reasonable. I think it is naturally right that my right honourable friend should concern himself primarily with matters of policy before he tries to work out matters of detail. Any change in the present policy raises wide and serious issues, not the least of which, as I have tried to explain before, is the replacement of the simple dignity of our Sovereign's head design by what is, in effect, one might say, tourist advertisements. It should, I should have thought, be quite obvious that matters of policy must be decided well before any consideration of the suitability for reproduction of various pictures, whether of bridges, beaches, lakes or other features.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, if it is a matter of policy to which the noble Lord refers, is it not quite clear that this policy, even if it were to be approved by the Postmaster General, could not be approved and carried out without, as I have suggested at the end of my Question, the stamps being designed and printed, so that it can be judged whether they are fit to be issued?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Viscount at all. I think it would be essential first to decide whether any departure from our present very valuable and deeply valued policy should be made; and after that decision had been made it would then be a question of deciding the details of the stamp to be issued instead.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I give the noble Lord notice that I will revert to this subject at an early date?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I expected that.

SOVIET FOREIGN MINISTER'S SPEECH
2.43 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will inquire of Mr. Shepilov to whom precisely he was referring when, in reaching "complete unity of opinion" with Colonel Nasser, he denounced "those dark imperialist forces which try to poison relations between peoples."]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is a less full Answer than the previous one. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that an inquiry addressed to the Soviet Government on this point would serve any useful purpose.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, this time I cannot profess to be quite as satisfied with the Answer as in the case of the previous one. The reason I ask this Question is that I imagine that the Foreign Office and, indeed, everybody else, might possibly think it a bad day's work if we let the "new boy" get away with this pernicious balderdash.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
2.45 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.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clause 21:
Penalties and disqualifications
21.—(l) 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:—
(c) a fine imposed on a first conviction for an offence under the said section twelve may be of art amount not exceeding forty pounds and a fine imposed on a second conviction for such an offence may be of an amount not exceeding eighty pounds and may be imposed in addition to any imprisonment awarded by the court and subsection (2) of that section (which limits the period for which the court may disqualify an offender on a first or second conviction) shall not apply to a second conviction;
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Earl said: My Lords, my first Amendment on Clause 21 relates to the maximum fine for careless driving, which it is proposed shall be increased from the present maximum of £20 to £40 on a first conviction, and from £50 to £80 on subsequent conviction. I should like to ask the Minister what evidence he has to show that such heavily increased penalties are required. Magistrates to-day have a power to inflict quite severe penalties for careless driving if they wish, but, as was stated in the answer to the question we were debating last night, they do not appear to wish to do so, and there has been nothing to show that the present fines are inadequate. Merely to say that more severe penalties will be inflicted will not necessarily solve the problem. My submission is that no court would dream of imposing such penalties as £40 and £80 for the offence of careless driving. If any such penalty were inflicted, I think people would ask why, if the case were
418
so serious, a charge of dangerous driving, rather than careless driving, was not brought. I do not believe that the Minister would be able to tell us that the maximum fine has ever been imposed for careless driving,
Last night a certain amount of play was made with the allegation—which unfortunately we all know is only too true—that there has been an increase in road accidents. But the Government themselves are as much responsible for this increase in road accidents as any driver on the roads. We try perform on roads that everyone knows are inadequate for the traffic which endeavours to use them—be it commercial or private traffic; and we also know that the number of vehicles newly registered is going up by half a million a year. It is quite impossible for this increase in traffic to take place without a certain increase in road accidents. Another point I would urge is that there is a very large increase in the actual mileage covered, as well as an increase in the number of vehicles. I submit that all these factors come in when we are considering the increase in the accident rate.
While not in any way wishing to be unduly lenient to offenders in cases of dangerous driving, I feel that it is rather different when only careless driving is concerned. As we all know, there are a number of inexperienced performers on the roads; they often give rise to a certain amount of anxiety to every one of us who uses the roads. But if the police consider that a case is not very serious they do not bring a charge of dangerous driving. On the other hand, in many cases alternative charges of either dangerous driving or careless driving are brought against the driver. The average fine inflicted, I believe, for careless driving is somewhere in the region of £4. I am quite certain that if there were a really had case of careless driving it would be dealt with under the alternative charge, which the police in such cases always bring, of dangerous driving.
So I submit that this increase in penalties for careless driving is, on the whole, unnecessary. I think that, if agreed to, it would detract to a certain extent, from the importance of the increased penalties which are to be inflicted for dangerous driving. I say: when you catch a dangerous driver "drop on him." If the case is proved to the satisfaction of the

419
court, let the court come down on him severely, on the lines which have been indicated by the Lord Chancellor. But if it is a rather minor case—it may be of someone who circles a roundabout the wrong way, or commits some other minor offence of that sort—and there is no serious charge, then to increase the penalty up to £80 seems to me to be unnecessary. And I do not believe that there is a single court in the land that would ever impose it or consider it for a minute. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20 line 33, leave out paragraph (c).—(Earl Howe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): As my noble friend has said, this Amendment would have the effect of preserving the existing penalties for careless driving, which it is proposed by this Bill to increase. I should like to remind your Lordships of what that means. The existing maximum penalties are:—on first conviction, a fine of up to £20 and disqualification at the discretion of the court for up to one month; on second conviction, a fine of up to £50 or three months imprisonment, and discretionary disqualification for up to three months; subsequent convictions, as for a second conviction, with an unlimited period of disqualification. There is, of course, provision that a conviction within the previous three years for dangerous driving counts as a previous conviction for careless driving. We propose in this Bill these maximum penalties; on first conviction, a fine of up to £40 and discretionary disqualification for up to one month; on second and subsequent convictions, a fine of £80 and three months' imprisonment and an unlimited period for disqualification.
I am sure, the sense of Parliament is that we want to try to find a method to mark our distress and anxiety at this ever-rising figure of casualties on the road. Therefore the Government have thought it right, in the face of this serious problem, to raise the maximum penalties for the more serious motoring offences. I must remind your Lordships that our proposals were approved by your Lordships in the Bill that was before the House in the last Session and have now been approved by another place. I would also remind my noble friend that
420
the Bill increases penalties for cyclists and imposes restrictions on pedestrians. It is a balanced attempt to help to solve the problem of road safety and, as I said last night, not an attack on motorists. That is the primary point and I submit that that answers the question of my noble friend whether there is evidence to show the necessity for this clause. The evidence is, first of all, the mounting number of casualties; and, secondly, the universally agreed need for a pointer to indicate that to everyone in the country.
I put that first because that is the important matter; but if I were to descend to a lower level, I would point out that the increase in the maximum fines merely reflects the change in money values since the original penalties were fixed in the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That is necessary for two reasons. If the penalties were left at the existing figures, with the decreased value of money they would have less importance, and it is necessary to show the magistrates' courts, who have found difficulty in this matter, that a serious view is taken of this offence and that they have to adjust their minds to the new considerations which I put before your Lordships yesterday. It is essential that the penalties should remain in the discretion of the magistrates, but it is hoped that the change in the maximum penalties will influence them to review the adequacy of the penalties they are in the habit of imposing.
My noble friend says that the maximum penalties have no effect. He has the responsibility of being one of the leading figures in motoring in this country, and I am sure he agrees with me that it is necessary to get a new attitude of mind in every person in the country if we are going to check this appalling slaughter. My noble friend says that the Government are to blame because of our road programme. Surely that is a most defeatist attitude of mind. If we are not going to do anything, if we are going to make no effort until the country can afford to carry out the vast road programme which everyone wishes, then I think we are showing a complete indifference to the sufferings of the relatives of the dead and of the injured themselves. Much as I respect my noble friend's experience, I cannot be a party,

421
and cannot advise the Committee to be a party, to such a defeatist suggestion. If my noble friend will take the circumstances as they are, and between now and Report give us his ideas of how we are to deal with them, I will give them most careful consideration, as I am sure will every noble Lord; but I cannot be party to a negative attitude. I feel that it is necessary, not only with regard to fines but also with regard to the most important penalty of disqualification, that it should go out from this Committee that we are alive to the problem and expect every one of our fellow citizens to follow our example.
LORD GIFFORD: I hesitate to differ in any way from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but in regard to one point which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made I would ask whether, if there was any question of causing injury, the charge would not be one of dangerous driving, and not of careless driving. In that case I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the penalties should be as severe as possible. But, as the noble Earl said, careless driving is a much lesser offence, and it seems to me that possibly we are going a little far in making the maximum penalties so high for what is the minor offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would be a happier and easier world if injuries were caused only by dangerous or reckless driving under Section 11. I was thirty years at the Bar and I can tell the noble Lord that a vast number of cases of personal injury arise with no criminal element in negligence at all. If I may put it in words familiar to all, which form a good definition of negligence, it is to leave undone the things which we ought to have done and to do those things which we ought not to have done. That, on the road, while in seine cases it might be below the level which is objectively quantified as dangerous or careless driving, may cause the gravest injury. I think that the second offence, which Parliament in its wisdom inserted in the 1930 Act, fills a useful place in our criminal code and in trying to reach safety on the roads. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with his conclusion.
EARL HOWE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the minor
422
lifeline he threw out in the closing words of his speech. I should like to make it clear that I am entirely with the Government and the proposals in the Bill in so far as they deal with what the noble and learned Viscount said just now were the more serious offences. But careless driving is a minor offence. The noble and learned Viscount indicated that as we are dealing with cyclists and pedestrians in this Bill, we ought not to object to increased penalties for careless driving. But what real connection has that with this clause or with the Amendment? What the Bill is going to do in connection with cyclists and pedestrians is long overdue. In the opinion of most people, it should have been done years and years ago.
The noble and learned Viscount now recommends that we should agree to these increased penalties in order to keep pace with inflation. If we are dealing with the decreased value of money and the effects of inflation generally, it may be—Heaven forbid that it should be so!—that in a year or two those penalties will be just as inadequate as perhaps it is thought the present penalties are. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount would not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that increased penalties have no effect—or, if I did, I certainly did not mean that. What I meant to convey was that if penalties are increased beyond what is a reasonable amount in the opinion of the bench, court or tribunal, the average bench will not impose the maximum. What they will do is to say: "This is a minor case. We will impose a moderate penalty and hope that it will be taken as a warning."
I never said anything with regard to disqualification. But my whole submission to the Government would be: Why cannot we leave the careless driving penalties as they are for the moment? I cannot see that they are inadequate. A penalty for careless driving of £20 or £40 is somewhat "stiff" when one considers the type of offence for which it is usually given. Merely to bump up the penalty—financially, at any rate; I gather that the disqualification period is to remain the same—does not mean that the average court will increase the penalty to anything like that extent; and if they did, it would detract from the importance of the penalties imposed for serious offences

423
such as dangerous driving. Impose whatever penalty may be thought to be adequate for that offence, but in the case of a minor offence, surely, at this stage it is unnecessary to increase the penalty. I cannot think that the case has been made out for that.
I return to where I started. I think the Government—not only this Government, but all Governments—have been terribly to blame for the conditions on the road to-day; and they should admit it. As we all know, there is a deplorable increase in the number of accidents, but to anybody experienced in the use of the roads the wonder is that that number is not greater. You can go up and down any road you like, in any part of the country, and see the amount of commercial traffic, private car traffic and the rest; and the wonder is not that there are so many accidents, but that they are so incredibly few. One hopes that, things will improve; and no doubt the Government are satisfied that they will, or their proposals with regard to the roads would be greater and more effective than they are.
I should like to appeal to the Government, through the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, not to disregard completely the experience of every other country. Every other country but this one is trying to improve its roads, and so they will reduce the number of accidents on their roads. In this they have succeeded. I could quote figures in relation to America and various other countries, but I do not want to weary your Lordships with them now. However, I will give one instance. Casualties in Riverside Drive, in Chicago, went down by about 6 per cent. when Riverside Drive was improved. I suggest that the Government must bear a share of the blame for the increase in the number of accidents. We know that they are doing all that can be done in the existing financial circumstances of the country to deal with it, but the blame still persists. I should like to take advantage of the offer made by the Lord Chancellor, in his concluding words, and I shall be only too ready to consult with him, or with anybody else he cares to appoint, on this whole subject, if the time can be spared to talk to me about it. I submit that the proposals in the
424
Bill are unreasonable. The proposed penalties are too heavy, and I do not think they would be considered for a moment by any court.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Before the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor replies (if he is going to), may I say that we all respect the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in motoring, and it has been an advantage to both sides of the Committee to hear him. But on this point, whether consideration is deferred or not, noble Lords on this side support the Lord Chancellor. We do not want to be misunderstood about it later. We feel that there is no case for making penalties, as was suggested by the noble Earl, dependent on the result of an accident; we feel that penalties should deal with the actual conduct of the motorist.
LORD CONESFORD: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should like to say that some of us on these Benches also support strongly the line that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has taken. I was surprised at what my noble friend Lord Howe said in first example of careless driving. For instance, he mentioned going the wrong way round a roundabout. I should have thought that even a first offence of going the wrong way round a roundabout might well land the driver concerned in a charge of dangerous driving. If one did that sort of careless driving twice, one would be lucky to get off with only an £80 penalty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I intrude further for one moment only to thank the noble Viscount opposite and my noble friend Lord Conesford, and to say this to my noble friend Lord Howe. Of course, my right honourable friend the Minister will continue to do all he can to improve the safety of the roads. But I do want to say this to my noble friend, from many years experience: it does not matter what the road is, accidents are caused by excessive speed; by failing to keep a proper lookout, and by taking a chance where a chance should not be taken. It must go out from this Committee that, while we all desire the roads to be improved, unless our fellow citizens are going to concentrate on those three matters we shall have this continued

425
increase in accidents. Having said that, I shall be delighted to see my noble friend Lord Howe, and I hope that he will be able to spare the time to have a discussion with me before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I would ask him to withdraw this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: In view of what the Lord Chancellor has said, I will, with great reluctance, withdraw the Amendment; it would be wrong of me not to do so. With regard to the dictum which he has just propounded as to the cause of accidents, I must profoundly disagree with him. However, I have another Amendment down, and I will say what I want to say when I move that. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: As I intimated to your Lordships last night, in moving Amendment No. 63, I do not propose to move Nos. 64 and 65. However, I would ask the indulgence of the Committee to be able to return to this subject on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
3.10 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to add to paragraph (c):
"if three years or less have elapsed since the offenders previous conviction under that section."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the unlimited power of disqualification shall apply only to cases where the second conviction occurs within three years of the first. Without such a limitation, a driver may be convicted on the first offence of careless driving in his youth—it may occur to one of your Lordships—and forty years on he may again be found guilty of a similiar offence. It seems to me that unlimited power to disqualify because of a previous offence committed a great number of years before is going rather far, and should not apply.
I moved a similar Amendment on the Committee stage of the earlier Bill which we considered in this House, and withdrew it on the assurance that it would be considered by the Government. We came to the Report stage of the earlier Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that it was not acceptable. None the less, perhaps there has been a change of heart since then. I feel that it is a reasonable
426
Amendment. To be "jumped on" forty years later for a minor offence that one may have committed in the days of one's youth, seems to me to be going rather far. I appeal to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to see whether he cannot consider this point favourably and make a minor concession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has proposed his Amendment in such a conciliatory and appealing way that he moves my feelings very much, but, I am sorry to say, my reason not at all. The Bill proposes to remove the limit on the court's discretion as to the period of disqualification on a second conviction of careless driving. My noble friend will appreciate that for most motoring offences the courts have unlimited discretion as to the period of disqualification. I have considered the point, but I do not think there is any justification for fettering the courts, as my noble friend proposes, by saying that it is only where there is an interval of three years or less between the convictions that a period of disqualification of more than three months can be imposed on second conviction.
The fact that the offender has not been convicted during the previous three years is not, in my view, a good reason for limiting the penalty for his later offence, since that should be appropriate to the circumstances of the offence. I would remind my noble friend that the fact that the offender has not been convicted recently can be taken into account by the court in fixing the penalty; and, of course, it will be. What I object to is that it should bind them absolutely. This is a different situation from that under Clause 21 (1) (b), where the court is compelled to disqualify for not less than nine months unless more than three years have elapsed since the previous conviction—I say that in case my noble friend has that in mind. It is reasonable to provide a limit in the case of an automatic disqualification, but I do not think one should impose a limit in the case of a discretionary disqualification, because it is essential that magistrates should make the punishment fit the crime. If the Government propose these increased penalties and then accede to the first request to

427
bite into their own increases, it is going to destroy the effect which I think we all have in mind, of giving a pointer to everyone as to the seriousness of this matter. Therefore, again I must ask my noble friend, for the reasons that I have stated, not to press the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his reply, and to say that what he has said about the undesirability of limiting the discretionary power of the court is an argument which does appeal to me. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I beg to move this Amendment. It is consequential on the introduction of the new Clause 28, which is an Amendment to Section 46 of the Act of 1940. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("the powers conferred by subsection (2)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 21, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are about to pass the clause in this Bill dealing with penalties, and I must confess to considerable unhappiness. I believe that Her Majesty's Government, and we in this House, have failed to rise to the level of events. I moved an Amendment yesterday afternoon which introduced some kind of novelty. I sought to preserve the discretion of the bench, but said that if the bench inflicted a monetary fine that was less than a certain amount, they should be called upon to give their reasons for so doing—and the reasons could be applicable to the facts of the case or the circumstances of the defendant. I received a sympathetic reply from the noble and learned Viscount. I have had the opportunity of reading that reply, and it has not made me feel any happier. We must tackle this job. The noble and learned Viscount, in his reply to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might have stood at this Bench advocating the very thing that I advocated yesterday afternoon. I would agree with anybody
428
who likes to put all the blame on successive Governments and this Government. I would agree that the dilatoriness of Governments in not keeping the roads of this country in a good condition is a contributory factor to accidents. But, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, we have to deal with this matter as it stands to-day.
In my view, there is only one way in which we can possibly do it we must influence the behaviour of everybody who uses the roads—motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and everybody else. I believe that we are failing to do that. Statistics are notoriously dangerous things to use, but I have tried to find some measurement. I am not going to quote any figures, but I am satisfied in my mind that per million road miles travelled, the accident rate in this country is the highest in the world. I believe we must do something about it. We shall end up this year by killing and injuring on the roads of this country over a quarter of a million people. Approximately 5,000 human beings will be killed on the roads of this country. The number killed in May, according to the Ministry of Transport provisional figures, was forty-one more than for the previous May. Forty-one more dead! If that had happened in any other circumstances, there would have been banner lines in the newspapers. Forty-one more people were killed. The total killed in May was 458 people as against 417 people for May of the previous year. Yet your Lordships would have a job to find that figure in any newspaper in the country the day after the Ministry of Transport published it. The most I saw about it was an inch of print at the bottom of a column.
Why is it? Is it because the people of this country have reconciled themselves to the fact that this slaughter is one of the prices they have to pay for our so-called civilisation? I do not know. But what is our responsibility? The noble and learned Viscount said just now, and quite rightly, that Parliament measures its responsibility by imposing these increased fines. I agree with every one of them, with this proviso: that I see no practical reason for doubling the monetary fines when past experience shows us that the present fines, which are half the size of those contained in this Bill, are, on an average, put into force at the rate of only 10 per cent. I gave your Lordships the figures yesterday afternoon—I do not

429
intend to give them again. I feel that we have to do something. I kept to my bargain that I would not move my other Amendment to-day, because I said I wanted your Lordships to take them all into consideration yesterday afternoon.
Will your Lordships allow me to make a confession? I was rather disappointed that none of your Lordships with far more experience of magisterial benches than I have—because I am not a magistrate—saw fit to speak. I wanted the experience of others because I wanted really and honestly to find out what was in the minds of the magistrates when, in all the cases that I gave your Lordships, running into hundreds of thousands of prosecutions for careless driving, dangerous driving and driving when drunk in charge of a car, the average monetary fine was precisely 10 per cent. of the sum Parliament has said should be the maximum amount. I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he will give this matter further consideration. The only reason he gave me for not accepting my Amendment was that it might distract magistrates' minds from the fact that they could—and were in some cases obliged to—give the penalty of suspension of a licence, which up to date they have given in only 3 per cent. of the cases where they have a discretion so to do.
I want the noble and learned Viscount to consider whether he will go a little further. I believe we have to try experiments. We are going to spend millions of pounds on the experiment of car testing. Parking places will cost this country millions of pounds. Car testing at £1 per head for 2 million motor cars will cost somebody £2 million—it will cost either the Government or the taxpayer all that money, on what I would call not more than a gamble. It will not do what I think is the right thing to do, and that is to influence the behaviour of people. That has to be done by the salutary method of increasing the punishment for wrongdoing. I want the noble and learned Viscount to think of this matter, because I may put it down at another stage of the Bill. Let us try the experiment of inserting in the Bill a clause on the lines of the Amendment I put down, stating that if the maximum fine for a certain offence is £100, then that fine shall not exceed £100 but shall
430
not be less than, say, £50—because that is halfway—unless the court decides that there are circumstances which may be special to the facts of the case or the position of the offender.
Let us try that out on one offence. The offence I would choose on which to try it out would be that of being drunk in charge of a motor car, which, as I have said before, is one of the foulest of all offences that one can commit on the roads of this country. I might consider putting down that Amendment. If I do, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to give it more sympathetic consideration. I know it is novel. I know the Home Office will be dead against it; but when the Home Office is dead against anything like this, to me that is one of its virtues. After all, they have some pretty old-fashioned ideas, as is shown by the statement by the Home Secretary in another place the other day to the effect that the amount of vice in this country at the present time did not warrant any further action. He is about the only person who thinks that. Therefore I ask the noble and learned Viscount to consult with his colleagues to see whether we cannot make this experiment in penalties. That is all I want to raise on the Question that the clause stand part. I leave it, unhappy that the traditional perverseness of the magisterial benches of this country in not paying sufficient heed to the will of Parliament will continue in the future as it has unhappily carried on in the past.
3.28 p.m.
EARL HOWE: I have great sympathy with a certain amount that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, and I should go a long way in agreement with him, but there are one or two things that have been said, either by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor or by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from which I must profoundly dissent. Unfortunately, the Lord Chancellor has told us that speed is the cause of accidents. It has been said before by plenty of other speakers in this House that speed is the cause of accidents, became if you brought all the vehicles on the roads to a full stop there would be no accidents. But surely the Lord Chancellor would, on reflection, agree that it is going a little far to say merely that speed is the cause of accidents. With great respect, I submit that it is speed in

431
the wrong place, and very often also at the wrong time, which is the real trouble. It is a question of judgment—often of faulty judgment. I feel that that is just as important.
Do not let us lose sight of the traffic conditions as they exist to-day. I submit to the Lord Chancellor that they are really deplorable. The worst of it is that they are not likely to get better over a foreseeable period of time. It is obviously going to take a very long time and perhaps even a General Election before we get the roads that we ought to have in this country. Other countries have tackled the problem differently. There is hardly a country in Europe that is not hard at work making new roads, properly designed and fitted to new conditions. Some of those are the most humble countries, such as Holland, Belgium and Denmark. Then there are the bigger countries, such as Germany and France. They are all hard at work on this problem, and have been for years. Their road conditions are steadily improving, whereas here they have been completely static. It is not the fault of this Government. Nobody can blame this Government. Except in a general way, nobody can blame other Governments. The fault lies with all of us in Parliament. We know, or should know, the conditions, and we should bring pressure to bear upon the Government of this country to see that they do not, as has seemed possible in the past, lose sight of these deplorable conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, took me to task over a random example I gave when I described going the wrong way round a roundabout as careless driving. I agree with the noble Lord that it was a rather random thought; but that roundabout should never have existed—there should have been a fly-over. That is just one of the things that I have been trying to illustrate in my remarks in regard to the overwhelming need for better roads, designed for modern conditions in this country. I am sure this is all wide of the mark in regard to this clause but other speakers have referred to it, and therefore I am perhaps in good company if I have erred. I beg the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, not to concentrate on just one aspect of road conditions and to tell us that speed is the one thing that matters.
432
It is not only speed; there is a lot more to it than speed. I wonder whether it is a Utopian idea to suggest that a Royal Commission should be set up to inquire into the whole question of accidents. I do not know whether that idea would be worth pursuing. If we could get an agreed sort of estimate of what really does cause accidents on the roads, it might be of help to the Government. Be that as it may, I thank your Lordships for having allowed me to intrude, and I thank the Lord Chancellor for what he has said in reference to my remarks.
3.33 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl who has just sat down has suggested one method of dealing with this problem—namely, the setting up of a Royal Commission to go into the question of accidents. The average period of gestation of a Royal Commission is about six years—that is, from the time it is set up until the time action is taken, and in that period, on the present basis, 1½ million people will have died or been injured on the roads. I do not know whether the noble Earl really thinks that that is a serious method of dealing with the problem. I want to come back to this clause which deals with penalties. The noble and learned Viscount is always so reasonable and conciliatory that one almost hates the idea of disagreeing with him. I imagine that it was in that atmosphere that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth did not press his Amendments on the question of penalties yesterday. We do not propose this afternoon to vote against the clause, but I should like to put to the noble and learned Viscount one or two thoughts that we have on this matter—possibly afterthoughts—and we may feel that we should like to come back to them at a later stage of the Bill.
There is no doubt that the position as regards road accidents is grave. The Government recognise that, otherwise they would not be introducing these provisions or increasing the penalties. There is no doubt at all that the penalties that have hitherto been imposed—I have in mind the figures that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth quoted yesterday—indicate that magistrates are not imposing the penalties that they could impose; that, at any rate on the face of it, they do not take so serious a view as we do about the accidents that are taking place, and

433
that in fact people are killed or, very likely, injured. The fact that the number of accidents has increased, and is increasing, indicates that the penalties that are being imposed do not operate as an adequate deterrent. Her Majesty's Government recognise that because they are increasing the maximum penalties. But increasing the maximum penalties is no guarantee that magistrates will take a more serious view of accidents or increase the penalties imposed. It gives them the opportunity, in extreme cases, of imposing a higher penalty than they have been able to do, but the average penalty is so low in relation to the existing maximum—and, of course, it will be very much lower in relation to the new maximum—that unless something more is done than merely to increase the maximum, we have no assurance at all that the penalties that will be imposed in the future will be a deterrent. It was in that spirit that my noble friend put down his Amendment that there should be a minimum penalty, as well as a maximum, with discretion on the part of the magistrates, in circumstances which he set out in the Amendment itself, to go below the minimum.
Reading the noble and learned Viscount's speech again, I note that his objection to that is one that he stated and one that is implicit. The one he stated was that it was undesirable to fetter the discretion of the magistrates by dictating to them in any way the kind of penalty that they should impose. I agree that it is unusual, if not unique, to fix a minimum penalty as well as a maximum one. Perhaps it is not unique, because in certain circumstances magistrates are directed to disqualify. My answer is that these are not normal circumstances. We are facing a grave situation which calls for desperate remedies—it calls for something more than the normal process of the law. But the fact is that the magistrates' discretion is limited, is restricted, even under this Bill. There is nothing novel in limiting their discretion; their discretion is fettered by a maximum penalty. They may think that a certain course of conduct justifies a fine of £1,000, but they are limited under this Bill to £ 100. In that sense they are restricted, and I see no reason why it should not be, if not a direction at any rate an obligation on them in all cases where the person concerned has been found guilty of reckless
434
or dangerous driving, or of diving under the influence of drink or narcotics or drugs, to impose a minimum fine, unless there are the special circumstances set out in the Amendment of my noble friend.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, skated rather lightly over the mater when he talked about careless driving—I think he referred to it as en "error of judgment". An error of judgment is not a crime. An error of judgment lays the person concerned open to the payment of damages in a civil action, but he cannot be prosecuted or be found guilty in a magistrates' court of an error of judgment. His action has got to go beyond that; it has got to be reckless or dangerous driving.
EARL HOWE: I was addressing myself to what had been said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on the subject of speed being the main cause of accidents. I said it was not only speed; it was a question of error of judgment as well; the two work together.
LORD SILKIN: I agree on that point, although speed in itself is very often an error of judgment—speed in the wrong circumstances. I have little more to add. I think this is a matter which is so serious that it deserves the further consideration of all of us; and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount will not be too proud to admit that he has given further consideration to the matter and that he feels, on reflection—if such should turn out to be the case—justified, in these exceptional circumstances, in taking the exceptional course of fixing a minimum as well as a maximum penalty. There we leave it at this moment, but we shall probably feel justified in coining back to this question at a later stage.
LORD DERWENT: I had not intended to intervene in this particular argument, but may I ask the Lord Chancellor to continue to be very careful about this matter, particularly in one respect. Time and again local benches of magistrates find that accidents occur—I am not talking about accidents caused by drivers who are drunk in charge—at a particular spot or spots, due to the fact that a particular spot is what we call a "black spot". Whereas, in the ordinary way they would say the man was driving

435
dangerously, they are very apt—and quite rightly in my submission—when accidents take place at such a spot, particularly when the person concerned is a stranger to the neighbourhood, to take a more lenient view. I believe that is an important point. I am merely drawing it to the attention of the noble and learned Viscount.
VISCOUNT THURSO: I wonder whether I might say one word on this Question, whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? I have listened with great interest to this debate and to the remarkable contributions made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on this side of the House. Of course I agree with them and with other noble Lords about the importance of improving the road system of this country. To my mind its main importance is from the economic standpoint. I am very doubtful about the direction relationship which is sometimes asserted to exist between the width and straightness of the roads and the number of accidents. When I first became Member for Caithness, in Sutherland, the roads in Sutherland were execrable. They were bumpy; they were narrow; they were twisty; they were steep. If you met another car on a hill there was no way of passing it. You had to back your own car, perhaps down a steep hill, with a cliff on one side and a precipice on the other. But there were never any accidents on those roads: everybody was much too careful. Since then the roads have been greatly improved and accidents have begun to occur.
Nevertheless, if we are going to build great wide new autobahns, it will be necessary, and most expedient, to include in them these fly-overs to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred just now. Nor do I think it quite proper to emphasise quite so much how much worse our accident figures are than those of other countries. I do not know whether other noble Lords happened to read in the newspapers this morning that to-day is Independence Day in America, and the National Safety Council of the United States of America have announced that the forecast of their statisticians is that the number of people who will lose their lives between six
436
o'clock yesterday evening and midnight tonight is 130. That is in America, with its magnificent roads. That only emphasises that point I was making just now, that there is no direct relationship between the width and straightness of the roads and the number of accidents.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that we are missing a great opportunity; that we ought to act more strongly, more resolutely, to increase the penalties; and that that would be a blow which we could strike for the safety of the public on the roads. I think we have to be very careful not to go in front of public opinion in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he was very much afraid that the magistrates might not even enforce the penalties—I do not think this is putting an unfair gloss on what he said—that we are putting into this Bill; and he was wondering how pressure could be brought to bear upon them. I feel that if we put a large number of high penalties in the Bill it will set up resistance on the part of the magistrates: it will encourage resistance on their part. The Bill will get a bad name; it will be thought an impracticable Bill. I cannot help feeling that, as between leaving things as they are, which I agree with Lord Lucas of Chilworth would be wrong, and going too far in advance of public opinion and making the penalties Draconian, the Government have in the Bill, and we have in the House, just about found the happy medium. For my own part, therefore, I shall gladly vote for the clause as it stands.
LORD REA: May I add my support to the Lord Chancellor in the stand he is taking about this imposition of a minimum fine, which seems to me an improper thing in principle? We are authorising a maximum fine—indeed we are doubling what was the maximum fine. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wants a minimum fine. It is there. The minimum fine is one penny or one shilling, or such nominal sum as you care to think of. It is surely up to the court to go between these two points, the minimum and maximum, according to the circumstances of the case they are considering. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that it would be most unfortunate to intefere in this respect with the privilege and duty of the court. I say this merely for the purpose of the Record.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, with great sincerity, how grateful I am to your Lordships for the debate which we have just heard? I think it is an excellent thing that this matter should go out from this House as one of the most serious social problems of the day. I should like to express my particular pleasure that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has joined in this debate. It is always a joy to his old friends to hear his voice, and he made one important point on which I feel I should, with the greatest respect, make one supplementary remark.
It is absolutely true, as he said, that we must never create offences and penalties that are so out of tune with public opinion that the lack of enforcement will lead to bringing the law into disrepute. But when we believe that penalties are properly in tune with our opinion of the offence, then there is another duty on us. We are, after all, the leaders of this country. We cannot, as leaders, accept public opinion as a static matter. It is something which we, as leaders, have dynamically to change if we believe that it is lagging behind. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me in that. And this is what we are trying to do at the moment.
I come to the very thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The difficulty which I endeavoured to put yesterday is the one which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Really there is a dilemma in this matter. On the one side there are those, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who wish to fix a minimum penalty. The noble Lord said that yesterday, and his Amendment included giving discretion to the court not to affix the minimum penalty in special circumstances. That was Lord Lucas of Chilworth's thought, and I entirely sympathise with his approach. But let me pose the difficulty. On the one hand there is the view that a minimum penalty is not wanted; on the other hand once you give a discretion one gets into the doubt whether one is really advancing the matter a great deal. Of course, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth will appreciate, one is also in this difficulty: that when one introduces special circumstances, these may vary in different parts of the country. You may get a lack of uniformity in that
438
way. These were the practical difficulties that I saw, and I re-state them merely in order to let the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, have them in mind when he is giving consideration to this matter before the next stage of the Bill.
The other point which I made was rather dramatically illustrated in our debate, and that was that the emphasis on fines might deflect people from disqualification. The noble Lord will remember that Lord Elton moved an Amendment—I think it was the next Amendment—and stated that a chairman of a bench of magistrates who was a legal authority did not know of the power to disqualify. The noble Lord will remember the point—I do not think I am being at all unfair to Lord Elton. That shows that certainly one wants to do everything possible to stress the importance of disqualification for the two reasons that I gave: first, that it is a deterrent; and, second, that it keeps offenders off the road, to the public safety. Again, I emphasise to-day that we should bear that point in mind. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, tock me up for saying excessive speed was a cause of accidents. I did not say it was the only cause. Of course, I meant excessive speed in the circumstances of the case, and I should like to remind my noble friend Earl Howe that I bracketed it with two other shortcomings. I said excessive speed, meaning excessive speed in the circumstances of the case, failure to keep proper look out, and taking a chance when one ought not to do so. From my thirty years' experience of accident cases I still say that those factors have come into all but an infinitesimal number of the accidents which I have had to consider. We cannot get away from that.
I ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to put the Royal Commission out of his mind. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned this point. I think it was the grandfather of the noble Marquess who leads the House who was the first to say that the primary purpose of a Royal Commission is to provide a good method of shelving a difficult question. If he was not the first to say it, he was certainly one of the most famous people to make such a remark. But this matter is far too urgent for that. It muse be dealt with on the facts a; they exist. Lord Silkin, I think, is the only person who has been logically and mentally ruthless

439
in suggesting a minimum penalty, and he has put it on the basis that here we are dealing with so serious a situation that the ordinary concomitants of the rule of law should be abrogated for the moment. I am not convinced on that point.
I should like to give the noble Lord an example from the experience of a friend of mine who is a very experienced magistrate. He said to me, with regard to the offence of being "drunk in charge", that he often went to his court feeling: "Now I must send someone to prison for being drunk in charge of a motor car." He held exactly the same views concerning that offence as Lord Lucas of Chilworth expressed to-day. But he went on to say to me this: "When I come to the case, it always turns out that the person who is before me has been driving for twenty-five years, that he has a completely clean record, that he has never been in the habit of taking drink in excess before, that there was a family celebration which caused his condition on this occasion, and that he has a wife and children who will starve if he is sent to prison." Naturally, my friend was exaggerating, but that illustrates the point which Lord Rea made: that the particular circumstances of the case may contain social difficulties and social tragedies which make it extremely difficult to impose a minimum penalty. I put that to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I know that he, with all his experience, will consider it and that he will appreciate that there is a difference between the fine and disqualification that (I do not want to occupy too much time) I need not elaborate to-day.
I take the point which Lord Derwent has made, and I shall not forget it. But one comes to this position: that we are all agreed that we have an extremely difficult, extremely serious and extremely human problem in front of us. Her Majesty's Government have tried (and this is the reason I mentioned earlier the measures with regard to cyclists and pedestrians) to make a comprehensive attack on this problem. Your Lordships, or some of your Lordships, after debate, are doubtful whether we have gone far enough. We have gone a considerable way, and I, for one, do not want to do what my noble friend Lord Thurso has spoken of, and bring this matter into unenforceability. But my mind is never
440
closed in regard to this subject. I shall certainly give the most serious consideration to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with regard to taking up a pilot scheme, if I may put it in that way, and also to all the other proposals that have been made. But I come back to what I said. We all have a duty to impress our fellow citizens with the seriousness of this problem, and I hope that your Lordships will not only do that in this Bill but will continue to do so until we bring home to everyone that their first consideration is not to disregard the life and safety of other people.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Offences against s. 35 of Act of 1930
(3) In section six of the Act of 1930 the proviso to subsection (1) (which empowers a court to limit a driving disqualification to the driving of a motor vehicle of the same class or description as the vehicle in which the offence was committed) shall cease to have effect.
4.3 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Teynham, who expresses his regret that he is unable to be here to-day, I beg to move this Amendment. Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause deal with the offence of driving a motor vehicle without the required legal insurance cover, but subsection (3) seems to me to have a much wider issue; and it is the removal of subsection (3) that this Amendment proposes. Subsection (3) appears to remove, not only in the case of conviction on an insurance offence, but in all cases, the power of the court to limit the disqualification to the class and description of vehicle with which the offence was committed. If my reading of the clause is right, we are tagging on something which goes much wider than subsections (1) and (2). I suggest that this deprivation of the freedom of the courts to confine disqualification to a particular class of vehicle will create hardships and anomalies.
Let us take the case of two young men who go out on motor bicycles on a Saturday afternoon and commit an offence which carries with it disqualification. Let us assume that one is an engine

441
driver for the rest of the week and the other is an agricultural tractor driver. In the case of the engine driver, the young man would rightly be deprived of convenience and amenity if he were disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles; but in the case of the agricultural driver, who must drive his tractor from one part of the farm to another and often along the high road, he would be deprived of his livelihood. When we compare the two cases, I say that that is unfair and unjust. I submit that unless there is a differentiation between mis-behaviour on duty, as it were, and mis-behaviour off duty, one young man is in a much worse position than the other and is affected all his duty time by something he has done off duty.
I think that there can be a case for universal disqualification for drunkenness. I am not sure that it would be just to make this differentiation between these two young men in the example I have given; but where it is not a case of drunkenness, I consider that there is an anomaly. I hope that the Goverrment will feel able to reconsider the retention of this subsection, and that when he replies the noble and learned Viscount will tell me two things: first, whether my interpretation is right and that this subsection has a wider application than the offence to do with an uninsured vehicle; and secondly, why is it necessary to alter what has been within the power of magistrates for many years past.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I answer the last question first? The reason we desire to alter the law is that the present position is unsatisfactory. The existing power of the court to limit driving disqualification is contained in the proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1930, which enables a disqualification to be limited to the driving of a motor vehicle of the same class and description as the vehicle in relation to which the offence causing the disqualification was committed. That is unsatisfactory, first of all, because we think that to limit driving disqualification in cases where the offence leading to disqualification is one involving the way in which a car is driven, or driving whilst drunk, is not justifiable. I think that my noble friend is inclined to agree
442
with me on drunkenness. After all, if a person is drunk when driving one class of vehicle, that is no reason why he will not be found drunk driving another class of vehicle.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I cannot see why we should say that someone who is drunk in charge of a motor vehicle on a Saturday afternoon should necessarily be drunk for the other six days on his tractor or when driving a railway engine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I disagree with my noble friend. Anyone who is drunk in charge of a motor vehicle on a Saturday afternoon is better off the road. If the noble Lord were to turn up drunk at his job or was drunk in circumstances which would carry danger to other people, he would expect to lose his job. If a man is drunk on Saturday afternoon when driving a vehicle, he causes the risk of death and dismemberment to other people on the road, and in my view there is no logical reason for leaving him available to drive other classes of vehicle. I say the same with regard to dangerous driving. If a man has been convicted of driving dangerously to such an extent as to justify disqualification, he is a person who has been convicted of an offence about the seriousness of which your Lordships have been talking for the last hour with great seriousness and justification, and I feel that it is quite wrong that he should be allowed to drive particular classes of vehicles.
I agree that when it is a question of not being insured, different considerations occur, because it might well be the case—and here I think the noble Lord's differentiation between driving on duty and driving for pleasure becomes relevant—that a man is driving one of his employer's vehicles, thinking, with good grounds, that his employer had provided for insurance. It would be asking too much of him, as one of many drivers in the employment, to go to his foreman and say: "Is this vehicle insured?" He would assume that it was, because any reasonable employer would insure. Yet in those circumstances he will have committed an offence for which, under the existing law, he would be liable to automatic disqualification. But by this Bill we have changed that—my noble friend may take it from me that that is the result of the preceding subsection—

443
so that henceforth disqualification for driving without a policy of insurance will be a discretionary one, and it will be for the court to impose in proper circumstances.
Those are the main reasons why we have done this, and I think we have been logical. To go back on our suggestion with regard to "drunk in charge" and dangerous driving would, I believe, be contrary to the whole feeling of this Committee as expressed to-day and yesterday afternoon. With regard to the insurance case, as I say, that has been met by making it a discretionary remedy. There are other difficulties—namely, that the words "class or description" provide technical difficulties which have been mentioned in the courts. That no longer applies because, as I say, it is a discretionary disqualification. I hope that my noble friend will not regard what I said at first as being any reflection on the undoubted human sympathy which inspires him with regard to a man's sticking to his job. But we must think of the wider content of humanity that is involved, and the drunkard who drives, or the dangerous driver, must know what he is risking if he takes that course.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount one question on this matter. Will it still be open to the courts to disqualify in respect of a particular vehicle if they choose to do so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand it, no. They can refrain from disqualifying in the insurance case, but they cannot pick out a particular class.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I should like to say a few words arising out of what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has said. Obviously none of us would wish to hold a brief for drunkenness. The case put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as I understood it, was that if a man were convicted, not necessarily of being drunk in charge of a car, but of careless or dangerous driving of a motor cycle or motor car, under the existing law he could still continue his occupation as a tractor driver. He may not have been drunk at all; he may simply be a man who misconducted himself on a particular occasion on the roads by carelessness. There must have
444
been something in the minds of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers at the time to give the magistrates this power of disqualifying a man from going on the road, but of allowing him to continue to drive his tractor where he was not likely to meet any other traffic. I suppose that Lord Haldane was the Lord Chancellor at the time, and Sir Patrick Hastings was the Attorney-General. There must have been some argument present in their minds to induce them to put in this merciful provision, and not to ruin a man in his professional career because of an offence committed in quite different circumstances.
If the man were perpetually drunk, that would be another matter. None of us would put forward any defence of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye in the circumstances envisaged by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. If my noble friend came to this House completely drunk and made a speech on this Traffic Bill, we should not pay the same attention to his views on the Hanging Bill next week. But it is not quite that case, and there must have been some reason for putting in this exemption and giving the magistrates this latitude; and there must equally be some reason for taking it away. I think that both cases are arguable, but I personally feel more inclined to take the path of mercy unless there is some valid reason to the contrary.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I give my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha exactly the sort of case which I believe Lord Sankey (he was the Lord Chancellor in 1930; and for a moment I hoped that my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha was the Minister of Transport, but it was just before his day) had in mind, and which I think covers the point? It was a case called Burrows v. Hall. There a lorry driver, who had earned his living in that way for eighteen years, was convicted of driving a private car without proper insurance. But the disqualification automatically resulting from his conviction, there being no special reason for not disqualifying him, was limited to the driving of a private car. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice described the case as a very proper one for the exercise of the power. I think that that is what the Law Officers had in mind. It was most important—and nobody knows

445
it better than my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha, because of his time at the Ministry of Transport—to drive home the need for vehicles to be covered by third-party insurance; and therefore the automatic disqualification was invoked. This loophole was intended to provide for that sort of case. So far as I know, that was its main purpose, although, of course, I cannot say it was the only purpose.
In my view, there is all the difference in the world between that case and a case of "drunk in charge" or dangerous driving. As I said in my earlier speech to your Lordships, that is now dealt with in the case of insurance provision, because it is a matter of discretion and not automatic disqualification. But in the other two cases, where someone has been found guilty of driving a car while under the influence of drink or drugs, or has been convicted of either dangerous or careless driving, in circumstances that have made the magistrates think that he should be disqualified, I do not think this discretion is justified. The magistrates would impose disqualification, where it is discretionary, only in a serious case. If it is an automatic disqualification, they are the cases which we think are ipso facto serious. In these cases I do not think it is right that a man should be allowed on the roads until the time has come when he has made the usual application to be freed from his disqualification. We cannot, with one mouth, at eighteen minutes past three, solemnise over the bloodshed on the roads, and with another, at eighteen minutes past four, as soon as we get the first opportunity, make the penalties Wore easy.
LORD DERWENT: I should like to put a case to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Is there not in this matter a danger of acquittal when there should not be an acquittal? May I go back to the tractor driver on a Saturday night who goes to a dance, which is a gay party; he drinks nothing but lemonade; he is a youngster and he gets on his motor-cycle when he comes out of the dance, and in a bit of youthful stupidity drives round the local roundabout twice in the wrong direction. There is no traffic, and he does not hit anybody. A policeman sees him and, quite rightly and properly, "runs him in" for dangerous driving. He comes up in front
446
of the magistrate. No actual damage has been done but there has been dangerous driving. The Bench is then told "If you find this man guilty, he is going to lose his livelihood." They may in fact think that in this particular case they ought to convict, but it is a case of youthful high spirits. They may—and I should like the views of the noble and learned Viscount on the matter—acquit him in that particular case when he ought not to be acquitted. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount agrees.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wanted to check up the penalties so that I could deal exactly with my noble friend's point. On the case that he has put, where the man is sober and there is no question of a charge of drunkenness but he is convicted of dangerous driving, our proposed maximum penalty for a first conviction is £100 or four months imprisonment or both, with discretionary disqualification. It is a matter for the magistrates, but I cannot imagine, in the circumstances which my noble friend Lord Derwent has set, when somebody has gone twice round a roundabout the wrong way without any other traffic about, that the magistrates would impose a discretionary disqualification on him. The case that he has set is a potentially hard case, and if hard cases make bad law, obviously hard cases that are unlikely to happen would be an infinitely worse thing.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and I think we must express the view that we agree with him completely. I am glad that the insurance angle has been taken care of. But if someone shows himself incapable of sufficient self-control to abuse a mechanical contrivance on the roads to the danger of other people, he must pay the penalty. If his livelihood is at stake, then that must make him all the more careful. In our daily lives we have always to consider whether the conduct which we display will have an effect upon that side of our lives, and I do not think there should be any "let up" on that sound rule in this particular case. In view of the discussions we had previously, I do not think we can do anything else at this stage. I agree completely with the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not press this matter unduly, but, on the other hand, the noble and learned Viscount would, I am sure, agree that the previous discussion, important as it was, should not in any way sway our judgment of the merits or demerits of the proposal in this particular Amendment. None of us can hold any brief for the drunken person, and I should be willing to see universal disqualification for all classes of vehicle continue in the case of the drunk. But I am not entirely happy about the case of the young man on the motor cycle who is normally a tractor driver. Would the noble and learned Viscount be so good as to consider between now and the Report stage whether there should be any limitation in this universal disqualification for all types of vehicles, without in any way encouraging those who should not be on the roads to continue to be on the roads? My noble friend Lord Derwent has a powerful point when he says that this universal disqualification may, in fact, make the magistrates hesitant to disqualify when they should. Would the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, be willing to consider whether there should be any limitation of this universal disqualification, while at the same time keeping it for all proper cases?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Disqualifying a tractor driver does not take his living away. A tractor driver need not have a licence.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: He must if he takes the tractor on the road.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, but how often does he do that? A tractor driver can still drive his tractor with a plough behind him on a farm or for any other use that does not involve driving a vehicle on the road. Perhaps the most a tractor driver does is to drive across the road from one field to another. "Taking his living away" is perhaps a little colourful.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is, of course, absolutely right—all it means is getting someone to take the vehicle across the road. I shall, of course, read carefully, and we shall all consider and discuss, every word that has been said in this debate. But I should be less than
448
honest with your Lordships if I held out the slightest hope that my mind will be changed on the matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In view of the words of the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that we may consider this matter again on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Additional provisions as to production and surrender of driving licences, etc.]:
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 go together. The point is purely one of machinery: it is a tidying-up point, and uncontroversial. It is twenty-six minutes past four and we have a long way to go, so I propose to say no more about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 38, leave out from ("him") to end of line 44.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 40, at end insert—
("(5) Subsection (4) of section one hundred and twelve of the Act of 1930 (which provides for the seizure and disposal of documents in relation to which an offence has been committed under that section) shall apply in relation to a licence, certificate or other document produced in pursuance of this section as it applies in relation to documents produced in pursuance of the provisions of that Act.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930
".—(1) The powers conferred by subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (which authorises the making of orders regulating traffic on roads) shall be exercisable as respects any road where it appears to the council or Minister exercising the power that it is expedient so to do—

(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road, or

449

(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

(c) for facilitating the passage of vehicular traffic on the road or any other road, or

(d) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or the use thereof by such traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property.

and subsection (1) of the said section forty-six (which makes provision for prohibiting or restricting the driving of vehicles in the interests of safety) shall cease to have effect; but the repeal of that subsection shall not affect any order in force at the coming into operation of this section, and any such order so far as made, or having effect as if made, under the said subsection (1) shall have effect as if made under subsection (2) of the said section forty-six by virtue of this section.
(2) The provision which may be made by order under the said subsection (2) shall be any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road or any part of the width thereof by vehicular traffic or by such traffic of any class or description specified in the order, either generally or subject to exceptions so specified, and either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, any provision—

(a) requiring such traffic to proceed in a specified direction or prohibit its so proceeding,

(b) specifying the part of the carriageway to be used by such traffic proceeding in a specified direction,

(c) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles,

(d) prohibiting the use of roads by though traffic,

(e) prohibiting or restricting overtaking,

(f) regulating the speed of vehicles.

(3) An order made in the exercise of the said powers by any council to which the said section forty-six applies which contains no provision other than provision—

(a) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles, or

(b) prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways by bicycles and tricycles, or

(c) revoking or varying any such prohibition or restriction,

shall not require confirmation by the Minister, and the Minister shall not have power to revoke or vary any such prohibition or restriction contained in an order made by or on the application of any such council:
Provided that—

(i) this subsection shall not apply to any trunk road; and

(ii) where before the coming into operation of this section an order has been submitted to the Minister for confirmation but the Minister has neither confirmed the order
450
nor determined not to confirm it, the order may be proceeded with as if this subsection had not been passed.

(4) The following provisions shall have effect as respects the proviso to subsection (2) of the said section forty-six (under which no order may be made with respect to a road which would have the effect of preventing reasonable access for vehicles of any class or description to premises on or adjacent to the road):—

(a) for the purposes of the application of the said proviso to vehicles any class or description premises shall be treated as adjacent to a road, whatever their distance therefrom, if they are accessible for vehicles of that class or description from, and only from, that road;

(b) the said proviso shall not have effect in relation to an order confirmed or made by the Minister in so far as the authority making the order is satisfied that, for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road to which the order relates or any other road, or for preventing damage to the road or buildings on or near it, it is requisite that the said proviso should not apply, and it is stated in the order that the said authority is satisfied as aforesaid;

(c) a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required if the restriction does not prevent loading or unloading for more than six hours in all in any consecutive period of twenty-four hours.

(5) In subsection (8) of the said section forty-six (which specifies the councils to which that section applies) the reference to urban districts shall (but subject to subsection (7) of this section) include, and be deemed always to have included, a reference to boroughs, not being county boroughs.
(6) The power conferred by subsection (6) of section twenty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, of making regulations for prescribing procedure shall include power to make regulations for prescribing the proceedure to be followed in connection with the making by a council of an order which by reason of subsection (3) of this section does not require confirmation and the holding of enquiries in connection therewith.
(7) The said section forty-six, and subsections (4) to (6) of the said section twenty-nine, shall cease to apply as respects the London Traffic Area, without prejudice, however, to any order made, or having effect as if made, thereunder before the coming into operation of this section, and any such order in so far as it relates to the London Traffic Area may be varied or revoked by regulations under section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924.
(8) In subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 for the words from 'for any' to 'of traffic' there shall be substituted the words 'containing any such provision as is specified in subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956' and in subsection (4) of section twenty-nine of the Road and Rail

451
Traffic Act, 1933 for the words from 'restricting' to '1930' there shall be substituted the words under subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 which'.
(9) In the application of this section to Scotland for references to the Minister there shall be substituted references to the Secretary of State."
The noble Earl said: This is a long piece of drafting, as your Lordships will see. It is an Amendment to Section 46 of the 1930 Act, which deals with powers to restrict the use of vehicles on specified roads—that is to say, things like no waiting, one-way streets and unilateral parking, mainly outside London. What I propose to do is to go through this clause and explain it broadly to the House, drawing your Lordships' attention particularly to those subsections which are new. The first subsection merely describes the consideration which has to be in the Minister's mind before he uses the powers given later. They are the usual things: danger to persons, damage to roads and the through flow of traffic. That is paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I should particularly like to draw attention to paragraph (d). There is a new factor there. It may be that the traffic is unsuitable, having regard to the existing character of the adjoining road and adjoining property. I draw that particularly to the attention of my noble friend Lord Conesford, who I know is interested in that aspect. Subsection (2) describes the various methods which may be employed to achieve the objects contained in subsection (1). They are: one-way traffic, dual carriageways, no waiting, diverting through-traffic, restricting overtaking, regulating speed limits and regulating weight. This is largely clarification and restatement.
When we come to subsection (3) we are entering a controversial field. I will be quite frank in explaining to the Committee just what the controversy is. On the one hand, there are those—they are substantially the local authorities—who want us to go further than we do. They want more powers than we are giving them here. On the other hand, there are the operators and users of vehicles who think that we are giving too much power to local authorities. If your Lordships will observe subsection (3), paragraph (a), you will see that what we are in fact doing is giving the local authorities the power of
452
"prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles"
without confirmation of the Minister, as is at present required. The other two paragraphs, (b) and (c), prohibiting and restricting the use of footpaths or bridle-paths and revoking or varying such prohibition, deal with comparatively small matters, so far as the motoring public is concerned. The issue is really a matter of principle: whether or not all these small regulations all over the country, in large or small towns, should have to be submitted for the approval of the Minister and his Department before they can become effective.
The regulations covering these matters constitute a substantial number of the regulations made under Section 46 at the present time—indeed, I am told that these restrictions on waiting and the unloading and loading of vehicles take up at least half the time of the Department dealing with the regulation of traffic. The clause, therefore, represents quite a substantial measure of decentralisation. In passing, I would suggest to the Committee that these are local matters, which essentially affect local people. Whether a car is allowed to stop or whether it is not is really a matter which the local people are essentially competent and qualified to decide.
I will pass on to subsection (4), which deals with the question of access. This was especially referred to in Section 46. Your Lordships will see that paragraph (a) extends the description of access and includes in access roads adjacent to the point in question. That means to say that the consideration of access is on a rather wider basis. Paragraph (b) does not make very much alteration. It says merely that considerations of access may be reduced in cases where there is danger to persons or for preventing damage to roads or buildings. Paragraph (c) deals with restriction of access and says that in restricting loading and unloading for certain periods during the day, the total restriction shall be limited to six hours in the twenty-four. I am aware that the question of whether it is fair that it should be possible to restrict loading and unloading for a period of six hours is also a matter of controversy. I say straight away that I am not going to stand very firmly on six hours. I think that the restriction of periods of loading and unloading in

453
our big cities will become increasingly necessary if we are to keep through-traffic moving. We should recognise that such restriction will become an integral part of the ordinary traffic regulations which exist in different places.
The only other part of this new clause I need mention is subsection (6), which gives the Minister power to make regulations prescribing the procedure which local authorities will be required to go through in order to make their regulations. In every case, if they are going to use the powers under subsection (3), they will have to advertise and, of course, it may lead to public inquiries being held by the local authority. I have had extensive consultations with both the local authorities and the users of the roads on this clause. I shall not pretend that agreement has been reached between them, because it has not. I am afraid it is the sort of clause where there may be a certain difference of opinion, and where a certain conflict of interest must exist. We have tried here to make a balance between the various interests which may be concerned. If I may, I will deal subsequently with the Amendments to the new clause, but I hope that the general principles on which the clause is drawn will commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There are various Amendments to this clause. The first one stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. Then come two Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. I do not know whether your Lordships have corrected copies of the Third Marshalled List, because on the top of page 5, after the Amendments down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, which might be described as Amendments to the new clause, there are Amendments to Section 46 of the Act of 1930 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. They have been left out. The same thing should apply to the next Amendment—" Leave out subsection (4)"—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. That should also be described as an Amendment to the new clause. I think that will make the position clear.
4.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after the proposed new subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) It is hereby declared that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, an order under subsection (2) of the said section forty-six may be made for the purpose of preserving the amenities of any road or the area through which it passes for the benefit of pedestrians, riders of horses and others."
The noble Lord said: I am certainly not going to raise any opposition to the general principles of this clause, though I am going strongly to commend my Amendment to the friendly consideration of my noble friend. I should like, if I may, to remind the Committee of the existing law. The existing law on the subject is contained mainly i t Section 46 of the Act of 1930, as amended by Section 29 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. That enables restrictions on the classes of traffic that can use particular roads to be made. The words of the main Statute, in Section 46 of the Act of 1930, looked 10 the layman to be fairly satisfactory. It looked to the layman as if it would enable the authorities—I will not trouble the Committee with w hat the authorities are—in a proper case to make the appropriate restrictions on traffic using a particular highway, but the legal advice given to successive Ministers of Transport was that those powers could be used on the ground of safety and so forth but could not be used on the ground of amenity.
That fact was deplored by the Ministry of Transport themselves. If I may tell the Committee something of which it will not be aware, although it is very much before my mind, I am enabled by this Amendment to advocate something which I nearly brought into law almost exactly seventeen years ago. In the summer of 1939, as a Private Member of the House of Commons, I obtained the Second Reading of a Highways Protection Bill and carried that Bill through the Committee stage upstairs, with the full support of my friends the Ministers at the Ministry of Transport. In the tragic events of that summer, this amendment of the law that I proposed could not be carried further. If I may give the Committee the Long Title of my Bill, it was called the
"Highways Protection Bill: A Bill to make provision for the preservation of amenities of

455
certain highways by the prohibition or restriction of traffic thereon."
The splendid words of the opening operative section were these:
"For the purpose of preserving the amenities of unmetalled roads for the benefit of pedestrians, riders of horses and others.…"
Let me tell the Committee exactly the roads that I had in mind—and I believe that every noble Lord present will sympathise and agree with my object. What I was thinking of was the green roads of England, of which perhaps the most superb and best known example is that road at the top of the Berkshire Downs, on a section of which you can walk from above Wantage to the White Horse. I think this road will he familiar to many noble Lords; it is one of the most glorious roads in England, which means that it is one of the most glorious roads in the world. It is a prehistoric highway and it has been enjoyed by pedestrians and riders of horses for over 7,000 years. That is a not uninteresting fact, and I think we should be enthusiastic to preserve the amenities of such a road for its proper purpose. It is an unmetalled road, but in law it is a public highway.
I think we all desire, as the Ministry of Transport certainly desired at the time of which I speak, and I think have desired ever since, that the highway authority or the Minister, or some appropriate authority, should be able to restrict the use of such roads to pedestrians and riders of horses, and, of course, to such necessary things as farm vehicles and vehicles wishing to approach premises that can be reached only from the Ridgeway. What we do not desire is for it to be used as a general road for motor traffic, which, incidentally, would completely ruin the surface.
My noble friend, in moving the insertion of this new clause, quite rightly drew my attention to paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of the new clause. I agree with him that it may be argued that that goes rather further in the way of enabling amenities to be protected than the words of the existing Statute. Nevertheless, I am bound to inform him that any layman would have thought the words of section 46 of the 1930 Act were sufficient. May I remind the Minister of those words. The authority has to be satisfied that the vehicles which it prohibits from using the roads
456
"cannot be used, or cannot without restriction be used, on that road without endangering the safety of the vehicles or the persons therein, or of other persons using the road, or that the road is unsuitable for use or for unrestricted use by any such vehicles."
Those words struck most laymen as being sufficient to enable the Ridgeway to be protected in the manner that I have suggested. Nevertheless, the legal advice that was tendered to my noble friend's predecessors was that it was insufficient to protect a road on the ground of amenity.
I am not willing, and I do not believe noble Lords in any section of the House will be willing, to run the risk on this occasion of the lawyers saying anything of the sort about whatever provision we insert to-day. We want to place it beyond a shadow of doubt that the powers that this section confers can be used on the ground of amenity. That is the reason why I have set down my Amendment. I do not prejudice anything at all that the Minister has already provided, but for the sake of placing it quite beyond doubt I seek to insert these words:
"It is hereby declared that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the foregoing subsection, an order under subsection (2) of the said section forty-six may be made for the purpose of preserving the amenities of any road or the area through which it passes for the benefit of pedestrians, riders of horses and others."
I commend this Amendment to the Committee. I have tried to make its purpose clear. It would be wrong for me to try to anticipate what my noble friend may say in reply to my Amendment, because I shall no doubt have a chance to reply to what he says; but I can conceive of his saying two things. I can conceive his saying that, by reason of the subsection to which he drew my attention, my words are unnecessary. I have already given the answer to that: let us be on the safe side. Even though his present advisers may consider them unnecessary, if they are harmless and produce the result that I have suggested, let us have them. The other thing that he may say is that there are words or phrases in my Amendment which go a little too wide. Well, I hope I am a reasonable man, and of course I will consider any criticism of the actual wording which I have put down, though I do not think there is much wrong with it. But I commend to the Committee the principle of placing beyond the slightest shadow of doubt, that, when this Bill,

457
with this new clause, goes in to the Statute Book, the Berkshire Ridgeway and the green roads of England can be preserved for pedestrians, riders of horses and others and not used as general motorways for motor traffic. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 23, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Conesford.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No-one who has any love of the countryside will disagree with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, and he can count upon support from this side of the House. I endorse precisely what he said: that too many times are we fobbed off with the statement that the existing wording covers what we want, and then, five years afterwards—as has been our experience this afternoon—-we find that it does no such thing.
In an effort to help the Minister and to save the time of the Committee I want to make my observations upon tie new clause in general. I do not suppose it will in any way prohibit the adoption of Amendments, but it will save a little time. I find myself in a difficulty because I think the Minister has given us a hard choice. I have a lot of sympathy for him. I served in this Department for quite a time and I know of the flood of recommendations that come from every local authority in the country for ministerial approval. But while I am prepared to admit that the "gentleman in Whitehall," as the popular expression goes, does not know everything—indeed, there are occasions when his knowledge is sadly lacking in anything—I am not going to say that Mr. Bumbledom of Slopeombeon-the-Slush knows any more. I agree precisely with what the Minister says.
The things that the Minister wants to decentralise, if I may use that term, are highly commendable. But the Minister may not realise that he is slightly in error when he says that all these things are purely local concerns—they are not. My fear is this: that these are powers that you are going to hand over to local authorities without any reference to the Minister, and which, as I read it, the Minister cannot undo when they are done. The noble Earl was fairness itself in presenting this to us. The subsection uses these words:
458
"shall not require confirmation by the Minister, and the Minister shall m t have power to revoke or vary any such prohibition or restriction contained in an order made by or on the application of any such council."
I take it that the obverse is true. If the local authority decides not to put in one of these restrictions, no body of opinion in that area can call a public inquiry. And what happens if a public inquiry is in favour of putting in a restriction which the local authority refuse to do?
The best thing I can do is to cite a practical case, and I have only to turn to a city that has been the subject of discussion in the Press and in Parliament regarding congestion of traffic; that is, the City of Oxford. The city authorities of Oxford have had the power that is contained in this Bill for a long, long time. They have not exercised it. The greatest congestion factor on the main road—it is not a purely local affair— is that the High Street of the City of Oxford is a bottleneck, because lorries and goods vehicles from Carfax, 300 yards to the East, are loading and unloading and parking there all day long, on both sides of the street. So what should be a four-carriageway road to carry the traffic is narrowed to two. If that road were cleared, together with one or two other bottlenecks of a like nature on both sides of the four cross-roads, there would be hardly any congestion in the City of Oxford.
Why is it not done? The reason these things are not done—and I am not going to make the direct accusation in this particular case, though I suspect there is more than a modicum of truth in it—is the high pressure of vested interests on local authorities. It is more prone to happen in local authorities than in central government. You have the lobbying of the Chamber of Commerce or the Chamber of Trade shopkeepers represented on the local authority say "No," and this wrangling goes on and on until nothing is done. Nothing could be more disadvantageous to he shopping interests and business interests in any town or city than congestion. It frightens away the money that is brought into any rural town and city from outside. How is the Minister going to get ever the problem?
May I quote another example, Horsham. The Minister who graced Oxford with his presence many years

459
ago—not too many years, but a fair number of years ago—knows the problem there. He also knows the problem in Horsham. I could tell him the problem, and so could the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in nearly every town and city in this country through which a main road passes. If we had universal bypasses all round every crowded town and city, I should not mind if the local authorities wrangled about a matter like this till the cows came home. But do not forget that some of our principal roads run right through the cities. And would the noble Earl like to have the conglomeration of one-way traffic schemes that are being put in by some of these local authorities? At the present time we have the saving grace that the Minister can say "No".
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: One-way traffic will still require the confirmation of the Minister.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am obliged. And will the thirty miles an hour limit?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What does not require confirmation is:

"(a) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles, or

(b) prohibiting or restricting the use of footpaths or bridleways by bicycles and tricycles, or

(c) revoking or varying any such prohibition or restriction."

So really the main point is the prohibiting or restricting of the waiting of vehicles, or the loading or unloading of vehicles. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, is here, because I am going to pray him in aid of my argument. In regard to the restriction of the waiting of vehicles, if the authorities have a real "blitz" on this, where are they going to push the vehicles to? Ought there not to be some provision here that they should provide adequate parking space for the vehicles that they are going to push off the roads? We come back to the same problem which we discussed yesterday. What is the good of putting any prohibition on the parking of vehicles—"waiting," is only a polite term for parking—either by meter or by regulation such as this, unless there is some place into which to drive the vehicles? That
460
is the difficult choice which I think faces us.
I am not prepared to say that this clause is going to be exercised in a wise manner. I know I ought to say that, but one has only to be in a Department like the Ministry of Transport for a little time to lose all faith, or nearly all faith, in the wisdom of public authorities, local authorities, up and down the country. Again, I should like to relieve the Minister of a lot of the detail. Trunk roads—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—are not going to be taken out of the control of the Minister. When 1S a trunk road not a trunk road? In other words, what happens to the trunk road when it comes to the local authority boundary? Is it then a trunk road? Let me cite again the High Street at Oxford, which is really part of the A.40, although there is a by-pass; I believe I am right in saying that the main road through Oxford, the High, is a continuation of the A.40. Does the Minister retain authority over that road in respect of these prohibitions? Do they still have to be submitted to the Minister, and can the Minister say "You must have them" if the local authorities say "No"? Those are some of the difficulties that I foresee. I should like to see more delegation of power if we can have proper safeguards.
May I put another case to the Minister? Take the stopping places of buses, one of the worst features in some of our most congested towns and cities. They pay no regard to through-traffic. After all, a local authority, which is supposed to be representative of its citizens, will designate bus stops for those places most suited for the passengers who want to travel by bus. And yet, at the same time, they may cause the greatest congestion in that particular city. Oxford again is a typical example. There is not only a bus stop in the most congested part of the High but there is a conductor and driver change-over point. This means that there will be two or three buses standing there for quite a substantial length of time—and the spot is right opposite the Mitre Hotel, which is known to many of your Lordships. What safeguards have we against this?
What I am afraid of is that in our attempt to decentralise we shall have confusion worse confounded. I support the Minister if he can, either now or at some

461
other stage, have sufficient safeguards, both pro and con; because I agree that not only in provincial cities and towns, but in London also, we shall never get any sense into our methods of dealing with the road accident problem unless, recognising that congestion is a contributory factor to road accidents, every section of the community gives way a little. The trade unions have got to give way 0.1 this matter of loading and unloading. It is no good their adopting a clog-in-the-manger attitude. And it is no good vested interests adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Some of the streets in London are absolutly impassable—I mean that literally—because of cars parked on either side of the carriageway and vans loading and unloading in the middle. I do not think I need say any more. I have expressed my fears, and if the noble Earl can relieve them in any way, I shall be indebted to him. To come back to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, we support him one hundred per cent.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Shall we dispose of this Amendment of Lord Cones-ford's right away? Lord Conesford has indeed touched my heart. To think that he has for seventeen years been endeavouring to put what is contained in this wholly desirable Amendment on the Order Paper! I am delighted to accept it in principle. We think, however, that it would look better drafted as part of subsection (1), and I am suggesting that it should go into the Bill as paragraph (e) in subsection (1) instead of in the Form in which it is put forward.
IORD CONESFORD: I have never known an Amendment which has peen drawn up by an amateur accepted in its initial form by Parliamentary draftsmen —arid quite rightly so. No doubt what the noble Earl suggests is a much better way of doing this, and I am grateful to him. I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Teynham has asked me to move this Amendment for him and to express his regret that he cannot be here. I think it might be convenient for
462
your Lordships if I spoke on this Amendment and the next one together. The first is to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the new clause and the second to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (3). I can deal with them quite briefly, as Lord Lucas of Chilworth has very well covered much of the ground which I was going to cover
My noble friend lord Teynham, the motoring organisations and I are very much worried at the idea that these restrictions can be imposed by local authorities and need not be referred to the Minister if there is an argument. If I may give your Lordships an example to support the case I am putting, it was not long ago that the City of Manchester tried to introduce traffic regulations which would have banned the loading and unloading of vehicles in some of the streets of Manchester. Several associations raised objections to the proposal, with the result that the Minster ordered a public inquiry. As the result of the inquiry, the Minister refused to ratify the proposals, recognising the necessity for allowing free access to premises and the loading and unloading of goods. If the proposed new powers set out in the new clause had been available to the Manchester City Corporation they could have imposed the restrictions they wanted without reference to the Minister. I hope that, somehow, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will see his way to laking some provision so that if there are a large number of objections at least a public inquiry can be held. I think that the new clause also applies to passenger vehicles and interferes with the right of the public to be picked up and set dawn at the specified stopping places. This matter is already dealt with fully by the traffic commissioners, I believe, under Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I submit to your Lordships that it will create an impossible situation if lie powers of the traffic commissioners, already exercised after proper investigation, can be frustrated by the total prohibition which might arise from the application of this provision in the new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of the proposed new clause.—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD DERWENT: I am speaking bluntly and frankly on behalf of a great

463
many thousands of commercial road users. I do not think that the Minister's problem is necessarily as serious as he imagines. The matter that is particularly concerning commercial road users is this question of loading and unloading in general. Any regulations made by a local authority would, in general, probably be in the best interests of the commercial firms. At the present time, however, there is such a claim on road space, and in local politics there are so many other factors taken into account which are extraneous to the subject under consideration, that commercial road users feel very much alarmed lest, in a few cases, questions of where loading and unloading shall be permitted, and the times, will be judged not on their merits but on something quite extraneous, and without any right of appeal to the Minister. I think that what they have in mind particularly is that, in cases which are not apparently big enough for a public inquiry, they might have the power to refer the matter to the Minister, who would be able to give a ruling or order a public inquiry if he thought fit. I am not putting that forward as a detailed scheme. I believe that if the Minister does reserve some powers to himself he will still get rid of the work at the Ministry which he is now trying to get rid of. The other point is that on this particular problem, a considerable friendly feeling has grown up between commercial road users and Ministry officials. The Ministry officials understand this problem thoroughly, and I think it is right to say that they are trusted by the commercial road users, whereas, quite frankly, local authorities are not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am delighted to hear the high testimony paid by the noble Lord to the Departments of Transport and Civil Aviation and to their judgment and understanding. None the less, my right honourable friend is anxious, if he can, to decentralise any powers which can be decentralised while keeping the balance between all users of the road. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I am not prepared to say whether the High Street at Oxford is a trunk road or not, but I do know that if it is, the restrictions
464
under subsection (3) do not apply. They remain with the Minister.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: This is especially important because this is the case with many roads. Take, for example, the Great North Road, running through Grantham and Stamford. If these parts are going to be eliminated, that puts a different complexion altogether on it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad that the noble Lord is supporting this. I would draw his attention to the proviso to subsection (3) of the new clause, which says:
"Provided that—
(i) this subsection shall not apply to any trunk road;"
I think that that covers the point. In regard to initiative, the Minister can act in matters of restriction and prohibition only on the initiative of the local authority, so that outside trunk roads, he has no initiative. For that reason, I suggest that there is not such a big difference as the noble Lord might be held to suggest in his remarks.
LORD DERWENT: Am I right in thinking that at present the Minister has to give final approval, even when there is no inquiry into a scheme of this kind?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is correct. At the present time every scheme regulating roads—and there are hundreds of schemes every year—has to go to the Department. We are trying to shed as many of these as we can. I believe that your Lordships are fully in agreement with us in trying to get as much moved out of the Department as we reasonably can.
LORD GIFFORD: One thing is not clear to me. Subsection (6) speaks of an order which:
"does not require confirmation and the holding of inquiries in connection therewith."
It seems to me that the local authority are quite unfettered, though perhaps I am wrong.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to take advice on that. My guess is that it means that inquiries are not obligatory, but that, where they are necessary, they are to be held. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, brought up the question of bus stops, and I would say that this

465
matter is dealt with in the Amendment to the clause which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to insert "other than public service vehicles." We are willing to accept that in principle, though I am not quite satisfied with the words. If, in due course, the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, we will put in words which would allow for that. The reason is that stopping places of public service vehicles are matters for the traffic commissioners and will have to be dealt with differently from other stopping places.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Cannot the noble Earl take into consideration the question of appeal, if there is a conflict between the local authority and the traffic commissioners as to the best place for bus stops? I am certain that local authorities do not want to exercise the power which the noble Lord wants to give them, only to find that they are frustrated by bus stops placed there by the traffic commissioners. I think that there must be some appeal to the Minister on that point.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that that is the proposal. I should not like to say what form the Amendment will take, but I accept it in principle.
In regard to the Amendment to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection t2), I think that the noble Lord really had in mind paragraph (a) of subsection (3), because I do not think that your Lordships wish to leave out that paragraph. In regard to paragraph (a), there are two elements. There is the prohibition or restriction on waiting, and your Lordships made little objection to that. The point that was emphasised was the loading or unloading of vehicles. I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree to allow the clause to go in as it stands, on the clear understanding that we will have discussions about whether or not the words "loading or unloading" should go in, or should go in with some restriction or with some subsidiary arrangement that would meet the point he has in mind. I shall be very glad to discuss it. This is a big step forward. I hope it will be possible for your Lordships to agree to the clause because we are anxious to take everything we can away from the Department.
LORD HORE-BEL1SHA: I am a little perplexed. The Minister has put down a new clause to the Bill. I do not know what has been discussed in the last few moments, because it was not clear to me, but the fact is that a new clause has been moved and the central part of that clause concerns the loading or unloading of vehicles. If there be one cause of traffic congestion and delay greater than any other, except parking, it is this loading or unloading of vehicles on the public highway. If noble Lords endeavour to come to this House through King's Road or almost any other main road, the likelihood is that they will be held up by some large lorry loading or unloading goods. Until we get rid of this nuisance there cannot be a free: flow of traffic on the highroads. Therefore, I had hoped to compliment the Minister on doing something in this matter. I am not quite sure what it is he is doing, but he is obviously doing something.
One thing is clear: he is giving to local authorities power to restrict this nuisance. I do not k now that they have shown much enthusiasm for doing so in the past. I do not know of any case of any importance where this loading or unloading is restricted, but I understand the Minister to say, and the clause says, if I read it aright, that local authorities will henceforward be able to say that there Shall be no loading or unloading of vehicles in specified streets at certain hours, at rush hours or some other time of the day. That is an entirely salutary proposal, going to the root of the problem, and the Government are to be congratulated very much upon it. I quite understand that: certain vested interests should come here—
LORD DERWENT:I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was one of those who asked the Minister to take certain steps about this loading or unloading. Everyone agrees that control is necessary. I should not like it to go out from this Committee that what the noble Lord calls "vested interests" are against the regulation of loading and unloading. The noble Lord was not here during our discussion. We were asking that the Minister should retain a certain slight control himself.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I do not think there can be any difference between the noble Lord who has interrupted me any myself. He got up this afternoon and said, quite frankly, that there was an interest in this matter which he wished to represent—that is to say, the interest of the traders. It is by no means illegitimate that the noble Lord should come here and say that and it is equally legitimate that I should say that it is natural that vested interests should come here and say it. Quite clearly, there is a conflict of interest between the public and those who have business to do in a particular street. The duty of the State is to hold the scales evenly between them, and in this particular case to see that the roads are used for the best purpose. There is nothing wrong or immoral in that. We are here to decide the question.
I said that I wanted to congratulate the Government on doing this. I do not think it takes us very far, because the local authorities have not in the past been particularly forthcoming—perhaps because they have some doubt about their powers. I hope that no qualification will be introduced now that the principle has been brought before the Committee. We want to stop this loading and unloading. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was that there should be an appeal to the Minister.
LORD DERWENT: In certain cases.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Yes, in certain cases. I do not think there should be, because the local authority is the proper body to decide, as the Minister said when he introduced the clause a few minutes ago. They know in Manchester, Leeds, Huddersfield or Oxford what the condition of their streets may be, and if they cannot discharge that responsibility without cluttering up the Ministry of Transport there is no point in local government at all. The Minister comes here and says: "I want to free my Ministry. My officials are having two-thirds of their time on this subject taken up in confirming orders made by authorities who really know their own business." I want the Minister to stick to his guns, unless some good reason is produced to the contrary. I think it is natural that the traders should represent their point of view in this Committee, but I feel that the public interest should be safeguarded.
468
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, appealed to me and said: "What are we going to do with these vehicles that we keep off the road? They would simply clutter up other streets." I do not think that is so, because we shall keep them off the streets during certain hours and they will remain in their garages.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. The Minister proposes not only restrictions on loading and unloading, but also a restriction on waiting—in other words, parking.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I think the noble Lord has a good point about waiting generally. But as regards loading and unloading, these big lorries will remain in their sheds except at certain hours, and we shall all get the benefit of that. This Bill is a progressive Bill; it is an experimental Bill: and it institutes one or two important reforms. I supported parking, and I wanted to go much further. I think we have got to get cars off the road by building garages where they can be put: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about that. We shall have to be bold about that in the future—this Bill is not particularly bold about it. That is one aspect of the solution, and this stopping of loading and unloading is another, which I feel is one of the most important parts of the Bill. Whilst I do not complain at all that my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who has been so conciliatory and patient, besides being so extremely efficient and knowledgeable, should discuss this matter, I felt it right that another point of view should be put, and particularly as it comes from one who wholeheartedly supports the new clause he has introduced.
LORD DERWENT: I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord HoreBelisha for having interrupted him. I thought he started his remarks by saying that he had not been here during our discussion on this point.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: No; I was here. I hope that there is no conflict between us.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, clarify one point? I am assuming that subsection (2) (c) of his proposed new

469
clause gives to the Minister, for the first time, the power of
"prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading or unloading of vehicles".
and that subsection (3) (a) puts that responsibility on to the local authcrities. If I am right, the only point between us is: Should the Minister retain it, or should he hand it over to the local authorities? There is no difference in the Committee as to whether the Minister, or somebody, should have the right to do it. Then, if he hands it over to the local authority, should there be sufficient safeguards to ensure that the local authority actually gets on with the job. This is an important point, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha, says about decentralisation. My experience is not that the local authorities are the proper people to do something like this. I have known local authorities, when the pressure group in control of the local authority comprises mainly shopkeepers, who would be absolutely antagonistic to any proposal to prevent them from enjoying the liberty of loading and unloading at any time of the day, irrespective of the inconvenience caused to other forms of traffic. I want the Minister to have power to step in and say to the local authority: "You have got to do this."
LORD HORE-BELISHA: If we have read this clause aright, what it does is to give the local authority power to do it without seeking confirmation from the Minister. I have said that I do not think that will take us very far; but it does take us some way. It does not deprive the Minister of the right; in fact, it gives him the right, in the first part of the clause, to do it himself.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, that is not correct. The initiative lies with the local authority.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: In the second part.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It lies with the local authority in both parts. It is then for the Minister to confirm, except, of course, in London.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Subsection (3) uses the words "shall not require confirmation."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Shall not require confirmation in other cases, but will require confirmation.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I see.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The real crux of the matter is that unilateral waiting, or prohibiting through-traffic and overtaking will, in tact, all require the confirmation of the Minister.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: There is no power of initiative.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No, there is no power of initiative in this, broadly speaking. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Here-Belisha, has said. We are trying to take a step forward here. It may not be a big step, but I think it is an important one I am anxious not to weaken the power of local authorities, and I am anxious at the same time to be fair to those who use the roads. If the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, has any real difficulty here, I believe that it could be met under Clause 6 in regard to procedure by regulation. I am not sure how serious is the point which the noble Lord wants to make. I now have an explanation of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. The answer is that under subsection (6) the Minister has the right to prescribe the procedure to be followed in connection with, first, the making by the council of an order and second, the holding of inquiries in connection therewith. So that the Minister can lay down the circumstances in which the order can be mace, and can also lay down the circumstances in which an inquiry would be held. If the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, will withdraw his Amendment, I shall he glad to have a discussion with him and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent; and I will bear in mind the firm line that the noble Lord. Lord HoreBelisha, has taken in not giving way.
LORD WALERAN: In the light of that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in subsection (3) (a), after "waiting of vehicles" to insert "other than public service vehicles". The noble Lord said: I will he brief in

471
moving this Amendment, in view of the assurance by the noble Earl. As I am sure he agrees, public service vehicles of various classes are different from other vehicles, in that we have traffic commissioners who have, since the passing of the 1930 Act, dealt with this type of vehicle. I think the noble Earl will also agree that what happens is that if the local authority wishes to take some action, the traffic commissioners or the licensing authority investigate it, and the approval of the Ministry is more or less formal. This procedure has worked well since the 1930 Act was passed, and it would be a great pity to interfere with it, particularly as matters relating to public service vehicles are not, as a rule, purely local matters. They concern probably more than one local authority area, particularly some of the longer distance services. I gather it is the noble Earl's wish that I should withdraw the Amendment now.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If my noble friend would care to move it, I should like to say a word upon it.
LORD GIFFORD: In those circumstances, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In subsection (3), paragraph (a), line 1, of the proposed new clause, after ("vehicles") insert ("other than public service vehicles").— (Lord Giflord.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has a real point here, and I am happy to accept his Amendment in principle. What I should like to do is to look at the wording and see the best way in which this can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of the assurance of the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD had given notice of a further Amendment to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3) (a), after "loading of vehicles" to insert "other than public service vehicles". The noble Lord said: I should like to say one thing on this Amendment. Probably the words, "loading" and "unloading" were never
472
intended to apply to passenger service vehicles. In fact, in many regulations there is a qualification that the term, "unloading" does not apply to them.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Therefore, the Amendment to the Amendment is not necessary. It would read perfectly well if the Amendment to the Amendment were inserted in the first part of the subsection.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think that is quite true.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: The paragraph would then read:
"prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles other than public service vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles…"
LORD GIFFORD: I think it would be safer to have words in to make it quite clear.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: The loading does not apply to them.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I will not move my second Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Do I understand that we are accepting this clause for insertion in the Bill, on the understanding that the noble Earl will look at these various points between now and the next stage?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is right.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Including the words by which we want to put more "teeth" into it?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved after Clause 27 to insert the following new clause:
Amendments as to traffic regulation during road repairs, etc.
".—(1) Where under section forty-seven of the Act of 1930 (which provides for traffic regulation in consequence of the execution of works) a highway authority make an order under subsection (1) of that section or issue a notice under subsection (6) of that section, the authority may by order make as respects any alternative road any such provision as is

473
specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of this Act:
Provided that where the highway authority for the road as respects which the order or notice under the said section forty-seven is made or issued is not the highway authority for the alternative road, then

(a) if the alternative road is a trunk road, the power to make orders conferred by this subsection shall be exercisable by the Minister on the application of the highway authority for the other road;

(b) in any other case, the order under this subsection shall not be made except with the consent of the highway authority for the alternative road.

(2) In connection with the making of an order under the last foregoing subsection the authority making the order shall publish the like notices within the like time, and in the like manner, as is required by subsection (2) of the said section forty-seven in the case of an order under that section:
Provided that the notices required by this subsection need not contain any description of alternative routes.
(3) Subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven (which limits the time for which orders under that section may continue in force without the approval of the Minister) shall apply to orders under subsection (1) of this section made by highway authorities other than the Minister, and subsection (7) of the said !section forty-seven (which relates to offences) and subsection (9) of that section (which contains a saving for tramcars and trolley vehicles) shall apply to orders under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The proviso to subsection (2) of section forty-six of the Act of 1930 (under which no order is to he made which would have the effect of preventing reasonable access) shall apply in relation to orders under subsection (1) of this section as it applies in relation to orders under the said subsection (2), subject however to the provisions of subsection (4) of section (Amendment of s. 46 of Act of 1930) of this Act.
(5) In subsection (1) of the said section forty-seven for the reference to works being executed or proposed to be executed on a road there shall he substituted a reference to works being executed or proposed to be executed on or near a road.
(6) Subsection (8) of the said section forty-seven (which provides for an appeal to the Minister against restrictions and prohibitions imposed under that section) shall cease to have effect; but—

(a) subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven shall as respects any order to which it applies have effect with the substitution for the words 'three months' of the words 'six weeks';

(b) where the Minister has refused to approve the continuing in force of an order made under the said section forty-seven, then except with the approval of the Minister no subsequent order shall be made under that section as respects any length of road to which the previous order related unless at
474
least three months have expired from the time when the previous order ceased to have effect:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any order under the said section forty-seven made before the coming into operation of this section.
(7) The maximum period for which a notice under subsection (6) of the said section forty-seven may continue in force shall be extended from seven Days from the date of the notice to fourteen days therefrom.
(8) The provision which may be made by order under subsection (1) or notice under subsection (6) of the sail section forty-seven shall be any such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section (Amendment of s. forty-six of Act of 1930) of this Act.
(9) An order under subsection (1) or notice under subsection (6) of the said section forty-seven, or an order under subsection (1) of this section, may suspend any statutory provision of a description which could hate been contained in the order or notice, and any such provision (other than one contained in the order or notice) shall have effect subject to the order or notice.
(10) In subsection (1) of this section the expression alternative road' in elation to a road as respects which an order under subsection (1), or notice under subsection (6), of the said section forty-six is mare or issued, means a road providing an alternative route for traffic diverted from the fin t mentioned road or from any other alternative road, or capable of providing such an alternative route apart from any statutory provision authorised by the last foregoing subsection to be suspended by an order under subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment in clarification of Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which deals with the power of a highway authority temporarily to prohibit or restrict traffic on roads while repairs or the execution of works are bring carried out, and the procedure to be followed. Experience has shown that the present powers are not adequate to permit steps to be taken which are necessary, and that such safeguards as were formerly inserted are largely illusory. Subsection (1) deals with the powers to regulate traffic on alternative routes in order to relieve congestion where necessary. This is much desired by highway authorities. Subsection (2) deals with the advertisement before such action is taken. Subsection (3) says that arrangements for alternative routes may be in force for six weeks without the authority of the Minister. Subsection (4) places an obligation on the highway authority to afford access, subject, however, to the conditions in subsection (4) of the class se we have just

475
been discussing. Subsection (5) permits powers to be exercised when work is done, not on the road, but near the road. This is to meet the point where works such as demolishing a house or bridge are taking place just off the road and it is necessary to control the traffic.
Subsection (6) is important, because it does three things; and I should like to be frank with the Committee. First, it abolishes the appeal to the Minister which, in practice, has been found to be quite illusory as a safeguard and impossible to handle. Very often the works have been finished before the appeal can be properly dealt with. Secondly, it reduces from three months to six weeks the period during which the order of a highway authority is effective. This is intended in some way to counterbalance the abolition of the appeal to the Minister and, moreover, to give the local authority a certain incentive to get on with the work. Thirdly, after the six weeks are up, the local authority cannot just carry on by making a new order, but must get the permission of the Minister to continue if the order is to remain in force. Subsection (7) deals with emergency. In such cases, local authorities may make orders which will last for a period of fourteen days. This is an extension of seven days on the present time. That means that they make an order specially regulating traffic during the whole of the fourteen days. This is quite an important extension of the responsibility of local authorities. It gives them additional power to enable road works to be carried out with a minimum of inconvenience, and it puts a certain pressure on them to get on with it as quickly as possible. Works on roads are always a nuisance. They have got to be done, and I think this is a useful way of enabling them to be done in the quickest possible way and with the minimum of inconvenience. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28:
Traffic signs
28.—(1) In Part III of the Act of 1930 and in this Act the expression "traffic sign" shall mean any object or device (whether fixed or, portable) for conveying warnings, information, requirements or prohibitions of any description
476
prescribed or authorised under subsection (2) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 to traffic on roads or any specified description of traffic, and any line or mark on a road for conveying such warnings, information, requirements or prohibitions.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), after "requirements," where that word first occurs, to insert "restrictions." The noble Lord said: The next three Amendments, Nos. 72. 73 and 74, all go together, and I can explain them to your Lordships quite shortly. Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, makes it an offence for a person to fail to conform to the indication given by traffic signs of certain classes which are lawfully placed on or near a road under Section 48 of that Act. The object of the three Amendments is as follows: first, to extend Section 49 to any traffic sign which is lawfully placed under Section 48; secondly, to define in what cases a traffic sign may be treated as lawfully placed, so as to make its disregard an offence under Section 49; and, thirdly, to provide that the penalties for an offence under Section 49 shall not include imprisonment.
The reason for this Amendment is quite simple. Some doubt has been placed, both in the courts and in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill, upon the authenticity of one or two of the traffic signs appearing on or near the highway. There are signs which most private motorists quite cheerfully and willingly obey, and if they did not obey them they would be in trouble with the police for obstruction. Since doubt has been placed upon the authenticity of certain signs it is right and proper that we should make them now as legal and watertight as we can. That is what these Amendments seek to do. There is no point of controversy here and, as your Lordships will observe, there is no chance of going to prison if you fail to obey these signs. I beg to move Amendment No. 72.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 9, after ("requirements") insert ("restrictions").—t(Lord Mancroft.)
5.41 p.m.
EARL HOWE: The whole of this clause refers to traffic signs, whether as amended by Amendments 72, 73 and 74 or not. I want to ask the noble Lord something. I have not put down any Amendment —I am not sure whether I could under this

477
clause—but the point is this. Where roads are de-restricted there are these miniature de-restriction signs but, where roads are restricted, there is no replica of the restriction sign. It is almost impossible at times under conditions of modern traffic, to be quite sure whether you are or are not in a restricted area. I want to know whether the Minister cannot ensure that, where roads are restricted, the restriction sign can be repeated. I have recently been driving in Wales where there are a great number of 30 m.p.h. limits. The limits apply to roads that are not obviously roads which one would expect to find in all cases restricted, but which are, fact, restricted. The worst of it is that you may easily find yourself in a restricted area and be quite unconscious of it. When you are approaching a restriction sign, there may be a vehicle in forth of it and it may not be possible for you to see the sign for some reason like that. I consider it is just as important that the restriction sign should be repeated as to have those little de-restriction plaques which we see on lamp posts and so forth when roads are de-restricted. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider having these restriction signs repeated, as in the case of the de-restriction signs.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the noble Earl has a sensible point there, if I may say so. I have not had time to consider it carefully, but it seems to me that Clause 36 (2) may provide the answer to the noble Earl's question. If he would like to look at it, we might have a discussion afterwards to see if we can help him in his difficulty. I think that provides the answer.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOR OUGH: May I at this stage interpolate a question which apparently is not covered at all by the new clause, but I think this is the only point in the Bill at which I can raise it? It concerns not one of these traffic signs which is likely to lead to an offence which is punishable, but to cautionary signs, some of which are provided by local authorities and some of which are not. I mean, for instance, such warnings signs as "Cattle crossing". There appear to me to be difficulties in regard to the matter of interference with cattle crossing where farms are intersected by roads. You should he
478
allowed ipso facto by the county council to erect a sign giving a caution of the cattle crossing. The difficulties in that respect are real. I wish tin t point could be looked into. I dc not want to trouble the Parliamentary Secretary too much now, but this is about the only point in the Bill at which I could have raised this question.
LORD MANCROFT: I quite see the point about cattle signs. I he only cautionary note I want to sound is this. I am certain that the noble Viscount is not suggesting that anybody who wishes to put up any sign, however limited the sign may be, such as a cattle warning sign, can give it legal authority merely by putting it up.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No.
LORD MANCROFT: These signs are put up by local authorities and achieve legal authority. The noble Viscount is not suggesting that signs put up at random should automatically acquire authority by going up.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am not asking for that. What I am asking is that the disability at present on farmers of heir g prevented from erecting a sign at all in some areas should be considered.
LORD MANCROFT: That surprises me. I will certainly look into the point very carefully for the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 13, after "requirements") insert("restrictions").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 9, at end inert—
("(7) (7) In section forty-nine of the Act of 1930 (which makes it an offence to fail to conform to the indication given by certain traffic signs lawfully placed on or near roads) the words 'being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route

479
to be followed by traffic, and being' shall cease to have effect, but for the purposes of that section a traffic sign shall not be treated as having been lawfully placed unless either—

(a) the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement.

(b) the sign has been placed in the exercise of the powers conferred by section thirty-one of this Act, or

(c) it is expressly provided by the regulations under section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 prescribing the type of sign in question, or the authorisation under that section authorising the erection or retention of the sign in question, that the said section forty-nine shall apply to signs of that type, or as the case may be, to that sign,

and where the indication mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is of the general nature only of the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates a person shall not be convicted of failure to comply with the indication unless he has failed to comply with the said prohibition, restriction or requirement.
(8) So much of subsection (2) of section one hundred and thirteen of the Act of 1930 as provides for imprisonment in the case of second or subsequent convictions shall not apply to convictions of offences under section forty-nine of that Act.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Experimental traffic schemes in London]:
5.45 p.m.
LORD WALERAN LORD WALERAN moved, in subsection (6), to substitute "six" for "twelve" [months]. The noble Lord said: I can explain this Amendment and the next very quickly. Clause 29, as your Lordships know, empowers the Commissioner of Police, with the consent of the Minister, to make regulations for the purpose of carrying out experimental traffic alterations. The policeman, or somebody duly authorised in his stead, can put up "No Entry" signs or "Turn Right" signs. As matters stand now, an experimental traffic scheme can continue in force for a period up to twelve months and, if the Minister so authorises, for a further twelve months, making a total of two years.
It seems to me and to the motoring organisations that the authorities do not have to wait two years to make up their mind whether an experimental scheme is right or wrong. I can tell your Lordships, from my own experience as a member of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee,
480
that we knew within a period of six months whether a thing was good or bad. It might be difficult to get certain local authorities to agree to it, for other reasons, but the only possible excuse I can think of for having twelve months is to try to get objectors to the scheme, not for traffic reasons but for other reasons, around to your point of view. As this is a traffic Bill, I suggest that we should make the original duration six months and the extension six months. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 4, leave our ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(Lord Waleran.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think the noble Lord is quite right in what he says, that in the great majority of cases it is perfectly clear within six months whether a traffic experiment is working out or whether it is not. In fact, it is quite often perfectly clear within about forty-eight hours whether a scheme is working. The difficulty we are in—and I will be quite frank with the Committee here—is that, once we have decided that a new scheme is a good scheme, we then have to put it on to a permanent basis. That involves submitting it to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, who do not meet very often, and they have to consider it in detail before it becomes a permanent regulation.
LORD WALERAN: Unless things have changed since my day, I thought they met every month.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I know they meet every month, but I am told that the scheme would require to be put on a permanent basis of organisation for working it. It would take a considerable time. The noble Lord may know more about that detail than I do, but I am told that the administrative steps to put it on a permanent basis may take as much as twelve months. What I am prepared to suggest is this. I will accept the noble Lord's first Amendment but not his second. That means to say that the experiment as such would be for six months, but if, at the end of that time, it seemed to be successful, then there would be twelve months during which to put it on a permanent basis. If that would suit the noble Lord I should be glad to accept the first Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HELLSBOROUGH: I have some sort of hesitancy in my mind about this. Was the period of twelve months put in so that the experiment could be tried in all seasons of the year? Some of these things may be affected by light, by weather, by fog conditions and so on.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can assure the noble Viscount that we have been into that point. I personally asked that question of those who are supposed to know the answer, and I have satisfied myself that they are quite happy with this period.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WALERAN: In the circumstances, I do not move my next Amendment.
5.51 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is both consequential and drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 19, leave out from ("London") to end of line 20.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Powers of police to erect traffic signs relating to special traffic regulations]:
LORD MANCROFT: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 26, leave out from ("signs") to ("vehicular") in line 27 and insert ("indicating prohibitions, restrictions or requirements relating to").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 30, leave out from ("1839") to ("under") in line 31.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Temporary signs for dealing with traffic congestion and danger]:
LORD MANCROFT: This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 2, leave out from ("signs") to ("vehicular") in line 3 and insert ("in
482
dicating prohibitions, restrictions or requirements relating to").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved after Clause 33 to insert the following new clause:
Lighting-up time
"34. For the purposes of the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, the expression ' the hours ix' darkness ' shall mean the time between halt-an-hour after sunset and half-an-hour before sunrise as well during the period of summer time during the remainder of the year."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns lighting up It has caused a good deal of discussion behind the scenes, but I hope that we have now come to some arrangement which will meet with the approval of the Committee. At present, "the hours of darkness" are defined in Section 1 (4) of the 1927 Act as meaning:
"As respects the period of summer time, the time between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise; and as respects The remainder of the year, the time between half an hoer after sunset and half an hour before sunrise."
We have received representations from a number of well-informed sources that this definition is technically unsound and clearly potentially dangerous. It takes no account of the shortness of twilight during equinox periods and, at certain periods of the year, while summertime is in force, it legally permits vehicles to be on the road without lights after the end of twilight, with consequent danger to other traffic.
A large number of other alternatives have been considered. The one that attracted most attention was that suggested by the Nautical Almanac Office which would have related the expression "the hours of darkness" to some specified degree of depression of the centre of the sun below the horizon. This would have -been technically correct and, I understand, foolproof, but it would have involved every conscientious driver in carrying a compass, a slide rule and Whitaker's Almanack; and so it has been rejected. After full consideration it has been considered preferable to recommend the simpler expedient which a lot of

483
people have suggested—namely, of maintaining the relationship of lighting-up time to sunset, but to revoke that part of the existing provision which makes it one hour, instead of half an hour, after sunset during summer time. That is the effect of the Amendment standing in my name.
Your Lordships are no doubt aware that one effect of this change will be to require lights to be shown on motor vehicles in midsummer, before it is dark, in places like Northern Scotland. But this appears to be so even under existing law, and there is no way of avoiding all the anomalies without adopting the complicated solution referred to above. The solution proposed will have the great advantage of removing the dangerous anomaly which now permits unlighted vehicles to be legally on the road after dark in all parts of the country at some periods of the year. It may well be argued that we have substituted one particular anomaly for another. In a way we have, but this anomaly is a safe one, whereas the previous one was clearly a dangerous one. We tried at one moment to consider including in the provision some reference to lighting up during fog or smoke or snow, but that has not been found possible, because it is so much a matter of personal opinion and personal eyesight. I think we have now reached a satisfactory compromise and one which at least has the merit of being understandable and is a great deal simpler and safer than the previous law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Some of us were a little confused in regard to the reference to Whitaker's Almanack, slide rules and other things; but the noble Lord can have our approbation and our congratulations if he will inform us that he is moving the Amendment on the Order Paper.
LORD MANCROFT: What did the noble Lord think I was moving?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We are in some doubt about that.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the noble Lord came in just at the moment when Amendment No. 80A was called and
484
not moved. Did the noble Lord think I was moving Amendment No. 80A?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, Amendment No. 81—that referring to lighting-up time. I heard what the noble Lord said. My noble friend beside me asked me whether I could understand it, and I said that I thought I should understand it after the noble Lord had gone on a little longer; but the longer the noble Lord went on the more confused I became. However, now I am quite satisfied and I congratulate the noble Lord on this Amendment. It is the only sensible thing to do. It is a compromise. The only other thing the noble Lord could do would be more confusing—that is, to have separate lighting-up times in different zones right up to the North of Scotland, down to the West and across to the East. Obviously, this is a most sensible thing, and we congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Amendments as to conditions of carriers' licences]:
5.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The first three Amendments to Clause 34 really pick up an omission in the clause as it was drafted. I do not think they are much more than drafting. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 43, after ("with)") insert "or a direction may be given under subsection (3) of that section)".—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 18, after ("licence") insert ("or give a direction").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 24, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the direction given").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is really no more than a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 41, at end insert—
"(4) So long as the provisions of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to holding and subsidiary companies) have effect, references in subsection (1) of this section to the holder of the licence or his servant or agent shall include references to the subsidiary company (within the running of the said section twelve) or any servant or agent of that company."—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 42, leave out ("section sixteen") and insert ("Part I").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35:
Amendments as to suspension or revocation A and B licences
35.—(1) There shall be included among the grounds on which an A licence or a B licence may be suspended or revoked under subsection (1) of section thirteen of the Road and Rail Traffic Act. 1933 (which provides for the revocation or suspension of carriers' licences in certain circumstances) or a direction may be given under subsection (3) of that section, the following additional ground, that is to say, that the holder of the licence has been persistently charging, for services which consist of or include the carriage of goods by road in any of the authorised vehicles, sums insufficient to meet the cost of rendering those services and has thereby placed other holders of licences at an undue or unfair disadvantage in competing with him as respects the carriage of goods by road.
(2) The proviso to the said subsection (1) (which proviso imposes certain conditions on the powers of the licensing authority to revoke or suspend a licence) shall not apply to any revocation, suspension or direction made or given by virtue of this section, but, if the holder of the licence requests the licensing authority to hold a public inquiry, the licensing authority shall not make or give any such revocation, suspension or direction except after holding such an inquiry.
(3) So long as the provisions of section twelve of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to holding and subsidiary companies), have effect, paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of that section shall apply in relation to subsection (1) of this section as they apply in relation to Part I of that Act, and references in subsection (1) of this section to charges made by the holder of the licence and to competing with him shall he construed accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out Clause 35. The noble Lord said: This is one of the most
486
peculiar clauses that could ever find its way into a Road Traffic Bill. What it seeks to do is to set up the twelve traffic commissioners appointed under the Act of 1930 (and now re-designated licensing authorities) as arbiters of business morals. The history of this clause is very peculiar. When the Road Haulage l3isposal Bill was going through the other place, the Government, as a result of their realisation of the failure of their road haulage vehicle disposal scheme, introduced a provision to make it legal for the British Transport Commission to keep a larger number of vehicles than the original Act provided. That, of course, disturbed some of the supporters of the Government who sit on the Back Benches of another place, who were then "after the Minister's blood," saying that he was giving the British Transport Commission almost as big a monopoly of road transport under the Road Haulage Disposal Bill as they had before. I will not reiterate all their arguments, that it was a "breach of Election pledges", and this, that, and the other.
When it came to the Committee stage of this Bill, they assailed the Minister so vigorously in another place that he introduced a clause to make it possible for independent hauliers to go to the licensing authorities and substantiate, if they could, a claim that they were receiving unfair competition from the British Transport Commission vehicles. If they could substantiate that claim before the licensing authority, they could have the A and B licences of the British Transport Commission revoked. That brought a storm of protest from any fair-minded individual, and eventually the Minister gave way and made it possible fir this particular clause I am talking about to operate both ways, so that the British Transport Commission could lodge a case of unfair competition by under-cutting—persistent under-cutting, I think, was the.; expression—by private hauliers, and vice versa. That, again, created such trouble that it eventually took itself out of the Road Haulage Disposal Bill and found its way into this Bill.
The astounding thing is that under this clause a private haulier or anybody engaged in the road haulage industry can go to the licensing authority which is charged with issuing A, B and C licences and complain about unfair competition, vis-à-vis another private haulier or the

487
British Transport Commission. This licensing authority can then hold a public inquiry as to whether this firm, whoever it may be, is guilty of persistent price cutting. They are ill-qualified to hold such an inquiry. They are not accountants. Most of them are excellent men; most of them are ex-civil servants. Here is a Road Traffic Bill purporting to do something for road safety, which brings in a completely new idea of judging whether or not business conduct is proper. I have never heard such a fantastic thing. We have at the same time awaiting the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, which we shall reach next week, the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, which is supposed to have as its objective, the opening of competition for the purpose of lowering prices to the public.
The next stage in this comedy is that the Government have extracted some kind of promise—I do not know what it is worth—from the British Transport Commission, that they are going to freeze certain rates. Supposing the British Transport Commission, as a public duty, being a nationalised industry, peg all their road haulage rates for twelve months and costs go up, and therefore the independent haulier feels bound to put up his charges. Under this clause, he can bring a case against the British Transport Commission for persistently undercutting him by running services in an unremunerative way—yet the Commission may well be doing it to uphold the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Have your Lordships ever heard such a farce, and such a farce as to put in a Road Traffic Bill? If you will read this clause, that is precisely what it purports to do. Really it is an impossibility. It is wrong in principle. What is one of the main objectives of the present Government? That there shall be price competition for the benefit of the consumer. Yet here in this clause the Government are inciting all the haulage contractors, nationalised or not, in the road haulage industry, to "gang up" together and agree on everything they possibly can—in other words, to create the monopoly which the Government do not want to have.
Surely the Government will withdraw this clause. I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether he agrees with me or not on my argument, will agree that my facts are correct. This is what this clause pur-
488
ports to do. For the life of me, I cannot see how it ever found its way into this Bill. It is against the declared public policy of the Government, and we on this side of the House cannot agree with it, because we have agreed to support the Government in its efforts through the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill to have competition in all forms of trade for the benefit of the consumer. This gives any Tom, Dick or Harry the right to go to the licensing authority, who have nothing to do with this aspect of trade at all, and say to them, in effect: "My competitor has been persistently under-cutting me". He can force his competitor into open court (the proceedings will be in public) and make him disclose all the facts and figures relating to his business in order to get the revocation of that competitor's A or B licence. Is that the practice to which the Government are going to lend themselves? How can the Government sustain that, in face of the speech made by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor from the Woolsack when he commended the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Bill to your Lordships in this House?
What is the policy of the Government? Is it really free competition? There is no question here of damage to the employee; he is well covered and we can leave it to the transport unions to see that this does not mean the cutting of wages. This is cutting competition. It is not a case only of the British Transport Commission vis-à-vis private haulier, but it can be private haulier vis-à-vis private haulier. I cannot imagine a more vicious thing than this; to have official recognition by the Government of one competitor dragging a fellow competitor to open court for the purpose of having his facts and figures and costs (because the licensing authority cannot get at the facts unless they have the costs) made public, with a view to showing that he has been running at a loss. I hope that the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. I do not think I need say any more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 35.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
6.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with rapt attention, and never more than when he is explaining what

489
he thinks Tory policy ought to be. It is fascinating. Having listened to what he has had to say to-day I have noted that he has made a number of most interesting comments. He said that he had never heard anything so fantastic as this clause, and never heard anything more vicious. The thing that absolutely amazes me is that this clause was introduced by Mr. Ernest Davies in the other place on behalf of the Party of noble Lords who sit opposite. I am amazed at what the noble Lord said. I feel that he has hardly done his colleagues in the other place justice in pouring scorn on their efforts to deal with this matter, in the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill.
If I may examine what the noble Lord has said a little more closely, may I say that we have never stood for cutthroat competition, least of all in the road transport industry, where by cutting costs to the lowest level you might very well run into safety problems. We do not want cut-throat competition. We think it would be quite wrong to have it. If the noble Lord had argued, as he might well have done, that this clause should be strengthened, there might have been some sympathy with him. Frankly, it is going to be no mean task to get this clause into operation. It will operate only in the most gross and flagrant cases. And if anyone does get his licence suspended under the operation of Clause 35 (1), then I say he jolly well deserves to get it suspended.
Let us look at what has to be shown before a licence can be suspended. You have to show that there has been persistent charge for services; second, you have to show that what has persistently been done is insufficient to meet the costs; then you have to show that what has been done has been to the undue, and unfair disadvantage of others competing with the alleged offender. Finally, if that is not sufficient, a public inquiry can be held on this matter. If anyone really gets caught up by that, then all I can say is that he is doing the one thing which I believe all of us in all parts of the House would agree in condemning: he is seeking to ruin a competitor in order to set up a monopoly. I do not believe that anyone in this House wants to see that happen. We on this side certainly do not. I do not say that this
490
is a very powerful weapon, but something which will be held in terrorem In over anyone who might seek to put a small competitor out of business by making a corner and then completely wiping him out. Frankly, the clause will have not the slightest effect whatsoever on legitimate competition. That is the position. I hope that the noble Lord will not think too unkindly of the work of its colleague Mr. Ernest Davies, who is very seriously interested in transport. I really think that in the circumstances this clause should receive a slightly warmer welcome from noble Lords opposite.
6.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thought the noble Earl would fall into the trap. His well-known anxiety to score debating points would, I suspected, lead him into this pit before very long. What are the facts of the case? They are that there was originally a clause in the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill which aroused violent protest from the Opposition in another place because it was levelled against the British Transport Commission. The remit of that violent protest was that a bargain was made between the Minister and Mr. Ernest Davies by the terms of which if the Minister gave way on tie one-sided clause and made it cover the whole field" the British Transport Commission and the private haulier, then Mr. Ernest Davies would propose that clause when this Bill reached the Report stage in tile House of Commons. And Mr. Ernest Davies prefaced his remarks in this way—I shall have to ask your Lordships to forgive me for a breach of your Rules of Order, because one is not supposed to quote in such a connection as this. Indeed, I cannot pretend to quote Mr. Davies's exact words because I have not got them with me. But what he said in opening his remarks amounted to this: "Never in my life have I ever moved an Amendment with greater reluctance than I move this."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: But he moved it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Wait a minute —do not be so quick. Mr. Davies said "Never in my life have I moved an Amendment with greater reluctance than I move this; and if the Minister will only refuse to accept it I can assure the Minister that I shall not proceed to a

491
Division." Mr. Davies had to move it; that was the bargain. He had to accept half a loaf because if he had not agreed to move the Amendment—that is, the clause as it is in the Bill—the Minister would have used the Whips in another place and would have forced through the one-sided portion of the Bill which operated solely against the British Transport Commission. That was a cheap debating point to which I hardly thought the noble Earl would sink. I was waiting for it, though, for I know that he likes to make a debating point. He fell into the trap. What I have said, as he very well knows, is true.
Now as to his flight of oratory. I used to listen to him when I was a poor, humble member of the late Government and the noble Earl used to speak from the Opposition Benches. A lot of my flights of oratory I learned by listening to the noble Earl. This clause, says the noble Earl, is intended purely to stop the building up of a monopoly against the small man. What a lot of nonsense that is. The noble Earl has forgotten that this is a revised form, not the original form to which he was a party as a member of Her Majesty's Cabinet. The little man can attack the little man. You do not think that the British Transport Commission, trying to wipe out a deficit of £70 million, growing because, by refusing the application they made to the Transport Tribunal, the Government will not allow them to meet their charges, are going to trouble about lowering their prices to push the little man out of business. Of course not. If the noble Earl will take the trouble to study the price rates in the road haulage industry, he will find that the Commission's prices are much higher than those of the independent hauliers, by about 15 per cent. The reason that their business is growing is because their service is infinitely better.
The vicious thing that the noble Earl is afraid of can be used by one small unit in this industry against another. If I were a competitor of the noble Earl in the road haulage business I could, under this clause, bring an accusation against him for persistently undercutting or unfair competition, or any of the other things which the noble Earl said that this clause was put in to stop. The matter would go to the licensing authority and all the figures about my business and the noble
492
Earl's business would be displayed to the public gaze. But I would not want redress; I would want a weapon to force one of my competitors out of business. Perhaps the noble Earl, who has spent his life in the pure if rarefied atmosphere of politics, does not know what it is when you get down to real competition in industry.
What is unfair competition? The Government of which the noble Earl is a member have just produced a Bill which stops collective price maintenance and competition in price will now be the rule. There is nothing in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill to say that that shall not operate if it is unfair. In the world of commerce all competition is unfair, in the view of the man who has to meet the competition. If you want this kind of thing, why do you not put it in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill? Why put it in the Road Traffic Bill? It has nothing to do with this Bill.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: It is probably out of order.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think it would be out of order in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill and that it is out of order in this one. That is my reply to the noble Earl. I am doing the job that Mr. Davies was prohibited from doing in another place because he had his hands tied behind his back. He had either to accept the vicious clause of discrimination against the British Transport Commission or he had to accept this one That is why he began by saying. "Never have I moved an Amendment with greater reluctance." I am sorry that the noble Earl had to bring Mr. Davies in. It is wrong to put this responsibility on the Commissioners; they were not set up for this purpose. They are not a court of public morals. The noble Earl says that we want to stop competition because it might reflect on road safety. Does he hold in high regard all the road safety precautions which the Ministry of Transport have to operate, under which the police can stop any commercial vehicle they think unsafe and its licence can be suspended there and then? That is the Minister's idea of road safety precautions for commercial vehicles. This is a pure sop to the rebellious Back Benchers in another place, who did not like the British Transport Commission being given 3,700 vehicles—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Being allowed to keep them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not given, but allowed to keep, to give a service which the entire industry of this country insisted should not be broken up. I think the noble Earl would be doing a service to withdraw this clause.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: After that speech by my noble friend, I should have thought that the noble Earl would make some reply. My noble friend had a serious imputation made against him: that he was deliberately going against what was apparently the general Labour policy in another place. In view of what has beer said by my noble friend I should have thought that the noble Earl would have changed the somewhat scathing comment he -made. I think that would be reasonable. In any event, I have heard no real answer at all to the case against this clause, having regard to the Government's general policy. That is an amazing thing to me. The noble Earl has ridden off on another issue, of whether some form of control of the different forms of road transport is necessary or not to stop certain practices. As has been said, there are ample provisions in other Statutes which could be amended in this respect. The ordinary Member of your Lordships' House cannot understand why this clause comes into this particular Bill, even if its object is carefully put into the Title. L has practically nothing to do with all the other provisions of the Bill.
If we take exception to the part of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill which is going to allow existing restrictive practices to remain, with a new power of enforcement in the High Court to the detriment of the consumer, it will be difficult for the Government to justify what my noble friend complains of in this clause. The two policies are completely irreconcilable. Look at the position mentioned by my noble friend. The nationalised services have been the first to respond to the stabilising of prices. They have been told forcibly that they must do something about stabilising prices for a considerable period to come. If they therefore go on maintaining those stabilised prices in future, although their costs may be constantly rising, they then may easily become subject to some action by indivi-
494
dual hauliers, or an association of hauliers, under this clause. We have had no real answer to that point, in my view, other than a riding-off. I should have thought that the noble Earl would have been kind enough to give an adequate reply to my noble friend.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I hope the noble Lord did not think that I was discourteous in not replying. I am always willing to make as long speeches as the House will stand. Mar I take one small point? If the noble Viscount looks at the title of the Bill, I do not think he will have any doubt that this is a proper Bill to deal with the matter of suspending the licences of goods vehicles. There is another clause which deals with that question on a slightly different basis. I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that beyond peradventure this would in no way affect the Transport Commission. I am glad to hear that. He will say that it will operate only between the small competitors.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord said that the Transport Commission were 15 per cent. higher and gave a better service. If they are 15 per cent. higher, there is not the slightest chance, in any circumstances, of their being affected by this Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXA NDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I feel that I must defend my noble friend there. I listened carefully to what he was saying n his second set of comments, and what he said was that this would certainly not only apply to the Transport Commission but would include individuals one against the other, thought that was a point he stressed t and, in fact, in his earlier remarks, which I thought the noble Earl had not answered, he gave the case of the Transport Commission being laid open to the kind of action now permitted under the new clause. If they had to keep their prices down under stabilisation, and the costs rose against them, others could take action against them under this clause.
THE EARL of SELKIRK: The, words which the noble Lord used were that charges were generally 15 per cent. Higher, and that they got their traffic because their services were better. I have

495
no reason to suppose that the Commission will be adversely affected. What did impress me was the view that competition is so important. I am delighted to hear that. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has always been a keen co-operative man. If he found someone who was persistently charging insufficient sums, and those sums were to the undue and unfair disadvantage of people competing with them, would he think that a good thing?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Most certainly, in the interests of the consumers. We in the Co-operative Movement have always maintained a strong policy; that is to say, we insist that, so far as our goods are concerned, we do not ask for a minimum price to be fixed but we ask for a maximum price to be fixed. That is the difference in the policy of the noble Earl and our policy. As I say, we ask for a maximum price to be fixed. If there is undue cutting, by reason of the fact that somebody is sweating employees in order to get lower costs, that is another matter. We have laboured hard and long to get a trade board set up, with some success, for putting a bottom into the rate of wages in the distributive trades, although we have to pay higher wages, according to trade union standards. I am not afraid of the noble Earl on this issue.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am most interested. The noble Viscount thinks it proper to compete with people who take unfair and undue disadvantage. With respect, I do not agree with him. I am amazed to hear that that is done in the Co-operative Society. I do not think it should be done anywhere.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Earl overlooks the fact that it is not necessarily done by cutting labour costs. We have other means of stimulating proper competition. As I say, we have worked hard and long to get trade boards, and in other cases it can be done by proper trade union organisation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No doubt it can. But the noble Viscount now says that he is happy to see unfair advantage in competition.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: I did not say that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is what the noble Viscount said. I do not think that is necessary. I am at a loss to find anyone who is likely to be at a disadvantage in this if he is continuing in legitimate competition. The noble Lord has not suggested anybody who continues in proper competition and who will be disadvantaged. The word "persistent" does not mean that you are cutting anybody: it means that you are doing it deliberately, unfairly and unduly. I think this is a proper clause to be in the Bill. It will prevent people from being "cornered" and ousted out of business, which is in line with what we have in mind. I am sorry that noble Lords find it so objectionable. If noble Lords stood for "cut-throat" competition, that would be different; but I did not think they did.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Again speaking from my Co-operative experience, what I can say about it is this. We certainly did not like all the forms of licensing in 1933, and we never have liked them. They were not suitable for a Movement that works on our principles. If the noble Earl would get this Government to work in all respects for proper conditions of employment, on the one hand, and maximum prices to the consumer on the other, and not to proceed against people who legitimately can come within these maximum prices and go lower, and give the advantage to the consumer, then he would be on the right lines. But he has said that our Co-operative organisation, where we have a large organisation which can conduct trade at a lower rate for the benefit of the millions of members, because we are not a profit-making body, can be dragged before this court—just as it is proposed in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill to drag us in under the individual firms clauses.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to ask the noble Viscount one question. Would not the Co-operative Society run on a C licence? That does not apply here at all.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: There is no doubt that, because of the conditions of the 1933

497
Act, against which we have always contended, we have had to rely, in the main, on C licences. But I am talking about the kind of case mentioned here. If we had the real freedom to do what was best for the consumer in this matter, we could do it the other way.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: We could carry on this discussion for a long time, but I do not intend to do that. The noble Earl is batting on a particularly sticky wicket. The Monopoly Commission, every Commission that has been set up, and the Report on which the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill is based, all say that anything that prevents competition and lowering of prices to the public is against the national interest. There is not one word in the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill about competition and protecting the trader; it is all about the public interest. This seeks to stop it. Under this clause I have not to prove my case. If I am a road haulier, I have only to make the allegation to the licensing authority that my competitor is persistently under-cutting, and doing all these things, and I make my case. I have my competitor's books and everything else thrown open to the public—because the heating is in public. Then, when the verdict goes against me, and the licensing authority says: "Your accusations are completely unfounded", I say: "I have achieved my object; I have had all my competitor's costs shown to the world." That is what this means.
If the noble Earl is sincere in this matter, we had better amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill when it comes before the House and put in safeguards, that you can have price maintenance, and collective price maintenance, if it means that your competitor is indulging in unfair competition. So bring it all back again, because everybody who is affected by the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill and the outlawing of collective price maintenance would say: "All price competition is price-cutting, and it is unfair." The noble Earl is batting on the stickiest wicket he has ever had. I am going to withdraw this Amendment—at least, I think I am on one condition. Will the noble think he will, in fairness—withdraw what I thought was not a very fair attach on me in connection with my right honourable friend in another place? I think it
498
was particularly—I will not use the word "shabby", but I will say unfair, of the noble Earl, because he knew the facts as well as I did. He knew the pressure on my right honourable friend, and in scoring, or trying to score, rather a cheap debating point, the noble Earl was doing himself less than justice. Perhaps I could have a reply on that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is considering withdrawing this Amendment. I merely recited the facts because it seemed to me that, if they had not been recited, the House would not nave been in full possession of them.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Why did not the noble Earl recite them? Why did he let me contradict him before reciting them?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord did not contradict anything I said. He: merely enlarged upon it with a large number of glosses entirely his own.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is a pure evasion.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 35 agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.42 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope your Lord, ships will forgive me for interrupting this important debate, but the House will, I am sure, want to know as soon as possible the arrangements which have been made for the Second Reading of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill next week. Owing to the very large number of Peers who wish to take part in that debate I have undertaken, after consultation with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who will be in charge of the Bill, to try to arrange for a third day. This has proved not to be possible without severe inconvenience to many noble. Lords and a great interference with our already overloaded programme. After consultation with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, to whom, if I may say so, I am most grateful, the following times have now been agreed.

499
The debate will begin after formal Business at 2.30 p.m. on Monday and will continue until 11 p.m. that night, with no adjournment for dinner, which it will be possible for noble Lords to obtain in the dining room. The debate will be resumed at 11 on Tuesday morning, and will continue with no adjournment for luncheon. It is hoped in this way to make it possible for a Division to be taken by six or seven o'clock at the latest that evening.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL
Committee stage resumed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 35 to insert the following new clause:
"… The Act of 1930 as amended by the Act of 1934 in relation to the provisions against third party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles shall, be amended so as to secure that the issue of a road licence shall be conditional upon the production of a certificate of insurance which is valid for the full period for which the road licence is issued."
The noble Lord said: May I, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archibald, who is still indisposed, move the Amendment standing in his name. As it is a little intricate, I have taken the liberty of writing it down so that there will be no fear of misrepresenting what my noble friend wants to say. What he says is this. It is submitted that there is a bad loophole in the provisions of the law, as it exists at present. If a person buys a car, say in February, 1956, he insures it and takes out the road licence. In December, 1956, he applies for the road licence for 1957, and produces a certificate of insurance which expires in February, 1957. As it is then a valid certificate of insurance the new road licence for 1957 is issued. But he may fail to renew the insurance in February, 1957, and run until December 31, 1957, uninsured and without check. It would therefore seem to be reasonable and logical to make the issue of a road licence conditional upon the production of a certificate of insurance valid for the full period for which the road licence is sought. That is the purport of this Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord alarmed me somewhat when he said, "a serious loophole in the law." I wondered if he had "spotted" something that my advisers and I had not. I can assure him that we have "spotted" the point he makes. The idea of having the road licence and the insurance to synchronise is a nice, tidy idea, but people have often examined it and it has always been found to be impracticable. It would produce great difficulties in the insurance world. It would mean that all insurance policies would tend to fall due at particular periods when the road licences terminated. Again, if one changes one's vehicle the road licence follows the vehicle, whereas the insurance policy tends to follow the individual—so one would get another anomaly there.
If the noble Lord is frightened that the general public may not be protected through a person not taking out cover, there is the agreement between my right honourable friend the Minister and the insurance world that they will pay up if an uninsured driver does damage. There is no great evidence of evasion in taking out insurance policies. In fact, the penalties are so severe that we believe evasion is almost negligible. Moreover, the individual has to produce the certificate once a year, at any rate, before he gets a new road licence, and most companies send him a reminder when his policy falls due. I wish I could ease the convalescence of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, by accepting his Amendment, but I think this is another loser.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I suspected so, but what I am amazed at is the complacency with which the noble Lord tells your Lordships that the Government are conniving at a breach of the law—an absolute flagrant breach of the law—and to cover it up so that the citizen who may be injured by somebody who is not—
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord tell me what is the breach of the law?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Running a vehicle without third party insurance.
LORD HAWKE: It is the law that he shall have one.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then if he has not got one it is a breach of the law.
LORD HAWKE: If he is caught he goes to jail.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not talking about whether he is caught or not. The law says that, for the protection of the ordinary citizen, nobody shall drive a motor vehicle without a policy of third party insurance. I have proved quite conclusively that he need give evidence only of having a third party insurance when he gets an Excise licence. If the third party insurance expires one month after he has got the licence, he can run for the rest of the time until that licence is due for renewal without a third party insurance. The noble Lord then comes to your Lordships' House, with great glee and self-satisfaction, and says, "But, of course, the citizen is not hurt, because the Minister has a private arrangement with the insurance companies to pay the damages out of charity." Have you ever heard of such a thing?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is that the law?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, that is not the law. It is a private arrangement with the insurance companies.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Not legally binding.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not legally binding.
Then the noble Lord, with all the self-satisfaction in the world, says that I have "backed a loser." I want to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether or not he really connives at the breaking of the law which states that you cannot drive a motor car or a motor vehicle on the road without a third party insurance. I have just illustrated to your Lordships that it can be done quite flagrantly and there is no check. The only check that is made upon whether you have a third party insurance or not is, of course, that you will stand the risk of being stopped by the police—that I agree. But the law does not say that you shall have one in case you are stopped by the police; the law says that you must have one, and the only check to see that you have one
502
is that you have to produce it to get an Excise licence. It is a shocking reply.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask, is the noble Lord adumbrating the theory that, with every law in the land which says the citizen must do something, the citizen must always prove to the Government in advance that he is complying with that law?—because that is what this theory amounts to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, it does not.
LORD HAWKE: Yes, it does.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I want to ask is: Are the Government conniving at the breaking of the law?
Lotto HAWKE: They are not conniving at the breaking of the law.
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: They are conniving and, because they are conniving, they have to go to the insurance companies and have a private arrangement with them under a bond scheme which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, says is not legally binding. It would be as well if the Government looked at this matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should think so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am certainly prepared to look at anything which the noble Lori suggests, but he has used the word "conniving" in a sense in which I have never heard it used before. Taking the noble Lord's example of someone who applies in December and, under Section 39 of the Act of 1930, produces his insurance policy which expires at the end of January—that is the example—if he does not renew by the end of January he is liable to the criminal penalties, which are £50 or three months' imprisonment for a first offence. The fact that he has applied for his Excise licence does not affect the criminal liability at all.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Anyone who does it deliberately is liable to that penalty. Take the example given of somebody who goes on for the rest of the year. I should think that, if he

503
did it deliberately, he would find himself not able to use a car because he would be in prison. That is what the Government stand for. That is not "conniving" at an offence; that is punishing an offence.
The other point that the noble Lord mentioned about the agreement is, of course, covered, because, where the offence is not discovered, the police will make their usual checks. For instance, as the noble Lord knows, a grazed mudguard in a public place means the risk of the policy being called for; and the motorist must produce it. But the agreement with the Minister was, I thought, a great public service. I should like to explain to the noble Lord that, before that agreement (which I think was made either during or just after the war), I have seen cases where some man or woman has lost a leg and been miserable for the rest of his or her life. He has brought proceedings only to find that there was no policy or I that there was a repudiation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, would corroborate every word I am saying. In a way they are the most heartrending cases I have ever seen.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Therefore, it was necessary to cover the situation, because, as the noble Lord knows, apart from deliberate evasion it is very easy to get into some difficulty.
May I take a case in which I happened to be umpire? A well-known film actress was injured in her car and her chauffeur was found to blame. It was a question whether she was a third party with regard to her own chauffeur. I was umpire. I decided she was. The case went to the High Court, the Judge upheld me; it went to the Court of Appeal, in which two Lords Justices found I was wrong and one that I was right. It then went to the House of Lords in which three Law Lords held that I was right, and two that I was wrong. I do not intrude my personal experience for no purpose. The relevance of that is the difficulty in which the lady who took out that policy found herself—whether she herself was covered. Similar cases have occurred with the public. That is why I think this agreement is really a most useful one. What I wanted to say to the noble Lord
504
was that there is no question of anyone being released from a criminal liability, and no question of the police being in the slightest degree less vigilant about people being insured because they happen to have been covered when they took out their Excise licence. I hope that, after that explanation, the noble Lord will not press the matter.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: What I fail to understand is the objection to the new clause moved by my noble friend. I have not heard it. What is the objection to it? The Lord Chancellor has just spoken of a certain case—and I agree, of course, that there are a great many cases of this kind. There have been hundreds of such cases in the papers. In our own experience, these have been people who have been injured by drivers driving when uninsured, and here is surely a simple expedient whereby the issue of the road licence for the full period should be conditioned by the production of a certificate of insurance for that period. What is the difficulty about that? A certificate of insurance would have to be produced when applying for the road licence. I cannot see any difficulty about it. It seems to me a great injustice that a area number of people might be injured during the period when there was no insurance policy in force, and I should have thought this was a very simple expedient whereby the Government could ensure that those cases did not arise and that in all cases, before a road licence was issued, there must be in existence an insurance policy for the full period for which the licence ran. I should have thought that this was an opportunity to cure one of those things which cause many heartrending cases and which the Government now have it in their power, by accepting this new clause, to put right for all time.
LORD HAWKE: I am sorry if I did not make it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, because I shall have to deploy the same arguments again as I did before. I said that, for the sake of tidiness and convenience, I think people would like to see it done, but that it comes up against some very grave administrative difficulties—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: For whom?
LORD HAWKE: The difficulty of making the insurance companies synchronise with the licensing authorities would

505
mean that all the work of the motor insurance offices would be thrown on to particular periods, whereas at present it is spread out. That is a very considerable objection from the insurance companies' point of view. Then, when one changes a vehicle, the licence follows the vehicle, whereas the insurance policy tends to follow the individual.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It does.
LORD HAWKE: So that you would immediately get out of step with all the changed vehicles. Then we have got this extremely heavy criminal obligation on the insured to see that his policy is up to date. It is a very incautious man who disobeys this particular law. I pointed out that there was a final safeguard: that, if there was some reckless fool, the Minister had that agreement with the corn-parties; so that really the noble Lord's Amendment would achieve nothing, and would cause a great deal of inconvenience to the insurance world. There is one further point that occurred to me while the noble Lord was speaking. If the man is sufficiently criminal to wish to evade this law that he must have an insurance policy, what is to prevent his cancelling the policy as soon as he has taken out his licence? He can cancel his policy and get a rebate at any time. The Amendment does not provide for that, and I do not think it will improve the Bill at all.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I accept completely what the noble Lord has said; but the very fact that this fund, which is admirable, is such a good thing, shows that there is a considerable evasion. If there were not this evasion, why have the fund?
LORD HAWKE: Even if there were one or two evasions, I think it would be only a just and proper protection of the general public. My information is that evasion is remarkably small.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: A fund like this is not run for one or two cases. There is no difficulty about this clause. It does not put any additional burden on the issuing officers dealing with road licences. They have nothing to do with it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It does, because they have to check the length of
506
the licence with the length of the insurance, which they do not have to do now. So that statement is not accurate.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is not a great burden.
TEE EARL OF SELKIRK: But it is something.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It is a fact to-day that most or, at any rate, a considerable number, of insurance policies do not run with the car; they run with the individual. So every time I changed my car I should have to give more particulars. If my insurance policy ran with my car and I changed my car two or three times, I should have to go to my insurance company and get new cover. If I gave up driving my car, I could cancel my insurance and get a rebate on it. The argument that the noble Lord puts up is not at all sound. I will admit that there is no way of getting over the criminal intent of a man who simply takes out a policy one day' and cancels it the next. But the noble Lord's argument does not hold water in that respect, because what maniac would do that? He would lose; he does not get 364 days' rebate. His excursion into that operation would prove rather expensive.
LORD HAWKE: Yes, but he has got his licence.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I say that there are many people who can get "six months" without having a third party insurance. Where human life is at stake and where, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, there is great hardship, do not think this is an unreasonable or a very heavy burden to put on the insurance companies, whose profits, so far as I can see, would still stand the additional administrative cost. We are now trying to tighten up the situation, and this is the time to make this change. I give the noble Lord one more chance. Will he accept this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend?
LORD HAWKE: We will not accept the Amendment, but perhaps we can have some consultation if tie noble Lord can substantiate his claim that there is a considerable evasion of this insurance law whereby hardship is being caused. We will certainly look into it then.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Would the noble Lord be good enough to let my noble friend know what claims have been made in the past year on this official or unofficial agreement made by the Government with the insurance companies? Presumably that is perfectly easy to ascertain and the information could be available within a couple of days. Could the noble Lord ascertain those facts, perhaps from the secretary of the insurance companies group, and could he let my noble friend have them?
LORD HAWKE: I will certainly make inquiries to see whether I can produce those figures or not. The noble Lord said there were a lot of cases. I should like him to produce his figures.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course you would. You would like me to do your job for you.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: We should like you to substantiate your statement.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You are resisting an Amendment on the ground that it would cause great administrative difficulties with the insurance companies. I want to know what administrative difficulties there are. Perhaps the noble Lord will obtain from the insurance companies a report—because he cannot tell me—of what administrative difficulties there may be and how many cases they have had to deal with. On that undertaking I will ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.6 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new clause:
". The movement upon the highway of any motor vehicle which together with its load exceeds twelve feet in width or sixty feet in length shall he prohibited during the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and when such vehicle and load is moved upon the highway during' the hours of darkness' as laid down in the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, it shall, in addition to the existing requirements as regards lighting, carry a red light clearly showing each ten feet of its length on both sides of the vehicle and load."
The noble Lord said: I am glad to bring this Amendment forward again, because I expect I shall have the pleasure of debating it for only a minute or two
508
with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. This concerns the eternal problem of the abnormal load. The Committee may remember that I put down a Question in your Lordships' House, to ask the Government whether they would prohibit the movement of these abnormal loads during certain hours. The noble Lord, in one of those courteous replies which we always get from him, pointed out that while the Government had a certain amount of sympathy with me, one of the difficulties was that the police did not like these vehicles to travel at night. My object was to get them off the road during the day, because it is during the day that the other traffic is at its peak.
I made some inquiries of various police authorities and they said, "It is true, up to a point, because we should not like these abnormal loads to travel over the roads of the country at night if they were lighted only as they are now." So I have put down this Amendment. I have put the load on the high side, so it is not too restrictive. I say in my Amendment:
"… any motor vehicle which together with its load exceeds twelve feet in width or sixty feet in length shall he prohibited during the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m."
Then I have put in a proviso: that when it is moved during the hours of darkness it shall have augmented lighting. The difficulty is not at the front and rear of a sixty-foot long load; it is at the side. I have suggested that it shall be a regulation for such vehicles to have a red light at every ten feet along both sides of the vehicle. I hope that my noble friend will really think about this matter. I understand that the Minister is contemplating some further regulation. This could be done as an experiment through the coming holiday season, when the roads will be jammed with traffic. Consider the Birmingham area. Thousands of motor coaches will be coming from Birmingham during the holiday weeks before us, and going down to the South Coast resorts. There should be a tightening up in this respect.
Your Lordships will remember the Question I asked about ninety-feet tanks that were coming through the centre of England, from Durham right down the A.40, through the City of Oxford, and down to Newbury. I drew the noble Lord's attention to a vehicle that, on the same afternoon, at the peak of the traffic, was lodged in The High at Oxford. That

509
particular vehicle, with an abnormal load 16 feet 7 inches high, an enormous thing, was stuck in the middle of The High at Oxford and was on its way from Colchester to Liverpool. How, when it was going from Colchester to Liverpool, it managed to end up in Oxford, I do not know. The regulation for these abnormal loads does not answer as well as it should. They go through cities and big towns at peak periods, such as Saturday afternoons, causing terrific congestion. I suggest to the noble Lord that one of the methods we might try to alleviate this problem is to lay it down that these abnormal loads, 12 feet in width and 60 feet and upwards in length, should travel on the roads only at night, with augmented lighting. That is the simple purpose of my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 35 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: Queen Mary had "Calais" written on her heart, and I believe the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will be found to have "single indivisible abnormal loads" written on his. I would assure the noble Lord that I sympathise with him, and so does my right honourable friend the Minister, who is doing his best to find a solution to this problem. He has sent out a lot of questions to interested parties and he is now pondering the replies. We must face the fact that some of these loads have got to go by road. They are too big to go under the railway bridges and they are too big to move by sea or canal. But we have to find some means of reducing the undoubted annoyance that they cause on the roads. We have had discussions and we asked the police how they would react to the movement of these loads at night. Admittedly, the noble Lord's Amendment restricts this to the very big ones, and we originally asked the police about them all. We found that the chief constables were strongly opposed to it. The question of lights, which the noble Lord raises in his Amendment, had not come into it then.
I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to agree to his Amendment—and, in the face of police objections, I could not possibly do so—as fully as the noble Lord wants. But I am prepared to do anything I can to help him and my right honourable friend the Minister in
510
his attempts to solve this problem. I will try to draw up an Amendment for the next stage that will include his lighting point or get somewhere near it. We will try that as an experiment and will see whether the additional lighting helps, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas suggests. I must say, in all conscience, that it is very difficult to drive these abnormal loads in broad daylight; but to do it in darkness at night on twisting roads involves great danger, and I think the arguments of the chief constables must be accepted and appreciated. We will see if some good can be done by this new lighting proposal, and if it is a success we can go further forward. I hope that that slight acceptance of his Amendment may at least help my noble friend and help to solve the problem.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful. I think it is very helpful. When I spoke to the police, they said that they had never been asked about lighting. They said it would put a different complexion on it if there were additional lighting. The danger at night is mitigated because these loads travel at only about 12 miles an hour; they are allowed to travel at only about 12 miles an hour. Where there is an absence of traffic on the road they can have real headlights and blaze away without any risk of dazzle. I know we cannot find complete answer, but let us at least be able to choose the lesser of two evils, and I think this does it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his undertaking, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [New lighting on trunk and classified roads not to impose speed limit automatically]:
7.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (2), to leave out the first four lines and to insert instead:
>"(2) As respect, any length of road in a built-up area to which this subsection applies, subsection (1) of section one of the Act of 1934 shall have effect with the substitution for the limit of speed to be observed under that section of a limit of speed of forty miles per hour.
(3) The last foregoing subsection shall apply to any length of road to which it is applied by a direction given by the authority having power to give as respects that length of road a direction that it shall he deemed not to be a road in a built-up area, but the giving, revocation or variation thereof shall be subject to

511
the like provisions as the giving, revocation or variation by that authority of such a direction as is last mentioned.
(4) Subsection (3) of section one of the Act of 1934 (which empowers the Minister, by order approved by Parliament, to increase or reduce the general speed limit in built-up areas) shall apply in relation to subsection (2) of this section, and in subsection (7) of the said section one (which relates to traffic signs), in paragraph (a), for the words from 'the places' to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words'."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment arises from a recommendation of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which recommended the introduction of 40 m.p.h. speed limits as an experiment. They recommended this because it is more helpful in mixed traffic. So far as London is concerned, the Minister already has powers to do it. I think I can say that the chief reasons which make this introduction desirable is that by obtaining a steady flow of traffic at the same speed it is both safe for users of the road and economical for moving traffic on a given carriageway. Moreover, it is hoped that by this introduction the 30 m.p.h. limit itself will be more readily observed and enforced, and I am informed that the police are confident that it will be very much easier to enforce 40 m.p.h. on certain roads than it is 30 m.p.h. at the present time.
All this clause seeks to do, and it seems logical, is to extend that power should the Minister wish to do so, to areas outside London. In order to make the position clear, may I explain the position as at the present time outside London. The Minister may de-restrict on his own fiat any area, but he cannot restrict. The local authority, however, can either restrict or de-restrict, but only with the consent of the Minister. That is the law as it stands at present. What we propose to do, and again I make it clear that this applies only outside London, which is governed by the London Traffic Act of 1924, is to say that on the trunk roads outside London the Minister may impose a 40 m.p.h. limit, instead of de-restricting. That is to say, instead of having de-restriction, which means no speed limit at all, he can change 30 m.p.h. into 40 m.p.h. On other roads, the local authority can impose 40 m.p.h. instead of de-restricting, which, of course, is subject to confirmation. Any extension of the 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. limit in future will
512
depend on the application of the local authority, and it is subject to confirmation by the Minister and, indeed, to consultation with the police.
I am not going to suggest—and I want to make it quite clear that there is no such suggestion—using this power generally except in very limited and definite places, but I believe that in such places it will be of value for the two purposes which I have suggested—to improve the flow of traffic and, I think, to improve safety. If the Amendment commends itself to your Lordships, I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
EARL HOWE: Only to-day, I believe, a new volume has appeared, Report on Thirty Miles an Hour Speed Limits in the London Traffic Area which deals with the question of differential speed limits. The whole of this question has been referred to various authorities—the police, the local authorities, the London County Council, the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Institution of Municipal Engineers, the Road Research Laboratory, the British Transport Commission, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the motoring organisations, the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Pedestrians' Association and so on. So far as I can see, from a study of this publication, the majority of opinions are against this proposal. Some of the most important organisations—including the Transport and General Workers' Union for example—are against it. From a practical point of view, I suggest that a differential speed limit is a perfectly appalling idea. One can see it in operation in France. Anyone who has ever motored in that country knows what it means. It is subject to strong practical objection.
Suppose that you are driving a vehicle along a road upon which there is fairly heavy traffic—and on our roads the traffic is nearly always pretty heavy. You come to a restricted road, and you may easily miss seeing the sign because a vehicle gets in the way. I have already asked the noble Earl whether it would be possible to repeat the restriction sign. I hope that he will be able to see that that is done. That will certainly help

513
drivers to realise that they are in a restricted area and to observe the law. But to he able to go along and say with certainty that you have seen quite clearly whether a sign is marked "30" or "40" would, I think, be very difficult. Indeed, it is dreadful to think of the uncertainty which there would certainly be. In France it is almost impossible to keep track of the signs outside the little villages. They vary from "40" to "50" and "30", and it is hopeless to try to note them with certainty.
Moreover, I do not believe it makes for safety. We all know of the 30 m.p.h. limit we have to-day. When you catch sight of the sign you do not have to look at it twice in order to see the figure upon it—you have not to distinguish whether that figure is "30" or "40". And you do your best to observe the restriction. The motoring organisations are strongly against this proposal, and I suggest to any of your Lordships who is interested that if he can get this publication in the Printed Paper Office (I suppose that is possible) he will find it well worth his while to study it. And he will gather from it that this proposal has very few friends. I hope that we shall not agree to it. I do not like it at all, and a great many people to whom I have spoken do not like it any better than I do. I have not put down an Amendment with regard to this clause, but I certainly shall do so at a later stage of the Bill if the Minister says that he is going ahead with it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I am very much interested in what the noble Earl has said. Personally, I can see that it can be argued that there can be a considerable increase in safety in some areas if a more constant flow of traffic can be maintained. It follows that if you start by experiment, you want to be exceedingly careful what areas you include in that experiment. The Pedestrians' Association are very much concerned about the general question, and, with it in mind, I have myself been keeping my eyes open in the last few weeks with a view to determining how this proposal, if adopted, would he likely to operate in certain cases. I find that pedestrians step off a pavement within a reasonable distance as they see a vehicle approaching, believing that it will not reach them until a few seconds have elapsed. If the permitted speeds are
514
increased it is felt that there will be a good deal of difficulty, at least for some time, for pedestrians to avoid accidents, because there will have to be some mental and psychological readjustment to enable them to appreciate how long a period they have in which to step off the pavement and get over the road before the approaching vehicle reaches the spot where they are crossing.
I should like to know what the Government's intentions are. I suppose that they will authorise regulations, some direct and some by local authorities, as to what vehicles can travel in these experimental areas at these specified speeds. I must say that I have seen some extraordinary instances of heavily loaded vehicles exceeding 40 miles per hour in places adjacent to built-up areas. That brings up the question of safety, not merely in relation to the speed of the vehicle concerned but to the braking power which is involved. I have strong doubts whether, unless there are greater restrictions on the speed at which heavy vehicles can travel, instead of increasing safety you will not be reducing it. So much depends on the kind of regulations put into operation and the place selected for experiment. I would not seek to avoid a debate on this clause. I stall he most interested to hear what the Government have to say upon it, and to see what may be proposed by the noble Earl at a later stage and then to examine it more carefully.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have mixed feelings about this matter. I have some sympathy with the noble Earl, because I hold most clearly that one of the fundamentals of successful traffic control is to get traffic travelling at the same speed. May I just draw upon the experience which I had when studying this problem in America? In America they have far more speed limits than we have in this country, and they apply to every type of vehicle. What happens there is that they do away with what is one of the most accident-prone actions in this country—that is overtaking. Overtaking is one of the greatest contributory factors in accidents. I do not know whether this would fulfil the purpose which my noble friend, and also Lord Howe, have in mind. You cannot switch suddenly from 30 miles an hour to 40 miles art hour and back again. With the

515
best intentions in the world we all miss seeing the "30" on our road signs sometimes, and then we have to look for the disc on the lamp post—and sometimes they are turned round the wrong way, or have been lost.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says that this is an experiment. How long is the experiment to last? Where is it to take place? I have not seen the document which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has produced. If we pass this clause now we do not stand much chance of doing anything on the Report stage. I suppose we can move to leave it out at the Report stage if we do not like it. I do not know what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, would like to do. We have not had much chance of hearing different opinions expressed, and I should like to be guided by other folk. I can see virtue in this proposal and I can also see the drawbacks. One virtue which I can see in it has been mentioned by the noble Earl—I think I caught his words aright. He said that the police say they will be able to enforce the 40 m.p.h. speed limit better than they can enforce the 30 m.p.h. limit.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In the right places, I think. Not just necessarily anywhere.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What do they call the right places?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I may venture to do so, I put it in this way: in the places recommended in this Report. There are certain specific recommendations as to various places where it, is thought that it should be done. I understand that the police think that in these places they will be able to enforce the rule better.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask this question? If this 40 m.p.h. limit is to operate only in certain specific places, do those who have produced the Report think that that will make a major contribution to the better flow of traffic, and therefore to the better control of traffic?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In that case I am prepared to agree with this, And study the Report, which only
516
came out a week ago—I am sorry that I have not acquainted myself with it—and return to this matter on Report stage, when perhaps we shall take this item at a more convenient hour. I should like to have some more opinions because my mind is fluid upon it.
EARL HOWE: I feel that there is great force in what the noble Lord has said, and if the noble Earl could agree to giving time to consider this matter on Report, I think it would be as well. I received my copy of this Report only to-day. Obviously, it is of considerable importance and we ought to have a chance of considering it. Perhaps the noble Earl could agree to have a fairly full discussion on this matter on Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to hear the views of noble Lords on this important matter. It is true that we are not committing ourselves to anything; it merely allows the possibility —and does not even do that in London, because the power exists as it is. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about conditions in France; I think they are appalling. I hope that if we had anywhere to introduce something of this sort we would mark it up much better than the extremely varied speed limits are marked in French towns. I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, when he said that this proposal must be carried out with great care. There are only certain places where it can be done, but I think it would be a pity to exclude the possibility of doing it there. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put his finger on probably one of the biggest causes of danger on the road—that is, overtaking. If we could invent a way of avoiding overtaking, as they have in America, then I think we would have made a contribution to the reduction of accidents—I will not use the word "major" before contribution, because I am reluctant to say that anything is a major contribution; I will say that it would be a contribution which I think should reduce accidents. I shall certainly be glad to discuss this matter at much fuller length on Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 45, at end insert "and what limit of speed is to be observed where a length of road is deemed to be such a road; and'". —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, after Clause 37 to insert the following new clause:
Removal of trees, etc., from highway
" .—(1) If any tree fence wall bank slope cutting or structure or any part thereof shall fall on or across any highway repairable by the inhabitants at large so that obstruction is caused or likely to be caused to persons or vehicles using such highway, the highway authority may remove and pending such removal may fence light and watch the same and recover the reasonable cost of so doing from the owner thereof or, if such owner is not in beneficial occupation of the land upon which such tree fence wall bank slope emitting or structure or any part thereof was situate, from the occupier thereof:
Provided that the highway authority shall fence light and watch any such obstruction caused as aforesaid only if in their opinion it is impracticable to remove the same duning the hours of daylight on the day on which it fell and it shall in any case be the duty of the highway authority to remove the same without unreasonable delay:
Provided further that the highway authority shall if time permits give notice to such owner or occupier as the case may he of any such tree fence wall hank slope cutting or stricture or part thereof before removing the same and in any other case shall give notice of such removal to such owner or occupier as soon as is practicable.
(2) In this section the expression 'highway' includes any street lane road public path footway alley or passage or any square or court irrespective of whether the street road or other thing in question is a thoroughfare or not."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows rather different lines from those which we have been pursuing up to date, and I shall take very little time over it. I hope your Lordships will agree that it has substance and is relevant to greater safety on the roads. It is designed to fill a gap in the existing law and to provide local highway authorities with a much needed power to remove and, pending removal, to light and watch, obstructions falling across a repairable highway from adjoining land, and to recover from the owner or occupier the cost of so doing. At present, when a fallen tree, a collapsed wall, a piece of structure or anything of that kind, especially slips of earth from
518
a bank or slope, which often happens on the moorlands, causes an obstruction, the cost of removing and, in the meantime, of watching and lighting the obstruction tends to fall unjustly on the ratepayers.
I believe that proceedings can be taken under Section 72 of the Highway Act, 1835—a rather ancient one—which makes it an offence in any way wilfully to obstruct the free passage on any highway. But to succeed in such proceedings it is necessary to prove that the obstruction was wilful. There was a case Gully v. Smith, 1883, in which it was held that where, through the collapse of a wall owned by an adjoining landowner, a quantity of stone and soil had fallen upon a highway, the landowner was rightly convicted of wilful obstruction when, having been given notice to remove it, he failed to do so. In practice, therefore, it is often the case that the whole cost of lighting and removing an obstruction falls quite unjustly upon the ratepayers.
Sometimes it is evident that unless a tree is felled or a wall or a bank repaired a serious obstruction, not to mention the danger to human life, will sooner or later arise. In such cases, the highway authority have no statutory power to require the owner to take preventive action, though it is understood that it is not unusual for the highway authority who become aware of the potential obstruction or danger to bring the matter to the owner's notice and to request him to fell the tree or repair the wall, as the case may be, thus making it easier for the authority to prove wilful obstruction should the owner ignore the warning. This position, however, is eminently unsatisfactory, and there is a strongly felt need for some statutory provision on the lines of the new clause suggested by the County Councils Association.
This clause is based on a provision already approved by Parliament and contained in Section 25 of the Glamorgan County Council Act, 1952. However, the clause I am suggesting differs from the Glamorgan enactment in its reference to banks, slopes and cuttings. Such reference is considered essential in view of representations which the Association have received from the Devon and Somerset County Councils, who have pointed out: that slips of earth and stone Facings front steep banks in cuttings and also front stone walls on banks in moorland areas are a frequent source of trouble in those

519
counties, especially after periods of heavy rain or frost. The wording of the Glamorgan enactment, which relates only to "any tree, fence, wall or structure," would not be wide enough to cover obstructions caused in this way.
The clause would empower a highway authority, where an obstruction of the kind referred to in subsection (1) is caused, or is likely to be caused, to remove the same, and, pending such removal, to fence, light and watch the same and to recover the reasonable cost of so doing from the owner or occupier. Since the suggested clause was first put down, it has been found that the first two provisos in subsection (1) contain a flaw, in that should a tree or other obstruction fall across a road in the early hours of the morning, the fact that it would be practicable to remove it during the hours of daylight of that day would preclude the highway authority from fencing, lighting and watching it during the remaining hours of darkness before dawn on that day. Therefore, it is suggested that the following proviso should be substituted:
"Provided that where any such tree, fence, wall, bank, slope, cutting or structure or part thereof shall fall across a highway during the hours of daylight, the highway authority may fence, light and watch the same only if, in their opinion, it is impracticable to remove the same during the hours of daylight on that day; and it shall in any case be the duty of the highway authority, in the exercise of their powers under this subsection, to remove the same without unreasonable delay."
The effect of this substituted proviso would be (a) to make it clear that the highway authority, if they decide to exercise their powers to remove an obstruction, must act expeditiously; and (b) to preclude the highway authority from involving an owner in the expense of lighting and watching in cases where they could reasonably be expected to remove the obstruction during the day on which it fell.
The second proviso in subsection (1) requires the highway authority, in cases where there is no immediate urgency, to give notice to the owner or occupier before attempting to remove the obstruction; and, in cases where this cannot reasonably be done, to give notice to the owner or occupier as soon afterwards as is practicable that the removal has been effected. As I have said, this is rather a new departure from what we have been
520
discussing, but there is already Parliamentary authority for an enactment of this kind; and where it has been done once, in one Corporation Bill, it seems only logical and sound that it should become universal throughout the country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Hampton.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has said that this is rather a departure from what we have been discussing. He is here making a somewhat far-reaching proposal. I am not aware that there is any strong evidence that local authorities are lacking in power either to remove or to light any obstruction which comes on to their highway. Therefore the whole of this clause, from a substantive point of view, seems to be an endeavour by the local authorities to charge a larger sum of money to the neighbouring landlords. So far as I can see, that is almost the whole effect of the clause. As the noble Lord said, under the 1835 Act the owner may be charged with wilful obstruction; and the noble Lord is probably correct in saying that it has not happened often. I feel that this would make a rather fundamental change in the obligation of landlords, and I would rather not do this until we have had some consultation whether this is the best way of doing it. I do not think—and I say this with respect to the noble Lord—that the local authorities are meeting any difficulty at the present time in either lighting or removing any obstruction which may exist on the highway. If the noble Lord has any evidence of that, I should be only too glad to hear of it.
I hope he will not press the Amendment, because it is far-reaching, and I feel that it should go into a Bill of a slightly different character. As I see it, it is not a safety measure; it deals with the relative rights of landlords and highway authorities rather than with matters of greater safety. Frankly, there is no element of greater safety here. Local authorities have all the powers they require. The only thing they are asking here is to be able to charge the expense of using those powers on the local landlords. While I do not say that that is necessarily a bad thing, I would rather not recommend an alteration of this sort to the Committee without a good deal

521
more consultation than has yet been possible. If the noble Lord would withdraw the Amendment now, I should be glad to discuss the matter with him further.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that. But there is the case that if an obstruction occurs through the remissness, say, of a property owner in not taking care of a dangerous tree that overhangs the road, and which he knows to be dangerous, the cost of watching, lighting and removal falls on the unfortunate ratepayer. After all, the ratepayer has plenty on his plate already. This is not something that would occur often, but if there is remissness on the part of an owner of an offending tree, wall, hedge or fence he should pay any costs incurred in the removal.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord is carrying it much further than that. He is putting an absolute liability on the landowner to pay for anything, no matter whether there is a storm, a hurricane or what happens. I do net say that it is wrong, but it is a big step which should not he undertaken without further consultation.
LORD HAMPTON: I understand from that that the noble Earl will see whether there is any way round it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I will certainly look at it.
LORD HAMPTON: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
7.46 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 38 to insert the following new clause:
Taking pedal cycle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence
"Section twenty-eight of the Act c f 1930 (which penalises taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent or other authority) shall apply to persons taking bicycles and tricycles, not being motor vehicles, as it applies to persons taking and driving away motor vehicles, and reference in that enactment to motor vehicles shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Lord said: When the Bill was being debated in another place an Amendment was put on the Marshalled List practically identical with this one, and I feel some diffidence in rising to
522
move it again. I can see certain difficulties. The first is that one does not like to be party to the making of a new offence; the second is that the offence will be somewhat difficult to prove; the third is that bicycle stealing is not an easy thing to identify. But I did take courage to-day, because I saw in The Times that bicycle thefts had gone up by about 30 per cent. in the first five months of the year. So one did come down to the question of whether a person was going to steal a bicycle, or was just borrowing it to go somewhere.
What really worried me bout this was that, when the matter was debated in another place in January or February, last, the Minister said in reply that it could be dealt with by by-laws. That seemed to me a thoroughly unsatisfactory way of dealing with this offence. Surely, it would be an absurd situation if one could take a bicycle with impunity in Cambridge, where I spent a certain amount of my youth, but that if I went to Oxford, where the noble Lord opposite spent sonic of his youth, I should be fined, presumably, for the same kind of thing. Surely, by-laws are meant to deal with purely local conditions, which may be parallel in other places but are not general I would rather see this particular act of taking a bicycle without consent not an offence at all or else made an offence punishable over the whole country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to lend my support to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, if only on the grounds of logic and equity. For the first time, under Clause 11 of this Bill, we are allowing cyclists to come into the fold of road offenders vim can be penalised. Clause 11 sets out the application of the enactment to pedal cyclists guilty of dangerous and reckless driving. If they are going to have all the penalties, why should not they have at least some of the protection? If the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is going to reply, I am sure that will readily appeal to his logical mind. I can see no greater difficulty in apprehending a bicycle thief than of apprehending a cyclist who rides recklessly or dangerously. When we are talking about difficulties of enforcement

523
we have a few difficulties facing the police under Clause 11. What is one more among so many? I believe that there is a great deal of logic in this Amendment and I hope that it will receive the noble Lord's sympathetic reply.
LORD CONESFORD: It does not seem to me to be quite so simple as the noble Lord has just made out. If a man is riding a bicycle recklessly, you can proceed against him on that ground without having to investigate the ownership of the machine. Although I do not differ from either of the noble Lords on the reprehensible character of this offence, however common it may be in university cities, I think there may be a certain amount of difficulty owing to the difficulty of identifying bicycles. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that in those countries where they have succeeded in making this an offence a bicycle is subject to registration and has to bear a number. I think that may be involved if this Amendment is pressed.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is proposing the most sweeping change in the law in suggesting that the taking of a pedal cycle without the owners' consent or authority should be an offence. If this Amendment were passed and were made retrospective, I think that probably every single Member of your Lordships' House would, at some time or another, have been guilty of several offences. I agree that it is a reprehensible thing to do, and may in many cases cause real hardship. Before we pass into law a clause such as this, we should have to think very carefully whether it is worth while. It would mean creating a new criminal offence, which is always a dangerous thing to do unless there is a real evil which requires correction; and that I beg leave to doubt. The noble Lord emphasised the difficulty of tracing the bicycle and of deciding whether the rider was a genuine borrower or a genuine bicycle thief. There is always the risk that if something is not regarded as reprehensible morally, the law will come into disrepute pretty quickly. "Scrounging" is an unpleasant thing, but if you carry the law to the ultimate end it will do more harm than good.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, spoke rather disparagingly of the use of by-
524
laws. I was going to suggest that that might be a solution in places such as Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Winchester, Aldershot, or possibly "Narkover," and places where this offence might be particularly prevalent. I do not see why the noble Lord is so ill-disposed towards the by-laws. It has been done in Devon, because the Devon County Council found some particular need for it; and the Home Secretary confirmed it. My right honourable friend will be quite prepared to consider other cases if it is thought to be a suitable solution. I cannot raise much enthusiasm for this idea of creating a new crime, however serious and widespread the practice may be, as it would be difficult to enforce. It would mean a lot of work for the police and would tend to bring both the police and the law into disrepute. There is another solution which I will offer to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and that is to get a good padlock.
LORD AMULREE: The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has entirely convinced me, as I expected he would and as I intended he should, that it would not be a good thing to make this Amendment part of the Bill. Therefore, I propose to withdraw it. But I was rather shocked that he should defend it by making it a partial crime. What I was hoping he might say was that it was a form of offence that should not be dealt with by law at all and, therefore, that his right honourable friend would not encourage local authorities to propose by-laws to that end. That was the real purpose of my moving the Amendment, and although I am perfectly prepared to withdraw it, I am extremely disappointed about what he has said concerning by-laws.
Amendment, by leave; withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Duration of driving licences and fees therefor]:
7.55 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Teynham. Clause 40 increases the fee for driving licences from 5s. to 15s., and it also increases from one to three years the period during which the driving licence is valid. I am sure that the increase in the fee is intended to cover the administrative costs of issuing the driving licence. Surely, the increased period of the driving licence

525
from one to three years will, as it is issued only once in three years, instead of once a year, considerably lower those administrative costs and simplify the whole of the administrative procedure. I suggest that trebling the cost is going too far. My noble friend Lord Teynham has proposed 10s., which would amply cover the present-day increase in costs for issuing licences. Also 10s. is a much easier sum to handle when it is being paid in. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 2, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Waleran.)
LORD MANCROFT: I agree that the administrative work is lessened by the fact that the licence is now issued for three years, but it costs 5s. for one year and the driver is getting three years' worth of licence, so it is only fair that he should pay 15s. for it—provided the noble Lord was not thinking solely of the administrative costs involved. I am afraid that is where the noble Lord and I must differ, because this charge was introduced only on the understanding that there must not be any loss to the Exchequer. I quite see the noble Lord's point, and I think his logic is good. A very small sum is involved, and I do not think there is great hardship. I would add that the price of 5s. was fixed in 1903, when the value of money was slightly different, so I do not think the licence holder is coming out of it too badly, and the Treasury are getting a little more money.
LORD WALERAN: I am not happy with the answer, because your Lordships will remember you once got a decent-looking licence. To-day, one gets a horrible piece of paper which curls up in three months. I should not have thought the actual cost was over 10s.
EARL HOWE: Is the argument not suspect from another angle? Is not one of our troubles to-day the amount of Government expenditure, and the increase in taxation? Is it not an inflationary tendency? Surely, we can have this minor concession. The Government have not given us much so far, so could they not give us this one?
LORD WALERAN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, but I shall return to it on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:
"As from the first day of January, 1957, Regulation 17 of the Diving Licences Regulations, 1950 (which requires the holder of a driving licence to sign it in ink with his usual signature) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I understand that the original reason why holders of driving licences were required to sign them was to make sure that the licence was not being used by the wrongful owner. It seems to me that the police constable who might stop a driver is not an expert in handwriting, and would have difficulty in comparing a signature on the licence with the signature given him on a piece of paper by the man he stopped, to prove that he was not the owner of the licence. Also, on inquiry, I have failed to learn of any cases where this signature has been used to identify the user of a driving licence.
It seems to me, therefore, that, if there is no actual advantage in having it signed, it is really an imposition to have a regulation which has penalties attached to it for the millions—or at any rate, thousands—of holders of driving licences who do not always remember to sign them when they take them out. It seems to me that, although the licences are now to he issued for three years, the point still holds good. One may easily forget to sign a new licence. If there is no advantage accruing to it, this regulation might well be rescinded.
LORD MANCROFT: The practice of signing one's driving licence has been in existence for about twenty-five years. I do not think it has caused any intolerable hardship. I have not heard stories of thousands of angry and ill-judged licence holders complaining about it. It acts as a safeguard if there is any possibility of a transfer of the licence to a wrongful holder. The police find it effective. If it were a great hardship, one might possibly consider some other plan but I do not think it does very much harm. It is certainly a safeguard against something which we do not want to happen, the free transfer of licences between people who should not awn them. That is all I have to say on that point. I could not look sympathetically upon this Amendment from the technical point, either. It is not really appropriate to suggest the amendment of a regulation

527
by an Act of Parliament. That is the first argument upon which I base the strength of the case for rejection of the Amendment.
LORD SWAYTHLING: Will the noble Lord tell me whether he knows of these signatures having been used to check these transfers, such as he suggests?
LORD MANCROFT: I cannot give the noble Lord any information on that in the way of examples, but I cannot imagine that the police would welcome the retention of this provision if they had not found it useful in the twenty-five years it has been in existence. If it were no use at all, we should have heard about it. I will find out about that.
LORD SWAYTHLING: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING: Many farmers, particularly small farmers, have one tractor and one farm goods vehicle, such as a Landrover, which they use to pull farm trailers. It is considerably inconvenient to them that, whenever a farm trailer is pulled by a different vehicle in their own ownership, they have to alter the number plate at the rear of the farm trailer. I am sure it would be a great boon to farmers if this new clause could be inserted in the Bill, with the proviso in the clause that the vehicle towing the trailer has to be in the ownership of the farmer. The fact that the owner of the vehicle could easily he traced by the number would justify the inclusion of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
(" . As from the first day of January, 1957, the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of Regulation 23 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1955 (which permits the rearmost vehicle drawn by a restricted vehicle to exhibit a registration mark of any other restricted vehicle in the same ownership) shall extend and apply to all farmers goods vehicles as defined in the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949.")—(Lord Swaythling.)
LORD HAWKE: We all want to try to make the work of farmers as simple as
528
possible. It was only last year that we made a considerable concession in this direction, because we made it possible for those vehicles which do not run any great distance on the road—in fact, tractors—to tow miscellaneous trailers without matching number plates. That was intended to be a special help for the hay harvest, silage making, and so on. The noble Lord wants to extend this now to all farmers' goods vehicles. If he does that, we shall be getting more into the realms of ordinary goods vehicles on the road. We do not see why the farmer should be treated any better in this respect than other road users who have the same problem. If we made the concession to farmers, there is no question but that other people would expect the same thing done for them. We do not think that it would be desirable to have a big breach in the existing practice in that way because, from the point of view of police work, in the case of accidents or a breach of the law, it is rather important that one should be able to identify the vehicle and the driver from the fleeting glimpse that one may get of the number.
I wonder, too, whether it would be of great help to many farmers. There are probably many farms which have only one trailer, in which case it has the same number plate as is on the vehicle that usually tows it. If it were a widely sought after concession, we believe that the National Farmers' Union, who have never been very backward in asking for things, would have asked for it, but so far as we know, the National Farmers' Union have not yet done so. I should have liked to be able to accept an Amendment from the noble Lord because he does not often put them down, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The noble Lord mentioned the hay harvest and silage making. A farmer often has only one tractor, but he may have a Landrover which he uses to tow his trailer or trailers for the hay harvest. It would, no doubt, be a great boon to him to be able to use the tractor or the Landrover in this manner. However, if the noble Lord cannot see his way to accepting the Amendment for the reasons he has given, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 43 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment defines "bridleway" and "footpath", which is necessary for the new Clause 13. It is in line with the definition already in the Statute Book in the National Parks Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 8, at end insert—
("'bridleway' means a way over which the public have the following, but no other rights of way, that is to say a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way;
'footpath' means a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 17, after ("any") insert ("prohibition, restriction")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Procedure for orders designating parking places.]
8.10 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in paragraph (2) (1), to omit the opening word "On" and to insert "Before." The noble Lord said: I have some doubt as to the construction of "On" in this line and suggest the insertion of the word "Before." There might be nothing in my point, but I should like to tell my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, what I had in mind. The paragraph as drafted suggests that on the application being made two things have to be done simultaneously—namely, publication in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the locality. As your Lordships know, the London Gazette is published on Tuesdays and Fridays, and the local newspaper may be published on quite a different day. Therefore it may be a little difficult, if I am right on the construction, to see how this provision can be complied with. I do not know: it may be that my noble friend is satisfied on the advice given to him that it causes no difficulty, but it seems to me that the insertion of the word "before" would avoid all doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 12, leave an ("On") and insert ("Before").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am interested to hear the reason which prompted the noble Lord to put down this Amendment. I am bound to say that I was in difficulty in understanding what was worrying him. I think he is being a trifle too logical in emphasising that all these things have to happen simultaneously. We should not at all mind putting in "before" but I am told that this is the normal wording used by the draftsman. I should add that the time factor does not matter until we come to paragraph 3, which says:
"On such an application as aforesaid the Minister shall, after the period for objecting to the making of the order has expired, refer the application …"
and so on. So that really the time factor does not matter; it is of no considerable importance. I think we should prefer to keep the words as they are, but I shall be only too glad to look at this again in order to make quite certain that there is not something which ought to be done.
LORD CONESFORD: If there is a precedent for this and it has caused no difficulty. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to commend this Amendment to my noble friend. When we were discussing Clause 15 of this Bill he rightly drew attention to the safeguards of the Third Schedule. I think there would be some safeguard if notice had to be served on the owners and occupiers of the land concerned. I think it is desirable in London because, as my noble friend must realise, there are a great number of people who do not normally read either the London Gazette or the local newspaper. Therefore there would be no real difficulty in making this addition, which I think would be a safeguard. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, after ("authority") insert ("shall serve a copy of the advertisement referred to in the foregoing sub-paragraph (1) on every owner or occupier of land adjacent to the parking places and").—(Lord Conesford.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I think it is fair to recall that we had this matter under consideration twelve months ago when these particular clauses were pretty

531
thoroughly "raked over" by your Lordships. Indeed, this Schedule bears clearly the imprint of what the House had in mind at that time. The particular point to which the noble Lord has drawn attention was clearly in our minds and we have put in these requirements, that it shall be first of all for the local authority not only to advertise in the London Gazette and the local paper but to
"take such other steps as appear to the local authority reasonably practicable for the purpose of bringing specifically to the knowledge of persons likely to be specially affected, as the occupiers of land adjacent to the parking places, information as to the matters specified …"
If all this has been done, and there have been objections, the matter is referred to the Minister who may then direct the authority to take such
"further steps for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, … as he may specify …"
We think that goes a pretty long way, and it is as far as the draftsman can go without imposing a statutory obligation that every person in the locality should be served.
The real difficulty about the point of the noble Lord here is that it brings in the possibility of anybody who is an occupier or owner in the vicinity invalidating an order after it has been made because he can show that in point of fact he never was served with a notice. That means to say that he could hold up the action—indeed, it might intimidate any local authority and prevent them from taking any action whatever. I do not think that the noble Lord can put in a claim as high as that. He is making a claim which—I do not know whether he quite realises it—is a higher claim than his rights in the case of compulsory purchase. He is putting in a claim that a man has rights in the road in front of his house greater than the rights in his own house. There is a limitation in regard to challenging compulsory purchase orders after they have been made for six weeks. Indeed, I believe that even then a court will not invalidate the order unless the applicant can show that he is substantially prejudiced. I think the point that the noble Lord has raised is met without making a statutory binding obligation which might upset the working of the Bill. Therefore, I hope
532
that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I admit that I had not thought of the possible grave objection to which my noble friend has drawn attention. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment relates to the Schedule which we have just been discussing. It is to make sure that the particular protection to which I have referred applies equally well to areas outside London as it does to those inside London. It concerns a pure omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 36, at end insert—
("(3) Where on the expiration of the period specified in the advertisement under subparagraph (1) of this paragraph it appears to the Minister that, before the application is further dealt with, the local authority should take further steps for the purpose mentioned in the last foregoing sub-paragraph, he may direct the authority to take such further step9 for that purpose as he may specify, and if he does so the period within which a copy of the order and plan may be inspected, and objections may be made, shall be deemed to be extended by such time as the Minister may direct.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 45, leave out from the beginning to end of line 3 on page 43.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth and Fifth Schedules agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
8.20 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after paragraph 3 to insert:
("4.—(1) In subsection (1) of section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924 (which, as amended by section sixty-three of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, enables the Minister to make regulations with respect to road traffic in the London Traffic Area) after the word 'load' in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words the number of passengers the vehicle is adapted to carry'.
(2) In paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule to the said Act of 1924 (which specifies the

533
matters with respect to which regulations may be made under the said section ten) after the word 'traffic' there shall 'be inserted the words by vehicles, or'.
(3) For the purposes of the said: section ten and the said Third Schedule the expression 'road' means any highway and any other road to which the public has access.
5. In subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which confers powers on local authorities with respect to the lopping of trees, hedges and shrubs overhanging streets or footpaths) for the words 'street or footpath' there shall be substituted the words 'highway or any other road or footpath to which the public has access'.
6.—(1) Regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927 to 1953, granting exemptions from any of the requirements of those Acts—

(a) may grant exemptions therefrom in such cases as may be specified in the regulations and subject to such conditions as may be specified in or under the regulations; and

(b) may make different provision as respects different areas, as respects different classes or descriptions of vehicles or as respects the same class or description of vehicles in different circumstances.

(2) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section one of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927 (which subsection provides for exempting vehicles from the requirements of that Act) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(b) vehicles standing or parked on any road with respect to which a speed limit on the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles is in force by virtue of any enactment or on any road verge or in any parking place or any stand for hackney carriages.'
(3) In relation to a road with respect to which an exemption under the said paragraph (b) has effect (whether absolutely or subject to conditions) the power conferred by subsection (1) of section forty-eight of the Act of 1930 of placing traffic signs indicating the existence of the exemption shall, if the local authority for the area in which the road is situated is not the highway authority for the road, be exercisable by the local authority with the consent of the highway authority, and the power conferred by subsection (5) of that section of giving to the highway authority directions for the removal of a traffic sign or other object or device or for the replacement of a traffic sign by, or its conversion into, a sign of another type or character shall include power to give such directions to the local authority in relation to a traffic sign, object or device placed by them on or near any such road.
In this sub-paragraph 'local authority' means, as respects England and Wales, the council of a county borough, county district, metropolitan borough or the Common Council of the City of London, and as respects Scotland a county council or town council.
(4) Any provision contained in regulations under the Road Transport Lighting Acts, 1927
534
to 1953, which grant exemptions from any of the requirements of those Acts and are in force at the coming into operation of this paragraph shall have effect as if made under those Acts as amended by this paragraph.
7.—(1) In section six of the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (iii) (which provides that agricultural vehicles and implements need not carry a a separate lamp showing a red light to the rear) the word 'separate' shall be omitted.
(2) In section eight of the said Act of 1927, in paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) (which provides, in the case of a vehicle drawing one or more other vehicles, that if the distance between any such vehicles exceeds five feet each vehicle shall be required to carry the same lamps as if is were not drawing or being drawn) for the words from 'any such' to 'being drawn ' there shall he substituted the words any two of the vehicles exceeds five feet, then as respects any light to be shown to the rear the foremost of the two vehicles, and as respect, any light to be shown to the front the rearmost of the two vehicles shall be required to carry the same lamps as if the one were net drawing the other'
8. In subsection (2) of section five of the Act of 1930 (which requires a licensing authority to refuse a driving licence if it appears from the application that the applicant suffers from any of the specified diseases and disabilities) after the word 'appears', where it first occurs, there shall be inserted the words or if on inquiry into other information the licensing authority are satisfied'.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment consists of a lot of minor and consequential amendments to a Schedule which itself is a lot of miner and consequential amendments. I wish to assure you that there is nothing controversial in them, and if it is all the same to your Lordships, I move them without more ado. If your Lordships have any questions I shall not know the answers, but I do want to "show willing". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 12, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 8, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 17 and insert ("in subsection (61 for the words from 'five pounds' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds'").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment does no more than to say that a footpath is the same as a footway, and I think it will assist consolidation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 22, at end insert—
("7. In section fourteen of the Act of 1930, in subsection (1) for the word 'footway' there shall be substituted the word 'footpath', and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(3) In this section the expressions "bridleway" and "footpath" have the same meanings as in the Road Traffic Act, 1956.'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD had given Notice of an Amendment to insert after paragraph 6:
"7. At the end of section fourteen of the Act of 1930 there shall be added the following subsection—
'(3) The expression "lawful authority" in subsection (1) of this section shall mean, in relation to the use of vehicles on any footpath or bridleway otherwise than in the exercise of a private right of way, the consent in writing of the owner of the land over which the footpath or bridleway passes'."
The noble Lord said: I have had a word with my noble friend, and I think that this Amendment is so much bound up with those matters which we were considering on Monday night that it would be more convenient that I should not move it now but include it in the discussions I am going to have with my noble friend. In those circumstances I de not propose to move it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) In section seventy-one of the Act of 1930, in subsection (4), after the words 'conditions as to fitness' there shall be inserted the words 'or such of those conditions as are not dispensed with by an order of the Minister under section sixty-eight of this Act for the time being in force'.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment is really to clarify the appeal rights to the Traffic Commissioners.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the rights conferred by the said section eighty-one to appeal if aggrieved by
536
the imposition or attachment of a condition shall include rights to appeal against a refusal to impose or attach a condition or the imposition or attachment of a condition differing from that desired, and the rights conferred by that section to appeal if aggrieved by the variation of conditions shall include rights to appeal if aggrieved by the variation differing from that desired.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment validates certain procedure which has been going on since 1935, in which the Minister has actually been doing things which really should have been done by the licensing authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations under the said section sixteen may contain exemptions, applying in such cases and subject to such limitations as may be specified in the regulations, for vehicles used in the business of agriculture or vehicles used in the business of a travelling showman.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment validates regulations which were made under the section mentioned in the previous Amendment, so that it is not necessary to issue new regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 28, at end insert—
("(4) Any such exemption or requirement as aforesaid contained in regulations under the said section sixteen in force at the coming into operation of this paragraph shall have effect as if made in the exercise of the powers conferred thereby.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 43, leave out ("following provisions of this paragraph") and insert ("provisions of the four next following subparagraphs").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 50, after ("revoked") insert ("or varied").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is both drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 17, at end insert—
("(6) The provisions of the four Last foregoing sub-paragraphs shall apply in relation to such directions as are authorised by subsection (3) of section thirty-six of this Act as they apply in relation to directions that a length of road shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this paragraph applies to any length of trunk road.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will not detain your Lordships a minute on this Amendment. It is really to ask the Government whether they will legalise under the 30 miles an hour limit the new four-wheeled trailer which, in quite a number of cases, has taken the place of the two-wheeled trailer. I know this can be done by regulation. I will content myself with moving the Amendment, if the noble Earl will be kind enough to say that he will bring in a regulation to cover it at the earliest convenience. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 33, at end insert—
"29. In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Act of 1934 which imposes a maximum speed limit of 30 m.p.h. on a vehicle not being a heavy motor car adapted to carry not more than seven passengers, exclusive of the driver, drawing a two-wheeled trailer, after the words 'drawing a two-wheeled trailer' there shall be added 'or a close-coupled four-wheeled trailer' ('close-coupled' in relation to any two wheels of a vehicle meaning that those two wheels are both fitted on the same side of the vehicle, are not steerable and are so fitted that the distance between them measured horizontally and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle between the centres of the areas of contact of the wheels with the road surface does not exceed thirty-three inches)."—(Lord Lucas of Chilivorth.)
LORD WALERAN: I should like to support this Amendment. I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, and I am sure the technical details are well known. I know it is supported by all the motoring organisations and I hope that it will come in at a later date by regulation.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This Amendment appeared on the Order Paper only yesterday morning and we have not had an opportunity of looking at it. I am confident that it can be done by regulation and I can say that we shall probably do it; but I cannot commit myself at this
538
stage because we have not had an opportunity of examining what is involved.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would it help the noble Earl if I say that this matter has been before his Department for over twelve months? I do not want to weary your Lordships with a long dissertation. Every detail of this Amendment is known to the Department. They promised almost two years ago that they would do it. The only reason I put down this Amendment is to bring it to the notice of the noble Earl. The excuse is always given that there is no Parliamentary time, and yet we have spent three days on some things—well at this time of night I will not tell you what I think about them. There is Parliamentary time to bring in that little lot so there should be time to bring in something like this. In the interests of road safety, caravan manufacturers have now made four-wheeled close-coupled trailers. I have here a photograph which your Lordships can see. Under the 1930 Act, as amended by the 1934 Act, they are now confined to 20 miles an hour because they have four wheels. You can trail your caravan with the old-fashioned two wheels at 30 miles an hour, but if you travel in the latest up-to-date, and far more safe, vehicle you are confined to 20 miles an hour, and it has been like this for four years. This is precisely a similar case to that of the station wagon and the 30 m.p.h. limit which took four years of incessant battering to put right. I ask the noble Earl whether, if the facts are as I have stated—which I know to be true—he will give the Committee an undertaking that at the earliest convenience he will put a regulation before Parliament to make this change.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have done as much as I can. We have had something like 116 Amendments to deal with and I have not even had a chance to read this one. I hope the noble Lord will accept what I have said.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do accept it, but I want to impress the noble Earl with the urgency. I have been here two clays and there are some of the Amendments that I have not had time to read. However, this is the last one and we do not want to quarrel on the last hurdle. I will accept the fact that he will do it as soon as he possibly can, With

539
that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 49, leave out ("commencement of this Act") and insert ("coming into operation of this paragraph").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The remaining Amendments are repeals of enactments which I think I can move together. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 38, at end insert—

("17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 37.

The Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927.

In section one, in subsection (2) the words 'and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulation' and the words 'or vehicles of any class or description', and in subsection (4) the words from' (a) as respects' to 'the year'; in section six, in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (iii), the word 'separate' ").

—(The Earl of Selkirk).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 13. column 3, after ("end") insert ("in section forty-six, subsections (1) and (9); in section forty-eight, the proviso to subsection (4).").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 22, column 3, leave out from ("sixty-one") to ("and") in line 27.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 32, column 3, after ("In") insert ("section two, subsection (5); in").— (The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 43, column 3, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("and (6), in subsection (7), in paragraph (b), the words ' under subsection (5) of this section', and subsections").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 51, column 3, after ("months") insert ("in section six in subsection (1), the word 'either' and the words from the first 'or' to the end of the subsection").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 55, at end insert—

("1 Edw. 8.& 1 Geo. 6. c. 5.

The Trunk Roads Act, 1936.

In the Second Schedule, in the entry relating to section forty-seven of the Act of 1930, the words 'and (8)'; and in Part I of the Third Schedule, in the entry relating to section one of the Act of 1934, the words 'Subsection (5) shall not apply'.")

—(The Earl of Selkirk).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 57, at end add—

("1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 21.

The Road Transport Lighting Act, 1953.

In section one, in subsection (5), the words from 'and subject' to 'the regulation' and the words' either generally or in any particular circumstances'; in section three, in subsection (3), the words' in any prescribed circumstances'

1&2 Eliz. 2. c. 22.

The Road Transport Lighting (No. 2)Act, 1953.

Section one.)

—(The Earl of Selkirk).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.