Sitting of 17 April 1958

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

    Infant Schools (Capitation Allowances)
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied that the annual capitation allowances of local education authorities to head teachers of infant schools for the equipping of their schools are adequate; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I do not think that many infant schools lack adequate supplies of equipment, but when Her Majesty's Inspectors notice deficiencies of this kind they bring them to the attention of the local education authority concerned.
    Mr. Short: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that infant schools do not lack equipment, because school teachers throughout the country have to make their own equipment and infant school teachers everywhere are put to a great deal of trouble by making their own stuff? Does not he agree that infant schools have just as great a need as secondary schools and primary schools for up-to-date equipment? Will he look at the capitation grants made by local authorities throughout the country and, when he does so, take some action about those which he will find are quite inadequate?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that they vary throughout the country, partly for accounting reasons, because there are different matters brought in under the capitation grants in different authorities' areas. It is the responsibility of the local authorities to fix the grants, and I have
    324
    not asked them to economise on this. In fact, my information seems to show that they are increasing their expenditure.

    Domestic Science Training Colleges
    Mr. Tileyasked the Minister of Education how many students are at present in training at domestic science training colleges and similar institutions.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: About 2,000 at colleges which specialise in the subject, and about 400 at colleges which also offer general courses of teacher training.
    Mr. Tiley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is rather a large proportion of girls to be taking these courses compared with the total number of students? In view of the need for the development of science and technology and the need for more of our girls to enter that sphere, could not something be done to persuade more girls to learn how to make Zetas rather than rock buns?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is a fallacy, I think, in what my hon. Friend has said, in that it does not follow that somebody who is good at teaching cooking can necessarily stimulate the making of Zetas. I should like to say that I think that the domestic science courses are very important and there is, in fact, a shortage of teachers for this particular work.
    Mr. Tileyasked the Minister of Education what is the total number of training and other staff at present employed at domestic science training colleges and similar institutions; and what is their annual cost in salaries at the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In 1956–57 the specialist domestic science colleges employed 250 lecturers whose salaries cost £247,000. The number of other staff is not known, but their cost in salaries and wages was about £195,000. I regret that similar information about domestic science courses in general teacher training colleges is not available.
    Mr. Tiley: I recognise the need for domestic science training, but is not it a fact that there is a greater need for more money to be used in the other fields which I mentioned in my supplementary question to Question No. 2?

    325
    Could not my right hon. Friend devote some propaganda towards using the money more adequately to the country's needs?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am, of course, very much aware of the need to encourage science teaching, but I must say that my experience of the schools since I have been Minister leads me to have an admiration for the domestic science teaching which is being given. What is more, while obviously it is quite clear that nothing can take the place of a mother's advice and training, I believe that modern mothers will want their daughters to have the additional help which is given through their being taught up-to-date information about nutrition and the use of modern domestic appliances.
    Mr. Ede: Are not good cooks more likely to add to human happiness than advanced scientists?
    Mr. Lloyd: My own feeling is that we very definitely need both.
    Mr. Tileyasked the Minister of Education the total capital value of the equipment being used at present in the domestic science training colleges and similar institutions.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that this information is not available.

    Schools, Newcastle upon Tyne
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Education how many schools in the County Borough of Newcastle upon Tyne are housed in buildings below the standard required by his Department and how many children attend these schools.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Short: I am very sorry that the Minister has not that information, which surely could have been obtained from the local authorities. Is he aware that throughout my constituency all the schools are very old and dilapidated? Whilst I certainly welcome the new schools on the perimeter of the city, is not it about time that some money was spent on the older schools in which many thousands of children will be taught during the whole of their school life?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course, everybody is very keen to get on with the job to
    326
    which the hon. Gentleman refers, but, at present, as I think he knows, the effort to cope with the bulge is so great that we cannot, at the moment, do much on the other front.
    Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question asked for some very simple figures which could surely have been obtained from the local authorities. The Minister said that they are not available. Am I not entitled to have those figures?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister.

    Teacher Training Colleges
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the continuing anxiety amongst parents because large numbers of sixth-form girls have, as yet, failed to obtain admission to the teacher training colleges for the coming session 1958–59; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee of inquiry into this matter.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir; but the colleges still have several hundred places to fill. I see no need for a special committee.
    Mr. Johnson: Does the Minister think or believe that the unofficial clearing house is doing an efficient job in this matter? I have found that many sixth-form teachers are in the dark about the future of their students. Would not it be a good thing if an official clearing house were in existence? We should then know what was happening and should be able to ask questions in the House about the figures to allay the anxieties of parents and careers teachers in sixth forms in our secondary schools.
    Mr. Lloyd: I should not like to change this organisation without further thought, but I will certainly look into the matter to see whether anything further can be done to hasten notification.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that some men students are finding difficulty in getting places when they apply to their second or third choice because the first choice is full and it is almost impossible for them to be accepted until a very late date?
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education how many new training colleges have been opened in the past four years; and how many will be opened in 1958.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: None, Sir; but I have already decided to review the plans for the recruitment of teachers in consultation with the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the crying need of every local education authority is for more teachers and that he would make a signal mark as Minister of Education if at once he would start building some new training colleges to supply the teachers that are necessary?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course, we know the need for teachers and we know that last year the net increase was not as great as we had hoped for. It is primarily for that reason that I have referred the matter to the Council. I would prefer to get the Council's advice before acting, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many complicated features.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Can the Minister say when he expects to get the Council's advice?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, not today.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Minister of Education his plans for increasing the accommodation at teacher training colleges, in view of the necessity to increase the numbers of trained teachers and thus reduce the size of classes.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have just given the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King). I cannot say more than this today.
    Mr. Johnson: Can the Minister tell us what colleges have approached him in this matter and why he is closing down, for example, Wynyard College in County Durham? Does not he realise that the bulge is getting bulgier and that we have now a series of bulges? Should not he start a campaign, "Operation Bulge", to cope with the increased numbers in six, eight or ten years' time?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the problem of the little bulge that is now coming along. That is one of the matters which will be considered by the National Advisory Council. Regarding the particular
    328
    college that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I should like to make inquiries and let him know the result of them.

    State Scholarship Grants
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Education how much he estimates that it would cost to abolish the means test governing State scholarship grants.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: About £1 million a year, and a further £3½ million if the hardship test were abolished for holders of local authority awards.
    Mr. Lipton: Limiting this question to State scholarship grants, is not it unfair to discriminate against a boy or girl who is clever enough to win a State scholarship simply because of the financial circumstances of his or her parents? Would not it be more fair to treat them all alike and give them the scholarship which has been won by their own efforts?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think we could limit it to the type of scholarship that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. In fairness, we would have to deal with the whole sphere. The matter is at present governed by legislation.

    Size of Classes
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Education how many extra teachers would be required to reduce the size of all secondary classes to 30 and primary classes to 40.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: About 60,000.
    Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this illustrates the terrific magnitude of the problem with which he is coping? If he cannot hope to solve it within any reasonable time by the present annual extra increase in the number of teachers, and if he hopes to introduce three-year teacher training and to get the sizes of classes down to what they ought to be, he must embark on a bold revolutionary expansion of the training colleges that exist and also build new ones.
    Mr. Lloyd: There is also the question of graduate teachers. The number of teachers coming from the graduate courses and the colleges is increasing steadily year by year, but I recognise the magnitude of the problem.

    Technical Colleges (Science Degree Courses)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Minister of Education how many degree courses in science in technical colleges have been closed down in the last three years.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This information is not readily available.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is not it the case that a number of degree courses at technical colleges in the London area have recently been closed down, that a number of others are severely under-strength in students, and that a large number of ex-sixth form pupils will not be able to find places in university courses? Will not the Minister encourage the development of degree courses in technical colleges for that reason?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is a misunderstanding here. The courses that have been abolished have been abolished primarily because of the lack of students, as recommended by a working party report published in 1957. Some courses, for example, had only four members in one year. It did not seem right to continue those courses when similar courses were available in, say, another technical college within easy reach.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Butter
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the adverse effect that the sale of butter imports at a price lower than obtains in the country of origin is having on home and Commonwealth production, what action he has taken, and will now take, in this matter.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what applications have been made to him for anti-dumping duties on imports of butter; and whether he will now make a statement upon the action that he is taking in this matter.
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what complaints he has had from the New Zealand Government about alleged dumping of dairy products in the United Kingdom; and what reply he has given to these complaints.
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has completed his inquiry into the complaint of New Zealand that foreign butter is being dumped on the United Kingdom market; and what action by way of countervailing duty or otherwise is to be taken.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The National Farmers' Unions and Milk Marketing Boards of the United Kingdom and the New Zealand Government have applied for anti-dumping or countervailing duties on imports of butter from a number of countries. I would refer to the remarks made by my right hon. Friend in the debate yesterday, but am not in a position to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 27th March.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister aware that this matter is causing considerable perturbation to a number of people? Will he bear in mind that he, like myself, is pledged to a policy which gives first place to the home producer, second place to the Commonwealth producer and third place to the foreign producer, and that any departure from this policy would have no support either in this House or in the country?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: This is a very complex issue. We have given an opportunity to all the countries concerned to make their representations. Those have now been received and are being considered.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Whatever emerges from this inquiry into the alleged dumping of butter, will the Minister give an assurance that New Zealand needs some help in this matter? Is it a fact that we are buying butter here at 5d. a lb. less than the New Zealand farmer is getting in his own Dominion?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: A great deal of evidence will be submitted on the matter. While it is being considered in a quasi-judicial capacity under the Act, it would be best if I added nothing at the present time.
    Mr. Jay: As we all want to help a Commonwealth country, if New Zealand wished it would the Government consider a Government contract to purchase this butter at a reasonable price?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That raises an entirely different issue.
    Mr. Hurd: When my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has all the information and can come to conclusions, will he be good enough to tell the House the grounds on which he reached those conclusions? There appears to many of us to be a terrible tangle of two-tier prices throughout the Continent which is affecting us here by the surpluses being dumped at much lower prices than those charged to domestic consumers. Will he see whether that can be done?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I feel sure that there will be many opportunities for discussion on the matter.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend bear in mind that on all sides we remember with gratitude how New Zealand stood by us in a very difficult period and that it would be the desire of every hon. Member that the Government should treat New Zealand fairly and generously in this matter?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has read the remarks of my right hon. Friend yesterday on this subject.
    Mr. Wade: Can the Minister give an assurance that no agricultural products are exported by this country and sold overseas at prices lower than those obtaining in this country? Further, can he say what efforts are being made to reach agreement with other European countries on the subject of selling goods at prices below the cost of production in the country of origin?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am not aware of any complaints of dumping against us at the moment.

    Tomatoes (Import Duty)
    Mr. Collinsasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in respect of an increase in the duty on imported tomatoes.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Two applications for increases in the import duties on fresh tomatoes have been accepted for examination, one relating to the month of May and the other to the
    332
    period mid-June to the end of October. There are many interested parties all of whose representations should and will receive full consideration.
    Mr. Collins: In considering this matter, will the Minister bear particularly in mind that the duty of 4d. a lb. becomes 6d. a lb. in the shops, that it is a considerable protection to the home producer and that any further increase in duty would be a totally unjustifiable increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There have been representations from nine different bodies and I have no doubt that these views were expressed amongst them.
    Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend take steps to take a decision speedily on this matter, in view of the fact that the application is in respect of next month?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My hon. Friend probably understands that this application for duty is not just in relation to the month of May, 1958, but is in relation to all months of May in all subsequent years, and needs considerable consideration.

    Trade with East Germany
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to facilitate an increase in our export trade with East Germany.
    Mr. Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade what recent assistance he has given to the Federation of British Industries to conclude a trade agreement with Eastern Germany; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I have nothing to add to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) on 21st January and to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 1st April. Negotiations between the Federation of British Industries and the East German Chamber of Foreign Trade are still proceeding and I hope that these negotiations will prove successful.
    Mr. Holt: Is not the Minister aware that an excellent traditional trade for the cotton industry was cut off when East Germany went behind the Iron Curtain? If he wants to help the cotton trade, this is one avenue in which he can help it in a

    333
    most valuable way. Is there nothing more he can do to assist these negotiations to a successful conclusion?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Negotiations, for reasons which the hon. Member knows, do not take place between this Government and the East German authorities. We are certainly aware of the interests to which he has referred, and I believe that they have made representations to the Federation of British Industries.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Member say how far the negotiations are embarrassed or delayed by the inability to conduct them in the normal fashion arising out of these political considerations to which he has referred? Does not he think that the time has come when we must place our own economic interests first rather than some ideological prejudice dictated by other people?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The wider issue of the recognition of the East German authorities is not a question for me. As I have said, I hope that the negotiations will prove successful.

    Cotton Imports
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade what have been the results of Sir Frank Lee's discussions in Hong Kong and elsewhere on cotton imports into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Hong Kong cotton textile industry has indicated that after the United Kingdom industry has concluded its negotiations with the industries of India and Pakistan, it will be prepared to negotiate with the United Kingdom industry arrangements for the voluntary limitation of exports to the United Kingdom, subject to a number of conditions set out in a statement which they published at the end of Sir Frank Lee's talks. These conditions are being considered by the industry in Lancashire which is, of course, keeping in the closest touch with us.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Minister say how soon Lancashire can expect some positive results from all these talks?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The next steps lie with the industry concerned.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend realise that this visit of Sir Frank Lee
    334
    and his recent discussions in Hong Kong have aroused a good deal of interest in some other industries, such as the glove industry? Once the inviolability of the principle of no restriction on free entry from the Colonies is abolished, it is hard to see how these discussions cannot be applied to other industries.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I think my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend pointed out that there were particular circumstances in this case.

    Milling Industry
    Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer the milling industry to the Monopolies Commission.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Flour was included in the first direction given to the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements as to cases to be taken before the Restrictive Practices Court. My right hon. Friend would not consider referring other aspects of this industry to the Monopolies Commission until this case has been dealt with by the court.
    Mr. Grimond: When is this case likely to be dealt with? In the meantime, there is some anxiety because, in spite of the fall in the price of primary products, including wheat, it does not appear to ordinary people, rightly or wrongly, that the price of bread has fallen commensurately.
    Mr. Erroll: I cannot give an exact date when the case is likely to go before the Court, but the registrar has made a public announcement to the effect that he does not expect to be able to take any case to the Court before October of this year.
    Mr. Jay: Are electoral pacts a restrictive agreement within the meaning of the Act?

    Exports to United States
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he has studied the possible effects of a trade recession in the United States of America upon United Kingdom export trade; and if he will make a statement on the advice he has given to United Kingdom exporters on this.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Our exports to the United States of America are now running at record levels, and my advice to exporters is that they should continue to compete as vigorously as ever in this market.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister explain how it will help the American recession if we export more motor cars to America? Does not that result in an increasing number of unemployed in America?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: This seems to be the economics of Wonderland. I think I will stick to the Question.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Cheques Act, 1957
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give instructions that payable orders drawn on Government account are to be treated as documents issued by a public officer intended to enable a person to obtain payment from the Paymaster-General, so as to bring them within the ambit of Section 4 (2, c) of the Cheques Act, 1957.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): Payable orders drawn on the Paymaster-General are already within the scope of Section 4 of the Cheques Act, but this Section has no bearing on the requirement that the payee must give an effective discharge by signing such orders. As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member on 18th March, he will keep this latter requirement under review.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the Cheques Act was introduced it was envisaged that these payable orders would fall within the ordinary rule for cheques and would not require endorsement? Will he also bear in mind the waste of man-hours which there must be by the lucky recipients of Government cheques in having to sign Government cheques when they do not have to do so for commercial cheques?
    Mr. Simon: Some of these Government documents require signatures in the way that ordinary cheques do not but, as I said, my right hon. Friend is keeping the matter under review.

    European Free Trade Area
    Mr. Holtasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for the setting up of a European Free Trade Area.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): There have been no major developments since the House debated this subject on 28th March.
    Mr. Holt: Are not the Government very concerned that these negotiations appear to have come to a deadlock? To what extent are they prepared to go in making concessions to see that this proposal, which will have far-reaching, beneficial effects to the United Kingdom, does not come to a dead end?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not accept that negotiations have reached a deadlock. They are certainly going through a difficult stage, but that was not unexpected. I think it would be an unwise form of negotiation to announce in advance what concessions we may be prepared to make.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the point of view which he has expressed that unless the negotiations reach some sort of conclusion by July the European Free Trade Area, with its concomitant reduction of tariffs on 1st January, will be of no use to this country?
    Mr. Maudling: That is not exactly what I said. What I said, and would like to repeat, was that unless we can reach agreement on the major matters of substance by the end of July—which is perfectly possible—there is great danger that support for the whole idea in this country and in other countries may dwindle away to a dangerous extent.

    Retired Teachers (Pensions)
    Dr. Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the rise in the cost of living, he will introduce legislation to increase the pensions of veteran retired teachers.
    Mr. Simon: No, Sir. There are no grounds for giving retired teachers special treatment in this respect.
    Dr. King: Is the Financial Secretary aware that from figures the Minister of Education has given me it is clear that a teacher who retired ten years ago is

    337
    getting about three-fifths of the pension which a teacher doing comparable work today may expect, and that those who retired much earlier suffer an even greater disparity between their pension and the present one? While this Question has to do with teachers, the case for all retired pensioners is on all fours with that of the teachers. Therefore, will the Financial Secretary give serious consideration to the bringing in of legislation to step up the pensions of veteran pensioners?
    Mr. Simon: As to the question of pensioners generally, I can, with respect, only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on 19th November to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that many public service pensioners will benefit from the tax reliefs for old people which have been announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals.

    University Degree Courses (Places)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total number of men and women who are qualified for entrance to degree courses, and who desire to enter such courses, but who are unable to obtain places.
    Mr. Simon: The report of an inquiry commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals shows that, judging from a sample of men and women applying for admission to universities in 1955–6, possibly between 2,000 and 2,500 who at least fulfilled the London degree entrance requirements failed to secure admission to any university then or later.
    Mr. MacPherson: is not it a very unsatisfactory situation that such a large body of potential students who are qualified should be denied entrance to the university? Will the Financial Secretary approach the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the possibility of setting up some kind of clearing arrangement so that, to the extent that there are existent places in universities, at least that proportion of the waiting list can be accommodated?
    Mr. Simon: Yes, there are two ways of dealing with this. The first is to increase the total number of places on the lines of the statement by my right hon. Friend recently, when he looked to a university population in the mid 'sixties of 30,000 more than the present figure. The universities are themselves considering what could be done to deal with those difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to ensure better co-ordination.

    Capital Issues Committee
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an annual report of the work of the Capital Issues Committee.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I do not think that this is necessary, but statistics giving the result of applications to the Committee are now published at quarterly intervals in the Monthly Digest of Statistics.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this again? I think it is regrettable that the Committee should be a permanent part of the Government's financial machinery, but it is; and we are now, are we not, in a position in which the Government are making use of it for very important assistance to areas of unemployment? Should not this House be told what is being done and on what basis the Committee is making these decisions?
    Mr. Maudling: The principles on which the Committee is operating are always made known to the House by means of Question and Answer.
    Mr. D. Price: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us on this side of the House feel that in tidying up the C.I.C. higher priority should be given to giving it statutory form? Would he consider, while tidying up Defence Regulations and giving them statutory form, giving statutory form to the C.I.C.?
    Mr. Maudling: I am certainly prepared to consider that, but I think that there are other hon. Friends of mine who might take a rather contrary view.

    Bank Rate
    Mr. Croninasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Bank of England to publicise more

    339
    information as to the reasons for changes in the Bank Rate and as to the nature of and reasons for its open market operations.
    Mr. Maudling: The Governor has recently made a number of public statements.
    Mr. Cronin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Governor's statements tend to be rather obscure and there is a certain amount of doubt about the intellectual quality of the Bank's planning? Would not it be in the public interest as well as in the Bank's interest to throw more light on the Bank's deliberations?
    Mr. Maudling: It may be that the obscurity is more in the eye of the beholder than in the statements themselves.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm Improvement Grants
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to introduce arrangements for paying farm improvement grants on the basis of standard costs, since this would be of particular benefit to farmers using their own labour.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): Regulations for this purpose have been made and are being laid before Parliament today. They will come into operation on 21st April. From that date it will be possible for a wide range of improvements and part improvements to be accepted for grant aid on the basis of either actual or standard costs at the option of the applicant. The provision for standard costs will, it is hoped, be generally helpful, particularly to farmers wishing to do the work themselves.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that that Answer will be most welcome, and that this does fill up the gap in this scheme which was devised particularly to help small farmers? I hope that my hon. Friend realises how very welcome his consideration of this problem is.
    Mr. Hare: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think these provisions will be
    340
    helpful, and I know already that representatives of landowners and farmers have expressed their welcome of them.

    Fisheries (Territorial Limits)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates will be the effect on the distant water section of the British fishing fleet of the proposed six-mile territorial limit for fishing.
    Mr. John Hare: I cannot forecast precisely what the effects might be: they would be much less serious, however, than those threatened by the universal application of a twelve-mile limit.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however much the fishing industry may be worried about the six-mile limit, it is appalled by the suggestion of a twelve-mile limit, without any question of the protection of historic fishing rights, which was discussed in Geneva yesterday? Is he further aware of the catastrophic effect this would have on the distant-water fishing industry, particularly of the Humber ports, and will he get in touch with his right hon. and learned Friend to do everything possible to defeat the proposal?
    Mr. Hare: I am aware of the feelings which my hon. Friend has expressed, and I am glad to say that at Geneva the Attorney-General has the presence as adviser of the President of the British Trawlers' Federation, who has also made his feelings quite clear. I should like to express the gratitude of the Government for all the help and advice that the President of the British Trawlers' Federation has given.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the recent considerable increase in potato imports has not resulted in a reduction in retail pries, which currently range from 5d. to 6d. per lb.; and what steps he is taking to ensure a further increase in the supply of old potatoes.
    Mr. John Hare: I am aware that increased imports have not brought about a reduction in retail prices although they may have prevented them from rising higher. The bulk of the supplies now available are white varieties, the retail

    341
    price of which ranges from 4d. to 5½d. per lb. The supply position is not easy, but I am convinced that the trades concerned will continue to do all they can to ease the situation by seeking supplies from all sources which do not involve any risk of importing disease.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that even at the increased level imports equal only 20 per cent. of current demand? Is he satisfied with the price of 5½d. lb. for white potatoes? If the efforts of importers and home producers do not produce sufficient, what does he propose to do about it? In particular, is he able to given any hope of the importation of potatoes for the chip fryers?
    Mr. Hare: The last time the hon. Gentleman asked about this matter he asked me if I would introduce price control. I am satisfied that the trades are doing all they can to get the necessary imports, which, I hope, will keep prices down. I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman what the figures are for the last few weeks: 23,247 tons three weeks ago; 21,506 tons; and—the last available figure at 12th April—29,000 tons. So they are coming in.
    Mr. Willey: When will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in respect of these commodities on which there is a heavy subsidy at the taxpayers' expense, he has the responsibility of seeing that the retail prices are proper in relation to the circumstances? Is he aware that his own statement about prospective scarcity held prices high, and that this is denied by the Potato Marketing Board? Will he now make it clear that he was in error?
    Mr. Hare: I do not intend to do anything of the sort. I try to tell the House and the nation the truth. I have no apology to make about this at all. All I do say is that if we were to try price controls, as has been suggested from the other side of the House, we should merely discourage imports and aggravate the position.
    Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is in dispute with the Potato Marketing Board on this?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman has a fertile imagination. I am working in very close co-operation with the Potato Marketing Board.
    Mr. Hurd: Is not it a fact that the potato crop in 1957 was short, and was very short on the Continent, and that that is why supplies are now scarce?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend, as usual, is entirely correct.
    Mr. Collins: Not at all.

    Machinery and Fertilisers
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the evidence available to him from the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and other sources indicates that British farmers' costs are significantly affected by the tariff protection afforded to the British agricultural machinery and fertiliser industries and their expansion in recent years.
    Mr. John Hare: The information available indicates that the expansion of the agricultural machinery and fertiliser industries in the United Kingdom has been to the benefit of our farmers and generally speaking has provided them with machinery and fertilisers as cheaply as they could have got them from any other sources.

    Butter
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the amount of butter consumed has increased in the past two years; how much of this increase has been provided by home production; and to what extent butter produced here carries a Government subsidy.
    Mr. John Hare: Butter consumption was 68,000 tons more in 1957 than in 1955, an increase of about 21 per cent. Home production increased by 19,000 tons over the two years. There is no direct subsidy on butter.
    Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend forecast what the course of butter production at home is likely to be in the present year?
    Mr. Hare: I should like notice of that question, but I will certainly look into the matter to see if I can give my hon. Friend an answer.
    Mr. Hastings: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be very careful not to discourage butter production in this country, seeing that it is such a valuable food, particularly for young people?
    Mr. Hare: I should like to encourage the people of this country to eat more butter.

  BAHAMAS

    Constitution
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement with regard to the constitution of the Bahamas.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The House will recall the events in the Bahamas leading up to the general strike last January. Both the Governor and I have been much concerned at the position there, and after consultation with him I decided to visit the Colony. After a week in which I saw as many people and as much of the Colony as I could in the time, the Governor and I decided that the situation called for a number of measures. These were set out in the statement which I made on my departure and which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am glad to say that at any rate the first indications suggest that they have been very widely welcomed in the Colony.
    Mr. Fisher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his journey, which was certainly necessary, and the results which he has achieved, are very warmly welcomed by his hon. Friends on this side of the House—and, I imagine, by hon. Gentlemen opposite—and that they will be entirely beneficial to the future wellbeing and happiness of the Colony?
    Mr. David Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his proposals include the abolition of the unequal size of constituencies in the Bahamas, and that in future members of the Legislative Council will each represent an equal number of people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. That would, I think, be quite impossible. The out-islands must have some representation, and it would be impossible to settle this problem mathematically. The out-islands are likely to develop in population as expansion continues. What was arranged was that there should be four new seats straight away in New Providence.
    Following is the statement:
    I am very grateful for the many kindnesses shown me while I have been here. I hope that this may be the first of many visits to these beautiful islands. I have been much impressed by the recent widespread development which has brought so much prosperity and employment to the people of the Bahamas. All who have worked so hard to secure this deserve the greatest credit. It is vital to the future of the Colony that this development should not be prejudiced. But great developments bring great problems and responsibilities, calling for adjustments to meet modern conditions.
    Both the Governor and I have been much concerned at recent happenings in the Bahamas, as have of course all who live here. For some time it had been apparent to both of us that changes, particularly in the field of labour relations and the franchise, were necessary and we had been in correspondence about these, The Governor would some time ago have sought the concurrence of Executive Council to the initiation of changes in these fields. Since, however, I have constitutional responsibilities and a wider choice of action open to me, I decided to come here and asked the Governor to refrain from action pending my visit.
    Since I came here I have seen a large number of people and as much of the Colony as possible in the time available.
    His Excellency and I have concluded that the following immediate steps should be taken:

    (1) The most pressing need is for the early enactment of labour legislation consistent with the needs of the Bahamas and in a form which commends itself to modern opinion. This should provide for the early establishment of a Labour Department under an experienced officer appointed by the Governor to the Public Service in the usual way. Consultations are now taking place concerning the form of this legislation, and to assist in these Mr. Foggon, my chief Labour Adviser, will arrive in the Colony this week.

    (2) Another essential change concerns the franchise.

    (a) There should be universal adult male suffrage. Representations have been made to me about votes for women. The Governor and I are however not convinced that at the moment there is a sufficiently widespread demand for this change.

    (b) The company vote should be abolished.

    (c) The present situation under which it is possible for one voter to have a vote in every constituency should be brought to an end. The plural vote should be limited to two, the second vote requiring a property qualification in another constituency.

    (3) The constituencies should be brought more into line with the movement of population within the Colony. This should be done by creating four additional seats for New Providence, to be allocated in accordance

    345
    with the distribution of voters. By-elections to these four seats should be held as soon as the necessary arrangements, including the preparation of a new register of voters, can be made.

    Legislation to bring about these changes needs to be brought into effect by the end of this year.
    In the discussions which the Governor and I have had, various views were naturally expressed, but in consequence of these talks His Excellency and I feel entitled to believe that these measures are likely to command widespread support, and will help to bring about that settled atmosphere which is essential for economic progress.

  CYPRUS

    Situation
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any statement relating to constitutional advance in the Colony of Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot at present add to my replies to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) on 1st April.
    Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of what he expects the course of events will be internally in the island, whether he expects peace to remain in the island and whether there is any prospect of constitutional advance at all?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot add to my Answer at this stage.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that negotiations are still taking place, or are we to understand that the discussions which were taking place some time ago have ceased?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certain talks are taking place.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: With whom are these talks taking place?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think it would be helpful to the solution which we all desire if I were to add to my Answer at this stage. I have made it quite clear that as soon as it is possible to make a statement with profit I will do so.
    Mr. Bevan: Is the House never to be told anything about the facts of the
    346
    situation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now many months since the House debated the Cyprus situation, and that there is evidence of a further deterioration in the relations between us and E.O.K.A.? Ought not we now to have from the right hon. Gentleman a full and frank statement on what stage has been reached in the negotiations, and with whom, because to the extent that the people in Cyprus feel that we are seized of the matter they may be able to show more patience?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I cannot add to my Answer. I recognise with gratitude, and so do my colleagues, the forbearance and understanding shown by the House as a whole in not demanding a further statement at this stage.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Damage to Property, Middlesex
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that there have been several instances of wanton and malicious damage being done to property in Middlesex recently, such as empty houses in Wembley being broken into and wrecked, and a bowling green in Willesden being dug up and the turf ruined; if he is satisfied that the maximum penalties for this kind of hooliganism are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that four cases of damage to unoccupied houses in the Wembley area have come to his notice during the past six months. There have been a number of instances of minor damage to property in the Willesden and Harlesden areas, in addition to the damage to the bowling green to which my hon. Friend refers. I have no reason to think that the maximum penalties for this type of offence are inadequate.
    Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he can say how many of the people concerned have been caught? May I also ask him not to rule out the possibility of increasing the penalty if this hooliganism is not stopped?
    Mr. Butler: Thanks to the Question put down by my hon. Friend, I have

    347
    examined all the penalties both on summary conviction and on indictment, and, as far as I can see, they are pretty severe—including the penalties for juveniles. I will, however, keep this matter under review. I have nothing to report about the ability of the police to trace the offenders in this case.

  AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent aeroplanes carrying nuclear bombs are routed over Scotland; and if he will give instructions that no aeroplane carrying nuclear bombs shall be routed over Scotland on practice or training flights.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I explained on 25th March the general policy regarding these aircraft. It would not be right to disclose details of the routes actually taken on these occasional flights.
  Mr. Hughes: To repeat the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) a moment ago, may I ask the Prime Minister when the population of this country is to be informed on these matters? Is not it a useless and wanton thing to expose the civil population to these risks? Who controls these aeroplanes, Britain or the United States?
  The Prime Minister: I made a very full statement on 25th March, and I do not think I have anything to add to it.
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that United States B.52, B.47 and B.36 bombers armed with hydrogen bombs are in continuous flight over the western world and to what extent these bombers are using British bases for this purpose.
  The Prime Minister: The circumstances in which aircraft carry nuclear weapons over this country were explained in my statement to the House on 18th March, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he made to the House has since been completely undermined by reports of responsible journalists in the newspapers? Has he read the report in the
  348
  Manchester Guardian of 10th April by Mr. Frank Bartholomew describing world-wide control by Strategic Air Command bombers carrying hydrogen bombs, and a report in The Times of the following day of a statement by a spokesman of Strategic Air Command admitting that there are alert patrols in addition to the regular permanent patrols by Strategic Air Command bombers? Cannot we have the truth from the right hon. Gentleman?
  The Prime Minister: This matter arises more completely on Question No. 52, and I ask the hon. Lady to await my Answer to that. In point of fact, there is some confusion which should be cleared up on that Question.

  OIL SUPPLIES (TRANSPORT)
  Sir R. Grimstonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of Sir Matthew Slattery since his appointment last May as special adviser on the transport of Middle East oil, with particular reference to any recommendations made for the maintenance of oil supplies from the Middle East by routes other than the Suez Canal and existing pipe lines.
  The Prime Minister: As I said in my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) on 31st October last, the task assigned to Sir Matthew Slattery was the continuing function of assisting me to concert and direct the activities of various Government agencies concerned with the transport of oil from the Middle East.
  Sir R. Grimston: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the article in The Times today, headed "Suez Canal Back to Normal," and does not he think that that indicates a dangerous complacency, because at present there is absolutely no security at all against the interruption of our oil supplies either through the Canal or the pipelines? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no let-up on the measures to be taken to establish alternative routes of transportation?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think considerable progress has been made, and I am very grateful to Sir Matthew Slattery for the help he has given me.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the American Atomic Energy Commission, which had stated that an underground nuclear test had not been detected beyond 250 miles distance, now admits test shock recordings 2,320 miles away; and if, in the light of this new evidence that tests cannot be hidden, he will accept the Russian proposal to stop all further tests.
  The Prime Minister: The reply which I gave on 3rd April remains correct. As regards the Russian proposals, I have nothing to add to what I said on Tuesday last.
  Mr. Allaun: Are we to understand that there is a conflict between the British and American evidence, particularly in view of the statement made by President Eisenhower on 26th March that any sizeable explosion could be detected? Secondly, have not the Russians agreed in any case to the setting up of monitoring stations on their own territory?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any conflict of evidence. As we stated at Bermuda, our scientists believe that if a deliberate attempt were made to run these explosions in such a way as to avoid detection, it would almost certainly be successful. That is the scientific advice given to me. I still feel, therefore, that some form of surveillance or control is necessary to any effective measure of disarmament in this sphere.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is not it the case that on more than one occasion the Soviet Government have agreed to have control in order to ensure that the tests would be detected?
  The Prime Minister: The solution to the problem of how to deal with tests will, I hope, make a considerable advance if the Russians, as I hope they will, accept the last proposal we made to them regarding a Summit Conference.
  Mr. Bevan: In view of the existing confusion of testimony as to whether tests can in fact be detected, would not it be desirable to invite the leading physicists of the world to an open symposium on the matter; otherwise, the evidence we are given now is fragmentary and cannot itself be tested?
  The Prime Minister: I think there is general agreement that if we could reach agreement regarding the suspension of tests, it should be accompanied by at least some measure of international control.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recording in the United States of the recent Soviet underground test explosion in the Urals, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the cessation of nuclear tests must be accompanied by the establishment of an international control organ.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent statement of Mr. Khrushchev, that the Soviet Government would be willing to collaborate in such an inspection system, and, further, that he did not think that it would be difficult to establish it? In the light of that statement, will not Her Majesty's Government make another proposal to the Soviet Government that they should appoint their technical experts and enable discussions to take place with the Western experts, as proposed in August last year by the Western Governments?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have repeatedly made that suggestion. It would be a very good thing if we could get an expert committee to start to study this problem so that when we came—as I hope we will—to the summit meeting, that work would have been done instead of having to be done afterwards. It would be of great advantage and I hope that this committee of experts can be appointed.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Was not the proposal that there should be a committee of experts put forward by the Western Powers at a time when we were also insisting that suspension of tests must be accompanied by other measures of disarmament? Will the Prime Minister consider making a fresh start on this particular point? Would it be possible, for instance, for the ambassadors, who, we hope, are now talking in Moscow, to consider as one of the subjects for discussion the possibility of establishing effective controls over the suspension of tests, or could it be considered at the Foreign Ministers' conference?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but all that shows how important it is that the ambassadors should discuss, at least to some degree, questions of substance and not merely the time, place and date of the meeting.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Obviously, if we can get anywhere with questions of substance, so much the better. Is the Prime Minister aware that we have never opposed that? What we have said is that they should not make the Summit Conference dependent upon the success of these talks.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I think that the request which the right hon. Gentleman has made to me confirms our view that it would be a good thing if we could make these preliminary discussions a little larger than merely fixing the time and place of the meeting.
  Mr. Beswickasked the Prime Minister what inquiries he has made, or caused to be made, of Mr. Khrushchev or the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about the period for which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics propose to suspend the testing of nuclear weapons and the type of inspection and enforcement machinery they are prepared to accept.
  The Prime Minister: I do not wish to anticipate my reply to Mr. Khrushchev's last communication.
  Mr. Beswick: Does that mean that the Prime Minister has belittled the Russian offer, has been at pains to say that tests can go undetected, without making any inquiry of the Soviet Union about whether they are prepared to set up a comprehensive system of international inspection to detect these tests?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. None of those deductions needs to be drawn.
  Mr. Beswick: Can the Prime Minister say how any reasonable person could fail to draw those deductions, if he is denying that tests may be detected and he has not made any inquiries about what kind of system of detection the Soviet Government would agree to? How can he persist in this sort of attitude?
  The Prime Minister: The conditions in which the Soviet Government made the offer to suspend tests, after having completed one of the largest series of tests
  352
  that have ever been made, are very well known to the House and have been discussed on several occasions. What we say and stand by is that any question of suspension of tests, whether as part of a disarmament agreement, or on its own, is a matter best handled by the Summit Conference, or conference of all the countries concerned, so that a watertight agreement may be reached.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to invite observers from the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to witness the next atomic tests to take place at Christmas Island.
  The Prime Minister: In the past it has been our policy to invite United States observers to our Christmas Island tests, and in return we have received invitations to certain United States tests. We shall follow the same policy in the future. We have not invited the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to send observers to our tests, nor have we received invitations to their tests. But I would remind the House that last year Her Majesty's Government put forward proposals in the Disarmament Sub-Committee of the United Nations, the first stage of which included the advance registration of tests and limited international observation. This proposal was rejected by the Soviet representative.
  Mr. Hughes: Would not it be a good idea to have the summit talks at Christmas Island?

  ATOMIC RADIATION (UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister who are the representatives of the United Kingdom on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation; and if he will ask the Committee to hasten the publication of its report, in view of the dangers of increasing radioactivity from nuclear tests.
  The Prime Minister: Dr. E. E. Pochin, Director of the Medical Research Council's Department of Clinical Research, University College Hospital Medical School, is the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic

  353
  Radiation. Dr. W. G. Marley, Head of the Health Physics Division of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, is his alternate. When it was set up by the United Nations, the Committee was asked to report by July of this year. I understand that it has nearly completed its work and that there is every reason to hope that the report will be published on time.
  Mr. Swingler: In view of the conflicting and sometimes alarming statements now being made about radiation hazards, is not the publication of this authoritative report an urgent matter, and should not this be one of the central, principal documents that fall to be considered at the summit talks?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is, of course, very desirable that it should be published, but it is first necessary that it should be completed. This is a joint committee of the United Nations on which we are represented. I hope—there is every evidence to confirm the view—that the Committee will report by the time it was asked to do so.

  DIPLOMATIC CONVERSATIONS, MOSCOW
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government are accepting the official proposal of the Soviet Government that diplomatic conversations should commence in Moscow on Thursday, 17th April.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have seen the communication made to the Soviet Government yesterday.
  Mr. Henderson: Have these diplomatic conversations now commenced? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that such conversations need not be prolonged and should enable a definite advance to be made in a short space of time towards arrangements for the Summit Conference?
  The Prime Minister: I hope that on receipt of our communication the Soviet Government will agree that these first discussions should begin. If that is so, that will certainly be very satisfactory to me and, I think, to the whole House.

  UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT (ALERTS)
  Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister to what extent Her Majesty's Government are kept informed of the false alarms which have alerted the Strategic Air Command in the United States of America; to what extent British based United States bombers have on these occasions been simultaneously alerted; whether the Royal Air Force V-bomber force has ever received any such emergency instructions; and to what extent there is collaboration over these alarms between the Governments concerned.
  The Prime Minister: I would not expect to be informed of the day-to-day operation of measures for the defence of the United States. There is close operational co-ordination between the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force, but the particular measures taken by the United States Strategic Air Command in response to warnings from the North American Radar System, of which accounts have appeared in the Press, are not practised by the United States Air Force bombers based in the United Kingdom or by the Royal Air Force bomber force.
  Mr. Mason: Is not the Prime Minister of the opinion that if one of these false alarms accidentally triggers off a war, we shall be immediately committed, even if these islands have not been threatened? Can he give the House a categorical assurance that on no occasion have British-based bombers, American or British, ever been alerted in a manner similar to that in which the Nebraska-based bombers were?
  The Prime Minister: I was trying to clear up the confusion which arose in another Question. These reports relate to the operations of the United States Air Force with bombers based in that country and in connection with the North American radar system which, as the House knows, is operated in the north of Canada. I do not think that I can extend the agreement, made originally by Lord Attlee and confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), which concerns American bombers based in this country, to an attempt to control their practice in their own country.
  Mr. Bevan: Are not we ourselves involved in the manner in which Strategic Air Command is managed by the United States? Is not it a fact that if an accident did occur, we would be immediately involved? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what justification there can be in present circumstances for a degree of alertness which is short only of war itself? Is not this a permanent condition of mobilisation? Is there anything in the international situation to justify this posture on the part of the Western nations?
  The Prime Minister: I was asked to what extent British-based United States bombers took part in these exercises, and the answer was not at all.
  Mr. Bevan: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say in his reply that he did not consider that we should extend the agreement to cover what is happening to the Strategic Air Command? That is why I put the supplementary question. Have we no influence over American strategy?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have considerable influence in our friendly relations with the United States Administration. I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but we cannot operate under the terms of this agreement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 21ST APRIL—Conclusion of the general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation.
TUESDAY, 22ND APRIL—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Committee.
The Ministry of Transport Votes will be considered.
WEDNESDAY, 23RD APRIL—Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.
Report and Third Reading of the Slaughterhouses Bill.
THURSDAY, 24TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY, 25TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Transport Votes which we shall ask to be tabled include those concerned with the financial position of the British Transport Commission, working conditions arising from the denationalisation of the road haulage industry, and the roads programme? We shall not be concerned with the wages disputes in regard to the railways or buses which are occurring at the present time.
Mr. Butler: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and shall take note of the Opposition's wishes.
Mr. Peyton: I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition, but will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of finding time to debate the Motion on flags of convenience, which, I suggest, has not received the attention of Parliament which its strategic and commercial importance warrants?
[That this House, while recognising the value of the recent increase in the investment allowance given by Her Majesty's Government to the United Kingdom shipping industry, nevertheless records its extreme concern at the difficulties caused to the industry by the virtual freedom from taxation enjoyed by ships flying certain flags of convenience, and, in view of the unique position of British shipping as the lifeline of an island nation, calls for further measures to strengthen its competitive power.]
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We have considered the important Motion which my hon. Friend has on the Order Paper, and which is backed by a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House. At present, I cannot undertake to find Government time. As my hon. Friend will remember, there are two more Ballots for Private Members' time—and I would also draw his attention, and that of his hon. Friends, to the fact that it would be quite in order to raise this question in the course of a financial discussion such as that upon which we are engaged today, as it deals with the question of taxation. I hope that he can,

357
therefore, find opportunities of airing this subject. If he will, he can certainly keep in touch with me on the matter.
Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing—if possible, next week—a much more drastic amendment of the Rent Act, in view of the crushing vote of censure on that Act, and indeed, on the Government, which was passed by the people of London yesterday?
Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is moving the Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill, as announced, on Thursday next. I think that it will give a further opportunity for the proper comprehension of the merits of the Rent Act. If that proper comprehension is undertaken, I think that certain results will be more favourable to us.
Mr. S. Silverman: Why is there any need to amend the Act?
Mr. Shinwell: Reverting to the request made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for a debate upon the problem which now concerns the shipping industry and which affects our whole economic life, does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as reasonable that this question should be the subject of a Private Member's Motion, or be considered in a limited form in the course of a debate on the Finance Bill? Would it not be wise to have a serious debate, initiated by the Government, upon an important economic matter of this kind? If there is some difficulty about the usual channels, will not the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with them, in order to stimulate both sides of the House and enable us to have this important debate?
Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will use his own influence with his hon. Friends in stimulating the channels in his direction.
Mr. Shinwell: I have not got any influence.
Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this matter of flags of convenience runs right across party lines and transcends all temporary advantage? There is considerable feeling both inside and outside the House on this matter. If it is impossible for the
358
Government to find special time for this matter, will he give an assurance that if a suitable Amendment is moved to the Finance Bill he will not only welcome it, but support it?
Mr. Butler: The wise course would be to wait and see the nature of the Amendment which my hon. Friend has in mind. I do not in any way underestimate the importance of this subject. My difficulty—as is often the case with the Leader of the House—is to find time. I can tell right hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend that we shall continue to watch this subject with proper attention.
Mr. Brockway: In view of the deterioration in racial relations in the Colony of Kenya, as illustrated by the legal action taken against seven African elected members, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an early opportunity to debate that subject?
Mr. Butler: All that I can do is note what the hon. Member says. I cannot give any undertaking at present.
Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that on Wednesday he has allocated sufficient time to the Slaughterhouses Bill, in view of the fact that there are already 16 pages of Amendments for the Report stage? Does he not think that the time has come when the Government might be included within the terms of the Bill?
Mr. Butler: I had expected that that observation would be made at some stage. The Bill has had a very exhaustive and exhausting discussion in Committee. Many hon. Members of the Committee, and the House as a whole, will be only too well satisfied if we can finish the Bill in the time allocated, and I think that it should be possible to do so.
Mr. Stonehouse: In support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), may I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that not only is there a constitutional crisis in Kenya, but that one is also developing in Uganda, where the elections arranged under the 1955 Agreement are not to be held? Is he also aware that a constitutional crisis is likely to develop in Tanganyika because of the imposition of

359
the tripartite system of voting? In view of all that, does not he consider that time should be allocated for a debate on these subjects?
Mr. Butler: That is a matter more for the Colonial Office Vote, but I note what the hon. Member says.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we are very anxious about the situation in Kenya and may desire to have an opportunity, in the not too distant future, to discuss the matter in the House?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee [Progress. 16th April].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  AMENDMENT OF LAW
  Question again proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION
  3.39 p.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The speech which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) made yesterday was more than usually interesting, because it did not quite follow its normal pattern. It included the usual quips—which we all enjoy in one degree or another—about the Government and various other people and, as usual, he paraded all the more highly-coloured demons of Socialist mythology before us; but at the end of his speech there was one passage of a quality which is normally described as statesmanlike. I do not quite know the reason for this. It may be that a rather too optimistic view of political prospects meant, in his mind, that coming events cast their shadows before. Certainly, the "shadow" Chancellor was a little more shadowy than usual on this occasion.
  The statement that the right hon. Gentleman made, which is of very great importance, was that
  "The strength of our currency must be our first and primary consideration. Whatever Government are in power, the strength of sterling and all that depends on it must take priority over all other considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 187.]
  That, I think, is a most important declaration which I am sure that this Committee and the country will welcome. We accept fully that that is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and colleagues. But I think it only fair to point out that the policies which he himself advocates, and which the party opposite advocate, are at times

  361
  very difficult to reconcile with a policy of putting the strength of sterling first. I will return to that at a later stage in what I have to say.
  The right hon. Gentleman produced the usual European "League table" with which we are very familiar; and, certainly, he can establish quite an argument on that about the performance of the United Kingdom. But if the right hon. Gentleman analyses these figures, he will find that they do not support his argument in the slightest degree. Two of the foremost countries in the development of industrial production have been Germany and France. Germany is not noted for having a Socialist economy. In fact, the normal criticism made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite is not that the Germans are too inflationary, but that they are too restrictive.
  As for the development of production in France, I think it would be difficult to reconcile the performance of the French franc with the very important remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the necessity to maintain sterling. Therefore, I do not think that either Germany or France, who are the main examples of expanding production in Western Europe, assist the case either for industrial controls or for the importance of putting the strength of sterling first.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman made his usual remarks about Lord Cohen and his Council. I have come to the conclusion that the only tribunal which would command the respect of the right hon. Gentleman would be one consisting of the right hon. Member for Huyton, the "shadow" Chancellor and himself. That alone, I think, would carry any weight with the right hon. Gentleman. For the rest of us, as I have said before, the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite may not accept some of the findings of the Council is not evidence of any partiality in its conclusions.
  The right hon. Gentleman made his usual play with the importance of tax avoidance. I think that he is really overdoing this a bit too much. It is true that there is a good deal of tax avoidance in this country, but to pretend that it is a major factor in our revenue is nonsense. It is also nonsense to pretend that tax avoidance is confined to a certain class of the community. It certainly is not. A good deal of casual week-end
  362
  work gets done and not much Income Tax is paid on it. But if the right hon. Gentleman had his way and brought that particular form of activity under charge to tax I think that he would be reducing the productivity of the people concerned quite a bit; and I hope that he will bear that in mind when he tries to pretend, as he sometimes does, that the element of tax avoidance to which he refers makes a major difference to the budgetary situation.
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman dismissed the Budget proposals rather airily. He claimed that they were of small character. The real reason why he dismissed them was because he could not find any reason for which to criticise them, except one in the case of the Profits Tax, to which I will come in a moment. It is clear that the Opposition have no criticism to offer whatever of the Budget proposals of my right hon. Friend, save on the single point about the unification of Profits Tax.
  On the question of Profits Tax, the reform that my right hon. Friend has introduced was recommended by the Royal Commission on Taxation and has the general support of industry as a whole. We are convinced that it will be of considerable benefit to industry because it will remove many distortions in company finance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Industry likes it."] Hon. Members opposite say that industry likes it. Why is this condemnation of a tax reform? Hon. Members opposite should not carry their prejudices against capitalists to quite that extent. I should have thought the fact that industry as a whole welcomed a particular tax reform indicated that it was a help to industry. That, surely, is something which we all desire.
  This reform will remove many distortions in company finance which have arisen. There has been a tendency to excessive raising of loan rather than equity capital coupled with the problem of a contingent liability on the distribution charge which gives rise to some problems with companies, and the administration problems that arise from differential tax rates are considerable. For all those reasons my right hon. Friend thought that the time had come to accept the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission and abolish the differential in the Profits Tax rates. We

  363
  believe that in the light of recent experience the effect on the distribution of dividends will be quite different from what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite try to argue.
  That was the only criticism which the right hon. Member for Huyton had to make about the Budget proposals. But he did, quite properly, himself produce some alternative suggestions which I find exceedingly interesting and which I should like to analyse, because I think them important. The right hon. Gentleman said that the party opposite would introduce investment allowances to assist industry. That is very laudable if it can be done, but it would cost a great deal of revenue. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that his party would suggest a further reduction in Purchase Tax. That would cost a good deal more.
  But I think that the most interesting statement he made was when he said, in effect, that the party opposite intended to have an overall Budget surplus. He observed:
  "… we shall need to maintain an effective Budget surplus of public saving to finance essential investment. Before 1951 we had such a surplus, big enough to finance the massive development of the public sector and to spill over into the private sector."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 185.]
  If that means anything—and, of course, it must mean something, coming from the right hon. Gentleman—it means, in addition to having an overall Budget surplus, covering below the line expenditure out of above the line surplus. It can mean nothing else.
  If we look at the details of the below the line expenditure, there are two big items, loans to local authorities and the provision of finance for the nationalised industries. In both cases hon. Members opposite have made clear that they think we have reduced those figures to too low a level and that when they come to power—I should say if and when they come to power—it will clearly be the policy of hon. Members opposite—I am pointing out the consequences of that deplorable event—to increase the amount of the payments below the line; and, therefore, the below the line deficit will be greater. In fact, there can be no doubt, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the above the line surplus will have to be several hundreds of millions of pounds
  364
  greater than at present. That, as I understand it, is the official statement of the Opposition policy.
  This is very important. I think the country should know that that would be the policy of hon. Members opposite, to have an above the line surplus hundreds of millions of pounds greater than what my right hon. Friend is now budgeting for; because that must mean—it cannot mean anything else—a substantial increase in taxation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It must, We ought to know the sort of things on which taxation would be increased. We had a very interesting personal suggestion from the "elder statesman", as he called himself—he is not present today; the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)—that the tax on tobacco should be substantially increased. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Huyton shares that view.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I smoke rather more than my right hon. Friend and I am bound to say, therefore, that I do not share his view. Before the Paymaster-General goes further into this flight of fancy, will he not recognise that the means of financing a Budget surplus of the kind that I have indicated will be necessary is, of course, a direct function of the fact that we shall go in for a policy of full employment and full production, with the much higher revenue which will result from it?
  Mr. Maudling: We have had plenty of experience of the effect on the Budget of inflationary finance. I did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was going to advocate a return to a system whereby we had inflationary increases in tax revenues financing increases in Government expenditure.
  If we look at the real position, we can only get a large increase in savings through the Budget if we take more out of the pockets of the people to represent those savings. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pretend that this money can all be obtained from the idle rich and from the tax dodgers to whom he often refers. It is a consistent Socialist argument that we should finance public investment out of surplus current account, but there is no escaping the logic that if that policy is adopted it means a higher revenue surplus, which means higher taxation.
  Mr. Wilson: I do not agree.
  Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman may not agree, but I think that he will find it difficult to deny.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this larger expenditure will be covered, if there is not a stagnant economy, by the revenue, which will be at least £500 million at the existing rate of tax?
  Mr. Maudling: I am coming to the question of stagnation now, because that was the most important criticism of the right hon. Member for Huyton. I want to analyse the argument and try to answer it. Let us look at what has been happening in the last two years, both to the internal economy and to our external position.
  Although the right hon. Gentleman may talk of stagnation, a very great deal of strength to the economy has resulted from what has taken place both internally and externally in the last two years. It is true that the gross domestic product was up by only 1½ per cent. last year, and that we should all like to see that figure increased; but within that increase of production the major share went to investment, both fixed investment and investment of stocks, while the amount taken by public authorities generally in current expenditure fell substantially.
  Surely that is exactly what we want to see, a higher proportion of our output going to investment and a lower proportion being taken up by the Government and other public authorities. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends often talk about investment as if it were stagnating. That is utter rubbish, when investment is running at record level. It was, in 1957, in real terms, 41 per cent. above what it was in 1951, and there has been a special expansion recently in investment in plant and machinery. That adds very greatly to the strength of our economy.
  I turn to the external position. The right hon. Gentleman talks a great deal about reserves, but he well knows that the important element externally is our capital position as a whole. Our great problem, as he recognises, has been short-term debts left over from the war which, of course, we have to honour. They are
  366
  described as sterling balances and are often regarded as short-term liabilities. I think sometimes that their short-term nature is exaggerated: they include a large proportion of pension funds, currency reserves and development funds which would not, of course, be withdrawn at short notice. But they remain a big problem. The ratio of our short-term liabilities to our reserves is much too high for complacency.
  There are only two ways to improve that position. One is by earning a current surplus and applying it to the reduction of liabilities, and the other is by funding. Both those processes have been going on over the last few years. The figures for the last two years are not fully reliable because, as the White Paper pointed out, there are very large errors and omissions in the 1957 figures. Therefore, the figures are very much on the pessimistic side.
  The fact is that in the last two years we have earned substantial surpluses on our current trading account and they have covered all our long-term investments and have added something to meet our short-term liabilities. There has been a substantial funding of our short-term liabilities, a reduction of our short-term liabilities set against rather longer or medium-term liabilities. Also, those sterling balances which are held outside the rest of the sterling area have shown a very substantial reduction. In all these ways there has been a very substantial but real strengthening of our economic position at home and overseas.
  The question is why, in this case, can we not encourage more economic expansion? That question the Opposition fairly, squarely and rightly put to the Government. I will try to answer it. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade put the case in his speech yesterday afternoon, but I hope I may be allowed to put it again, because it is such an important matter.
  It must be the wish of the Government to see a resumption of economic expansion. That is so clear that it hardly needs restating. The purpose of economic policy must be to expand production, so long as production is efficient and at proper cost. No one would reasonably support expansion regardless of cost. Both the Leader of the Opposition and

  367
  the right hon. Member for Huyton, in more than one speech, have made it clear that they regard the strength of our currency and the importance of avoiding a return to inflation as of paramount importance. Therefore, they would agree that we cannot have a return to a more rapidly expanding economy if it is to be at the cost of inflation and of our balance of payments.
  Several hon. Members who spoke yesterday, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), Leader of the Liberal Party, asked why it was not possible to have stability and expansion. That is the great question, of course, facing all the free economies in the Western world. There have been periods when we have had it. Between 1952 and 1955 there was a substantial improvement in our balance of payments position coincident with a substantial increase in industrial production, but that followed a period of restriction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to introduce to deal with a balance of payments problem left to us by the Opposition when they went out of office in 1951. [Laughter.] The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) may laugh, but it is not entirely a laughing matter. The party opposite did bequeath to us the most acute balance of payments problem since the war.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, if the 1951 position was the most severe post-war balance of payments crisis, the Lord Privy Seal needed only a year of restraint to escape from it, whereas we have now had three years of stagnation and we show no sign of escaping?
  Mr. Maudling: It is perfectly simple to explain that. The position of Europe and of the world was at that time expanding, and a sharp restriction of credit in this country very rapidly put right the very serious position facing us in 1951. The world situation in 1957–58 has been very different from that of 1951–52.
  Experience has shown that it is impossible to run any economy flat out all the time without running into inflation and balance of payments difficulties. That is
  368
  our experience in this country and, broadly speaking, it is the experience since the war in all the Western economies. It is a particularly acute problem for this country, by reason of our position as international traders and bankers. A comparatively small increase in prices is a more serious thing for us than for other countries. Our position depends upon confidence at home and abroad in the maintenance of our currency. Therefore, maintaining confidence in the continuing value of our currency is of supreme importance.
  In 1955, for example, the excess pull of the home market affected the balance of payments. In 1957, though we had a useful surplus on current account, once again we had a crisis of reserves because our position as bankers was affected by the feeling of other countries that we were not fully determined to maintain the internal value of our currency. The fact is that through all these balance of payments crises that we have had since the war the one continuing fact has been inflation and rising prices in this country and the continuing lack of confidence, or tendency to lack of confidence, by overseas countries in the purchasing power of our money.
  I will not enter into the question of whether it was a cost-push or a demand-pull inflation. That seems a slightly academic argument, because it is not always possible to disentangle the one from the other. They are undoubtedly interlinked. The one remaining source of inflation in the country is that which arises from the growth of personal incomes. In 1957, incomes rose faster than output and contributed about two-thirds of the general increase in the level of prices.
  We know now that import prices have been falling. We know now that the Government expenditure as a percentage of the national product has been falling and, as is generally argued, a great deal, if not all, of the credit inflation has been squeezed out of the economy. Therefore, the only remaining pressure or influence working in the direction of inflation is the influence exerted by personal incomes, wages, salaries and dividends, rising faster than output. The Government still hold to the argument that so long as the pressure of rising incomes is greater than the increase of production

  369
  there is a continuing danger of inflation, which would grow very rapidly if we were to relax prematurely in our monetary and fiscal policies.
  The argument made by the right hon. Member is that if the trouble is the relation between production and incomes, instead of trying to hold down incomes we should increase production. I should like to deal with that, because it is an attractive argument and one which all of us would, I think, in principle accept. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) would accept that view, and all of us would. If we could treat the problem by increasing production rather than by restraining incomes, that would be to the general benefit.
  But it is not so easy as that. As the Leader of the Opposition said, in July, 1957:
  "I do not think that increased production is necessarily a cure for inflation. If it is due to increased productivity, it helps enormously, of course. But, if it is simply due to the re-expansion of industry after a period of stagnation, it is then certainly not a cure for inflation, unless, first, we have no trouble about our balance of payments, and we do not got what the Chancellor has warned us about, namely, a situation where, as production expands, imports increase and exports do not rise correspondingly, so that we are back again with a balance of payments crisis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 713–4.]
  That statement seemed to me a classic statement of the argument for the policy we are pursuing at present. If we have more production, as my right hon. Friend pointed out yesterday, that inevitably means a substantial increase in imports. In present conditions of world markets, where exporting is getting increasingly difficult, to increase imports substantially without increasing exports must throw a new strain on balance of payments.
  We consider as a condition of combining expansion with stability, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned yesterday, we must ensure a national attitude to the problem of income from all sources which recognises that increases in income must be earned first by increased production and increased productivity. If the increase of incomes precedes increase of production the effect can only be inflationary and can only lead to a return to the problem of inflation and balance of payments. That is one of the conditions
  370
  which must reflect any attempt to re-expand the economy at present.
  The other problem is the problem of world trade as a whole. I think that the right hon. Member for Huyton, in an article in the Manchester Guardian some months ago, referred to the dangers of us becoming an island of inflation in a world of deflation.
  Mr. H. Wilson: This has been quoted a number of times by the Prime Minister and others, so I had better correct it. The phrase was "an island of rising prices in a world of deflation." There is a slight difference between the two. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to incomes, does he mean all incomes, including dividends and rents?
  Mr. Maudling: I used the phrase specifically, "incomes from all sources". The same principles must be applied to all incomes when we are talking about restraint in incomes, dividends, salaries and wages.
  Mr. John Diamond: I did not follow that. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he meant when he said that the income must be earned before an increase takes place? How can one earn unearned income?
  Mr. Maudling: This is a statement of the general position. If the production of the country does not increase and incomes increase, we get inflation. In other words, if incomes as a whole are increased, there must be an increase in production. That is a simple statement, perhaps too simple in some ways.
  I accept the correction made by the right hon. Member for Huyton, who said that the phrase was "an island of rising prices in a world of deflation," because that is making exactly the point I was trying to make. It is all very well to say, as some hon. Members opposite say, that we should stand nobly, like Horatius on the bridge, against the danger of world deflation, but, if this country tries to solve world problems by putting up its prices when world prices are going down we shall end in a position in which the concern of the right hon. Member for sterling will be a very serious matter indeed.
  I turn to the possibility of deflation in the world and what we can do about

  371
  it, a matter to which the right hon. Member rightly referred. I think that it is generally recognised that shortage of liquid reserves available in the world is a considerable problem and may give rise to acute difficulties for certain countries and for the whole level of world trade, particularly if the recession in the United States should continue and deepen. In these matters the countries which have most influence are the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom.
  I have no doubt at all that the United States is very well aware of the importance for the whole of the rest of the world of maintaining the level of its own economy. It is very interesting to see how the level of United States trade with the rest of the world has been maintained, despite its own recession. In fact, I think it is now once again putting out dollars to the rest of the world instead of drawing in dollars, as it was doing last year. I have no doubt it is well aware of the importance of avoiding a deflationary move spreading across the world as a result of its own internal difficulties.
  Then there is the question of Germany. In recent years the accumulation of reserves to Germany has been very much greater than the total world output of monetary gold and that has exercised a very considerable deflationary effect on the world position. Germany has been making very considerable efforts recently to meet the situation by putting up funds in one way or another. Her Majesty's Government consider it is of great importance that this process should be continued and, if possible, accelerated. I can assure the right hon. Member and the Committee that we take every conceivable opportunity of representing to the German Government the great importance of their ensuring that by their policy and their accumulation of reserves and maintenance of a surplus they do not contribute to a general spread of deflation throughout the world.
  One of the great sources of liquidity at present is the sterling system itself. In the course of this year undoubtedly the sterling balances of our overseas territories, the Commonwealth and Colonies, will be run down very considerably. That will help them very much indeed to maintain, in the face of falling commodity prices, a level of trade and imports,
  372
  particularly from us, which otherwise would have to be severely curtailed. By maintaining the sterling area system we make a major contribution to the problem of world liquidity.
  It is, however, important to stress that there is some limitation to this. Although, by accepting the factor of running down sterling balances, we are providing our friends in the Commonwealth with an opportunity to buy more imports, we cannot assume that all those imports will come from this country. By enabling them to maintain a level of liquidity, we throw a strain on the sterling area as a whole. It is important that it should be possible in current circumstances for the United Kingdom to have, as we shall have this year, a substantial current surplus to assist the Commonwealth as a whole by the running down of sterling balances.
  In addition, as the Committee will be well aware, we are resuming expansion, or promoting expansion, in certain areas where that might be possible without damaging the reserves position and without danger of a return to inflation. That particularly refers to the suggestions made for an increase in export credits and the provision of funds from the Treasury for sound projects in areas where there is a substantial under-use of resources at present. To resume a general expansion, which is what the right hon. Members opposite say we should do, cannot, in our opinion, be a sound policy until we are sure—as we cannot yet be sure—that a resumption of general expansion would not be followed by a return to inflation and by further balance of payments difficulties.
  I suggest to the right hon. Member that if he really bases his policy on his statement of yesterday that the strength of sterling must take priority over all other considerations, he will be driven inevitably to the conclusion that a general resumption of industrial expansion and a general slackening of Government restrictions on our monetary system at present would be unwise, and indeed, might even be fatal.
  There is one argument which the Opposition tend to make with which I should like to deal in conclusion. It is that we can solve the problem by a system of controls. This is the only suggestion

  373
  from them; I have seen no other suggestion from the Opposition as to how one can avoid this difficulty of expanding so fast as to cause inflation and balance of payments difficulties. They say that it can be dealt with by a system of controls, and I want to examine what controls they mean and what effect they could possibly have. I think that the answer is that they could have no possible effect whatever.
  Do the Opposition mean import controls? That is not a remedy for inflation, as they themselves have recognised. The Leader of the Opposition has said that more than once. It is no remedy for the balance of payments situation because it will lead to retaliation.
  Moreover, as we are importers mainly of foodstuffs and raw materials, any substantial import cuts must lead to the rationing and allocation of foodstuffs and raw materials.
  When taxed yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Huyton made an extraordinary statement. He said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said."
  That is a very usual gambit, although it is one which we all recognise as involved. He continued:
  "All we have said about controls is about differential import controls of American imports, which, in any case, is the policy of the present Government. I said nothing this afternoon about prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 190.]
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman said in an intervention. It would be their policy to increase discrimination against American imports. That is clearly the right hon. Gentleman's policy. Let us see what that means.
  The American imports which are now freely admitted into this country are by and large basic foodstuffs and raw materials, and people will buy them from America rather than from Australia or elsewhere because they are cheaper. If we return to a discrimination against American imports of foods and raw materials, we shall be forcing our people to pay higher prices for food and raw materials, which is a strange way of dealing with inflation.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I can give two examples of what we did. Instead of
  374
  importing American carbon black, we had it manufactured in this country, which saved American imports. Instead of buying large quantities of American sulphur, we set up the most modern plant in the world to produce sulphuric acid from native anhydride, which was saving American dollars by building up investment in this country.
  Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentle man knows that that has nothing whatever to do with the differential controls on American imports—nothing whatever. That is stimulation of home production, for which his main policy, as far as I can see, is to impose many more controls on home investment. If we discriminate more against imports of American food, stuffs and raw materials we should clearly and without doubt be driving people to buy things in a market where prices are higher. Let us face it.
  It would also be entirely contrary to all our international obligations, which the Opposition have accepted. We are bound to maintain discrimination in these matters only when justified by balance of payments reasons, and we have been dismantling progressively discrimination against dollar goods as the balance of payments situation has improved. It must be borne in mind by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that America has become one of our most important markets, and at present we have a current surplus with America and not a current deficit.
  Mr. Jay: What about Canada?
  Mr. Maudling: We have a deficit with Canada. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to discriminate against Canadian imports? That is the only case he can make in the International Fund at present.
  Sir Robert Boothby: If my right hon. Friend carries this policy to its logical conclusion, it means the complete abandonment of Imperial Preference of any kind and of any concessions to our Commonwealth or Dominions.
  Mr. Maudling: I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that. In fact, it means nothing of the sort. I am talking entirely about quantitative restrictions and import controls, which is quite a different matter from the preferential tariff system which, as my right hon. Friend made clear yesterday, the Government have every

  375
  intention of retaining. I am talking about quantitative import controls and I am saying that what the right hon. Member for Huyton suggests would be completely contrary to our international obligations. Moreover, it would be of no economic value. There persists a strange idea on the benches opposite that if we do not have to pay dollars for something, we do not have to pay for it at all.
  Here I come to the point raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who made a rather strange statement about the merchanting of commodities and the support of the transferable market costing us £150 million to £200 million a year. This was a very strange statement. Dealing, first, with operations in the transferable market, the operations of the exchange authorities are never made public and the hon. Member has no reason to assume that operations in the transferable market are costing us gold and dollars. As for merchanting, what happens is that we buy goods from America, a dollar area, and sell them to Europe at a profit, and we get payment from Europe as to 75 per cent. at least, and probably more, immediately in gold and the rest in gold at short intervals afterwards.
  To talk about a loss is ridiculous. If we stopped this transaction, we should not gain any gold or dollars and we should certainly lose a lot of profitable transactions. Once again, this is an example of Socialist mythology in matters of exchange control where they are singularly out of date for present-day conditions.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: How large a share of the items I mentioned is accounted for by commodity purchases and how large a share by the support of the transferable sterling rate?
  Mr. Maudling: What I said was that we never disclose the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account. I am saying this deliberately and with some care: the hon. Member should not assume that support of the transferable market is costing us, or has cost us, large sums in gold and dollars. I cannot go beyond that, because he knows well that these operations cannot be made public.
  On the merchanting side, I want to make it clear that to talk about losing
  376
  gold and dollars is nonsense. In fact, in any transaction in which the gold and dollar balance in the long run, or relatively short term, is not different and where large profits accrue to our exporters and re-exporters, to talk about losing £150 million or £200 million is absolute nonsense.
  I will come to the question of exchange controls. It is important to know where the Opposition stand in this matter, particularly in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said. The fact is that we cannot force foreigners to hold sterling. That seems to me to be a fundamental fact. People will hold sterling because it is an immensely useable and valuable currency. They will go on holding it as long as they think it will maintain its value. But we cannot force them to keep it.
  It has been and remains the policy of the Government to work towards the convertibility of sterling. That was the policy accepted in the International Fund Agreement, which was accepted by the Commonwealth Conference in 1952 and which has been explicitly accepted, I understand, by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have said, as we have said, that, of course, we must time our advance towards convertibility in the light of the difficulties and problems arising, but I think that it is most important that we should be sure, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is still the Opposition's view that we should aim at the convertibility of sterling as an objective of policy.
  In these matters one cannot stand still; either one must advance towards convertibility or one finds oneself being driven backwards to the sort of bilateral currency system which we had in the years immediately after the war—and nothing could do more harm to our international commercial activities or to international trade as a whole than to return to that bilateral restrictive system.
  It is not merely a question of the earnings of the City of London, although they are extremely important. It is a matter of the usability of sterling in world trade. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself yesterday, if I remember correctly, pointed to the great importance of sterling as an international medium of exchange. If we restrict the usability of sterling we definitely restrict the facilities of world

  377
  trade, and for this country more than any other great country restriction on the facilities of world trade is a restriction of our ability to earn our way in the world. It is, therefore, important that the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke so wisely and clearly about sterling yesterday, should make it clear, and that his party should make it clear, that we all intend to pursue a policy which will strengthen sterling to the degree necessary for its convertibility as the most important international currency.
  I come now to one other form of control, investment control, which is the only other form of control to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. How can investment controls possibly help to contain or restrain inflation? In so far as they are controls on the raising of capital, we still have them through the Capital Issues Committee. Although I think that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the Leader of the Liberal Party, thinks that we are a little illogical in that, I am not sure that we are.
  Mr. J. Grimond: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, agree that it is a physical control. It can be nothing else. It may be good or bad, but it is a physical control of the Socialist sort.
  Mr. Maudling: What is a physical control and what is not is sometimes a metaphysical question. The fact is that we are operating a control on the raising of money. We have always maintained that there is a distinction between controls which operate on the borrowing of money and controls which say what people shall do with their own money when they have it. I would think that a physical control is one which says what I shall or shall not do with £5 in my pocket, whereas a monetary control says that I may not borrow £5 from my banker.
  Of course, my right hon. Friend has introduced an extension of the initial allowances designed to encourage more fixed investment in 1959, but that is not really a conclusive argument for the abandonment of any control over the raising of money for all purposes at the present moment. With respect, I do not think that the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is conclusive. The only other investment controls which could be introduced would
  378
  be those over plant and machinery and buildings. I do not think that the party opposite would seriously think of putting controls on the installation of plant and machinery.
  Turning to buildings, an old favourite of the right hon. Member for Huyton, the greater part of building expenditure is on maintenance. The next large item is factory building, and it is very difficult for a Government, even a Socialist Government, to tell industrialists what factories are wasteful and what are not. The best we can do is to make it expensive and difficult for them to raise the money to earn the profits to finance the factories.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton really arrogate to himself the right to declare, among the many branches of our export trade, what is essential and what is not? Really, I think that, even for the right hon. Gentleman, that is an extraordinary view to hold. It is, indeed, absolute nonsense. Our export trade is made up of a very large number of big items and an immense number of small items, some of them of a highly luxurious character. To think that one can decide in detail what factory is essential and what is not essential is to depart somewhat from what is practically possible in our sort of Western economy.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman then explain the Government's new policy for the Development Areas, under which, apparently, certain developments are to be allowed and encouraged there but others are not to be encouraged?
  Mr. Maudling: If I may say so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is, for once, slightly off the beam. It is perfectly clear that our policy is that, where there are unused resources, that is, where there is substantial local unemployment, the Government will give assistance to sound projects. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sound?"] A sound project is one which will produce a useful economic return. [HON. MEMBERS: "There we are."] But we may well find that some of the projects we shall be supporting will certainly be sound, because they will earn a profit but will not be essential within the Opposition's definition and, therefore, could not be supported on those grounds. If it is the

  379
  view of the Opposition that one can in detail decide what factories are essential and what are inessential, our prospects for encouraging investment in this country in the next few years, if they should ever be the Government, are very small indeed.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that the essential point about the Government's new policy is that the decision shall be made not by the person who is to build the factory but by the gentleman in Whitehall or the bank manager?
  Mr. Maudling: The position is that the Government will help sound projects if they are in certain particular areas, which is quite a different thing. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot appreciate the distinction, then he is below his usual form.
  I have been dealing with various forms of control. The only other form of control which could be introduced, I think, is price control, and the right hon. Member for Huyton himself specifically excluded that in his speech yesterday. It appears, therefore, from the analysis I have made, that there can be no way whatever in which the system of physical controls could restrain inflation or could solve our balance of payments problems if we were foolish enough to resume economic expansion at a pace which could not be supported without a return to inflation and a return to a balance of payments problem.
  We wish to speed up and resume expansion, but the conditions for doing so are that it should not lead to a return to inflation and it should not lead to another balance of payments crisis. I have endeavoured to show that a system of controls would be no answer whatever to the problem that the country now faces. The only answer, I suggest, is the one upon which the Government rest, that we confine expansion at the moment to particular sectors, such as export credits and the particularly difficult areas, where expansion can be encouraged without danger of inflation or danger to our balance of payments.
  As soon as it is possible to resume a greater rate of general expansion, it will be the desire of the Government to do so. But it is quite insupportable for the
  380
  Opposition to pretend that it is possible now to resume rapidly a rate of economic expansion, a general reduction of taxation and a general removal of restrictions without entirely going against the principle of the right hon. Member for Huyton himself, that we must put the strength of sterling first and foremost. I again welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of sterling and giving its strength priority over all other considerations. I will conclude by repeating that however sincere he is in that, it is a fact that the policies advocated by him and his colleagues would have precisely the opposite effect.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I want to take up straight away the rather extraordinary contradiction at the end of the Paymaster-General's speech where he said that it was impossible for any Government to tell anyone how he should invest or what he should do in general. I take it from that that he advocates the ending of the Capital Issues Committee straight away, because that is exactly what the Capital Issues Committee sets out to do. It stops people doing things which otherwise they would want to do, because the Government decide that they should not do them and so instructs the Capital Issues Committee.
  Mr. Maudling: I thought I explained clearly why what we are doing is exactly the opposite. We intend to maintain the Capital Issues Committee.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman based a large part of his argument on the statement that it was impossible for the Government or any organisation under the control of the Government to tell people what they should do with their own money. That is exactly what the Capital Issues Committee does. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this view also completely undermines what we understood to be the Chancellor's new policy for the areas or pockets of unemployment.
  Mr. Maudling: The Capital issues Committee, of course, does not tell people what to do with their own money. That is precisely what it does not do. It stops people borrowing other people's money.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It stops them doing things with money they could easily raise if the Capital Issues Committee was not there. Therefore, it is money which would be under their control in a free system of capitalism, but the Capital Issues Committee stops it.
  What meaning we are now to attach to the word "sound" in the statement about sound projects which are to go to the pockets of unemployment, we have no idea whatever. "Sound" must mean that somebody decides what is sound and what is unsound, and that somebody can be only the Government or some organisation which they set up. Otherwise, the word "sound" becomes nonsensical.
  In general, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made a completely laissez-faire speech worthy of a Liberal. It must have seared the soul of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). I was somewhat disturbed, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, at the prospect that we are to make another dash for convertibility. This seemed to be the conclusion from what he said. He said that we cannot stand still; we must go forward or go back. I take it that the closing of the Kuwait gap was going back. However, the right hon. Gentleman clearly intends to go forward. We cannot, he said, stand where we are. Does he really think that our reserves are now in any state to justify another dash to convertibility?
  Mr. Maudling: This is very important. What I said was that we continued to regard convertibility as our objective to be approached in accordance with circumstances at any given time. It is most important to say that.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: What the right lion. Gentleman is now saying is that what he said was meaningless.
  In general, the right hon. Gentleman made a rather better, abler and more attractive version of the speech we heard last night from the President of the Board of Trade, though the President of the Board of Trade was rather franker. Both of them proved too much. They got near to arguing for permanent stagnation, saying that there are no circumstances in which we can expand again, because directly we expand we increase imports, and it is impossible to increase imports, and so we cannot expand. The fallacy is
  382
  that both of them were talking as if our economy is now going flat out. But the economy has a great deal of slack and unused capacity.
  I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) towards the end of his speech yesterday about the importance of the strength of sterling and that he said that he fully accepted the policy. That emboldens me to attack with all the more vigour what the President of the Board of Trade said last night in a very shocking part of his speech. He seemed to me, in column 190 of HANSARD, to be deliberately setting about an attempt to weaken the £ after a Labour victory. He used the phrase about "a flight from a Socialist £." That is an appalling thing for a responsible Minister of the Crown to say. What would he have said if last autumn when there was a run on the £ we had talked about "the Tory £"? In fact, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a strong and powerful speech in defence of sterling, not of the Tory £ or the Socialist f, but of the British £. I hope that the Chancellor——
  Mr. William Shepherd: Despite that—as it may be—is it not a fact, nevertheless, that when there is a Socialist victory in a by-election the £ sags in the international market?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that is because speeches are made like the one yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade. It is an attempt to encourage any such developments. I hope that in the interests of the national currency and its strength the Chancellor will take the first opportunity, which will come at the end of this debate, to repudiate the vicious and reckless attack made on our national currency by the President of the Board of Trade.
  The more one thinks about the Budget the less adequate it appears to the national needs. It is a bits and pieces Budget. Some changes, if taken in isolation and regardless of the needs of the economy, can be supported or treated with indifference. There is, for instance, the removal of tax from a commodity on the rather odd ground that it is a poison. In general, we welcome, again taken in isolation, a number of proposals such as the reduction

  383
  in the tax on cinemas and the beginnings of steps to help areas of heavy unemployment. In general, we support the Purchase Tax changes, although we have reservations about some of them, particularly about the tax on miners' protective boots and helmets. Whatever fiscal logic has led to that conclusion it is an indefensible thing to do, and to do it in a year when the Chancellor is reducing the tax on fur coats makes an extraordinary combination of acts.
  We strongly oppose the ending of the differential Profits Tax, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon shakes us in that. He gave a number of very minor reasons for the change, but it is wrong in principle. The arguments of the Royal Commission on Taxation were extremely unconvincing. It is proper to encourage the ploughing back of profits and to deter the distribution of profits. There is another reason why it is an unwise act by the Chancellor. It means hitting firms which have loyally observed the appeals made to them by one Chancellor after another over a decade, and it will advantage firms which have ignored the appeals. It is the sort of thing that brings government into contempt and makes it impossible for a Government to give guidance by exhortation to industry if those who obey are to be hurt and the ones who ignore are to profit. It must breed cynicism and self-seeking in the economy. I hope that when the Chancellor thinks of all the consequences of what he has done he will have second thoughts about it.
  I want to say a word about the way in which the Chancellor is financing these concessions. He has been Chancellor for only a short time, but he has already contracted the Conservative Chancellors' disease of producing little pre-Budgets before his main Budget. The purpose is to make the main Budget look a little more presentable and to conceal the real transfer of wealth which he is bringing about. In February, he introduced his private pre-Budget in which he raised the contributions for National Health to bring in £32 million in a full year. That is an addition to his revenue. It means that he can make concessions which he could not otherwise make. In his Budget speech he said that he was making concessions which were the maximum which would be safe in the circumstances. If
  384
  he had not raised those charges, the revenue would have been £32 million less and it would not have been safe for him to make the concessions.
  I want to state this fairly. Some of the additional charges fall on the employers, but I think that £24 million in a full year is a direct charge upon the workers. That £24 million which the Chancellor got in his little pre-Budget by taxing the workers will more than pay for the new Profits Tax concession which costs £16 million in a full year, the reduction in Estate Duty which costs £3 million, and the reduction in the duty on port and heavy wines which also amounts to £3 million. That totals £22 million, and the Chancellor would not have been able to make those concessions if he had not imposed a poll tax upon the workers. Had he made all those changes together openly in the Budget, we should have seen what he was doing. He would not have dared to do it. He has done it by a trick of concealment. It does not alter the fact that he has imposed a poll tax on the workers to make these concessions.
  I said that nobody could object to most of the Budget proposals if they were taken in isolation; but we cannot take them in isolation. We must relate them to the needs or the economy, and they are, so considered, woefully inadequate. The economy is facing a new, alarming change at home and abroad. It is disturbed about the prospects of spreading world recession. What does the Chancellor do to stimulate and reassure the nation? He singles out for special objects of fiscal favour port, poison and profits.
  The main feature of the Budget is not the little bits and pieces of changes that the Chancellor has made. It is that it is an expression of the same arid and sterile economic policy which has been pursued by his predecessors. There was a lot of brave, fine talk in the Budget about expansion and strategic aims, but the deeds show that there is to be no expansion whatever. The Chancellor's policy is "expansion yesterday, expansion tomorrow, but never expansion today". The Chancellor is liked and respected in the House, and we know him to be a generous man with humane views, but the country will soon get tired of this complete divorce between his sentiments and his deeds. Our people want more than the diet of homely platitudes which

  385
  they have been given in the Budget speech.
  The Chancellor has determined on this policy of continuing depression of the economy in the full knowledge of its effects, because the results are clear. There have been two and a half years of stagnation. Now another year is to be added. The Paymaster-General tried to show that some things had gone up. Of course, in an average some go up and some go down. However, the increase in investment, which the right hon. Gentleman praised, makes stagnation even worse. If investment is going up and we are still stagnating, that is even worse.
  Some hon. Gentlemen yesterday gave us figures in an attempt to show that the country is expanding with great rapidity. We have not invented our own figures; they are stark figures from the Economic Survey, and they show that industrial production has not risen since 1955. That is the central fact. None of the pleasant intricate arguments of the right hon. Gentleman can get away from the simple fact that industrial production has not risen since 1955.
  Indeed, there are indications now that we are in for worse; that we are in for an actual decline. Production in the last quarter of 1957 was lower than it was a year before. The Financial Times, looking at all these facts and trends and summing them up, wrote, on 1st April:
  "Unless there are early changes in the economic climate or in Government policy, the real national product may well fall in 1958."
  That is the judgment of the Financial Times—an impartial paper, which is certainly not very friendly to the Opposition—upon all the facts and trends that are now available.
  This policy of economic stagnation has failed in one of its main aims, which is to keep prices down, because another key figure in the Economic Survey is that prices went up by 3½ per cent. in 1957, and would have gone up more, of course, had not import prices fallen so heavily in the last half year. This has been part of a very long process. Since the war, the cost of living has risen faster and further under Conservative Governments than under Labour Governments. From 1951 to 1957 it went up by 33 per cent. and from 1946 to 1951 it went up by 31·5 per cent.
  386
  As I say, prices have now gone up further and faster under Conservative Governments. Of course, the contrast is even more startling when we take into account the fact that under the Labour Governments import prices rose by 103·6 per cent. whilst, under Conservative Governments, they have fallen by 12·4 per cent. Therefore, under Conservative Administrations, prices have gone up faster when import prices were falling than they did under Labour Governments, when import prices rose so phenomenally.
  It is not surprising, of course, that prices go up in a time of economic stagnation, because reduced economic activity can of itself—indeed, must of itself—lead to higher prices, because it produces shorter runs and higher unit costs of production. This is especially true if investment is increasing. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it has been increasing, and did increase last year by 5 per cent., but if investment is increasing and production is stable it is bound to put up prices, because more expensive overheads have to be spread over the same output as before. Unless output goes up as investment goes up we are bound to get higher unit costs, and this is bound to force up prices, quite apart from any movement of wages.
  Right hon. Gentlemen on the other side attribute so much importance to wages in this that they quite forget that they themselves are partly responsible, through their policy of stagnation, for the rising prices. There is a clear relation between the rate of increase of production and the rate of increase of productivity. This is made perfectly clear in Table 7 of the Economic Survey, which shows that since 1955 both production and output per man have moved in exactly the same way; in other words, they have not moved at all. Both have remained stable and stagnant during the whole period since 1955.
  Therefore, by holding down production the Government are holding down productivity, too. It is this policy that is largely responsible for the very grave industrial relations existing in the country today. The Chancellor, in his speech, re-echoed the old slogan, the old programme, that wages must not rise faster than productivity, but he forgets that his own policy has made it impossible for productivity to increase and that he is also helping to push up prices. This

  387
  combination of holding down wages whilst prices go up is really a direct attack on the standards of the working class and the trade unions.
  The result of these three, long, wasted years through which we have lived is that we have had stagnant production, rising prices, stationary exports and the worst industrial relations for decades. These three years are the years that the Conservatives have eaten——
  Mr. Shepherd: Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep using the expression "three years"? Surely he knows that in 1955 we had a 5 per cent. increase in production.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I quite agree, and none since—and two and a half years have gone by. We should, of course, have an increase every year, but for two and a half years we have not had any. That is why attention should be drawn to it, and the hon. Gentleman himself, who is very intelligent about these things, ought to concentrate his mind on the fact that for two and a half years production has not gone up as it should have gone up, and it is this that is really at the root of many of our present difficulties.
  All this is happening against the background of a world situation that threatens to turn very much against us. I thought that the position was very well put in a leading article in The Times, on 2nd April, which said:
  "Increasingly during the second half of the year—"
  that was 1957—
  "the United Kingdom appeared to be riding high and comfortable on the back of the earlier stages of international recession."
  The reason why we did not do still worse in 1957 was that the United Kingdom tends to benefit from the beginning of a recession because, of course, the first effect of a recession is that the prices of the primary producing countries fall, and they have fallen extraordinarily. In January, 1958, our import prices were 15 per cent. lower than they were in the first half of 1957. On the other hand, the price of our exports tends to fall much more slowly. This is partly because the primary producing countries in the Commonwealth run down their sterling reserves, and so keep up their purchasing power. There was a very great run down
  388
  of reserves in the second half of 1957 by countries in the sterling area. It amounted to £225 million. This helped a lot in maintaining our balance of payments surplus which, in the second half of 1957, amounted to £125 million.
  However, the secondary effects of world recession are bound to be adverse, and cannot, I think, be very long delayed. They will come, and they will persist for quite a while, even if the United States begins slowly to pull out of its present recession. There are economists who are now arguing that there may be longer lasting factors at work which will depress the price of primary products over a very long period ahead. If this happens then, as the export earnings of the primary producers fall, so also must fall their capacity to buy from us. This is the problem that faces us in 1958, and it is a very great problem.
  Mr. Skinner, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, says that New Zealand's export earnings have dropped by £58 million. In the second half of 1957, Australia's export earnings dropped by £100 million. These are pounds that would largely be used to buy our exports to them. Our exports have not yet fallen because the Commonwealth countries have kept up their purchasing power by running down their sterling holdings, but they cannot go on running down their sterling holdings for ever. This difficulty may well be made worse, because it will be increasingly hard to maintain our exports to the United States market if the recession goes on. For both economic and political reasons the protectionists lobbies there will become stronger. Although the Paymaster-General was very optimistic about this, there may be a reopening of the dollar gap which may face us with a serious problem.
  All this may be made worse still if the Common Market comes into being before arrangements have been made for us to be given access to it. I must say that the prospects of such arrangements seem to me to be reduced by the fall of the French Government. The time between now and July is getting very short. The French can spend a long time in getting a Government together again; indeed, it may be nearly July before we have a Government there with which to negotiate. In 1958, therefore, Britain faces a new and different

  389
  challenge, and not the same old challenge, that the Chancellor seemed to assume all the way through his Budget speech. In many ways, the challenge in 1958 will be the gravest since the war. The nature of the problem facing us has changed; the Government's policy has not budged an inch.
  We must adapt ourselves to the new and great problems ahead, and it seems to me that the top priority must be to push up exports. I would say that that was as important as the maintenance of prices—even more important than the maintenance of prices because, although it is vitally important to keep prices stable, improvements in the terms of trade will make a considerable contribution to the stabilization of prices, whereas, if we do not push up exports it may have catastrophic effects. So, pushing up exports is now the top priority of all. It is the key to the maintenance of production, investment and employment at home, the key to the building up of the reserves and the increasing of balance of payments surpluses.
  This has been a good year for our balance of payments, but it has been helped by some adventitious things, like the improvement in the terms of trade, which may not continue. Our imports will not increase if the Government do nothing or very little about them. This is the disturbing part of the approach of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the problems ahead of us. They are doing tiny things when we are facing very grave problems. Exports have been stationary in real terms in 1957.We are falling behind our competitors. The Financial Times says that no other great manufacturing country is falling behind with such monotonous consistency—and this is during the period of a Conservative Government.
  What I find most disturbing of all is that in the second part of 1957 Germany displaced Britain as the second largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world. That is a shameful comment on this Government's stewardship of the nation. It could be a turning point of importance in the world and will be one of the few things that will be remembered in the record of this ill-starred Government, together with the Suez fiasco.
  How to face these difficulties is the problem. I think that the first need still
  390
  remains to reinvigorate our economy. I do not see how we can face the extremely grave problems that will arise next year unless we reinvigorate our economy and make use of our wasted capacity. It seems to me that the Government are absolutely paralysed by the memory of the unregulated boom launched by the Lord Privy Seal in 1954. The Government see no alternative to this unregulated boom, with all the disasters that came from it, but to depress the economy. That is the argument of the President of the Board of Trade and the Paymaster-General. The Chancellor himself said almost exactly the same. I thought of the Lord Privy Seal's boom of 1954 as the Chancellor said this at column 55:
  "There is no salvation to be won through increasing production indiscriminately at any cost." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 55.]
  That was what the Lord Privy Seal did, and it was wrong. It is true that we do not want to let everything go again as happened in 1954. But the alternative is not stagnation. The alternative is a selective and regulated expansion of the economy.
  We have these choices before us now. We either have depression, like the Government want, or an unregulated boom, like the Lord Privy Seal wanted, or if we are to get out of our difficulties, we must have—and there is no other alternative as far as I can see—a regulated expansion in our economy. We must go forward with high priority things and hold back things of lower priority. This is possible when there is a slack in the economy. It may not be possible when we have a full boom and full employment. We are not in that position today. We have a great deal of slack in the economy. We need things like discriminatory investment allowances and industrial building licensing, which, incidentally, would give us the lever which will alone enable us to direct industries into the pockets of employment.
  We must give high priority to the restoration and maintenance of full employment. The maintenance of full employment may become very difficult this year. The answer to that problem is to resume our home investment and, above all, a revival of investment in the nationalised industries. The Economic Survey shows that a great deal of our economic activity in 1957 was due to

  391
  investment by the public industries. This will be cut and held back in 1958.
  One of the great things about the nationalised industries is that they have detailed, worked out plans ready for expansion. Therefore, investment in the nationalised industries can more rapidly result in an increase in employment than any other sort of investment in the country. This is one of the things which is lacking in the United States. The United States is finding it difficult to find ways rapidly to increase employment, but, of course, if we have nationalised industries with clear, properly detailed plans worked out we can achieve this relatively fast. If unemployment increases heavily this year or in the future, our people will have a further reason to bless the nationalised industries.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would not he agree that the Chancellor is proposing a large improvement in investment in the nationalised industries? As the below-the-line figures show, the loans to nationalised industries last year were £295 million and the projected loans this year are £370 million.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will read paragraph 81 of the Economic Survey he will see that the rise in public investment, which was raised in the second half of 1957, is to be lowered in 1958. These are the figures upon which I base myself The matter seems to me to be as clear as crystal. The Chancellor said practically the same thing in his own statement. The top priority in encouraging investment in the nationalised industries should be railway modernisation. Apart from anything else, this will help to make this an industry in which the workers can earn a fair and comparable wage. The Chancellor's failure to do this was his main sin of omission on the home front.
  An expanding economy will help our exports because a buoyant market keeps up the purchasing power of the Commonwealth countries who buy our goods. If we have a decline in production this will affect our exports. We need much more if we are to reverse the levelling off of exports that has occurred in 1957. One of the things that we may have to use is import controls. There may be a
  392
  dollar gap this year, and it is no good the President of the Board of Trade trying to make our flesh creep by talking about retaliation. The right hon. Gentleman operates a large number of dollar import controls himself. If he believed what he told us last night he would have abolished them all this morning. He does not believe it, but simply uses it as an argument when he tries to defend his Government.
  We have to use export incentives on a bigger scale than we are doing. I am in favour of, and support, an extension of the operation of the Export Credit Guarantees Department, but it will not be very useful because the credit squeeze makes it difficult for exporters to get credit, even if they are backed by guarantee.
  Above all, we must take special steps to help the Commonwealth. I was glad that the President of the Board of Trade said that he was to see Mr. Skinner. I think that he has already had some talks with him. I was sorry to hear the President of the Board of Trade stress and underline all the difficulties in a large part of his speech, but when it came to what he could do to help he was vague beyond belief. If I had been Mr. Skinner listening to that speech, I should have been very depressed. There are other Commonwealth countries that will need help as well as New Zealand. The only solution is that we must find ways of keeping up the purchasing power of the Commonwealth primary producer countries. I do not see how he can do that except by returning to the long-term agreements which the Government wantonly tore up, in spite of their talk about wanting to develop the Commonwealth. In return, we can ask other Commonwealth countries to arrange their purchases to fit in with the needs and capacity of our capital goods industries. I hope that the Government will make constructive proposals along these lines when we come to the Commonwealth Economic Conference.
  We must recognise that in the year ahead we are facing very great difficulties. We have a new and testing challenge before us. I do not think that we need despair. The fundamental need is to get a forward thrust into our economy again, which is what the Government refuse to do. We should have the courage to pursue policies which would make the world

  393
  talk no longer of a German miracle, but of a British miracle. This can he worked in this country just as it has been worked in Germany. But for that we need a Government which is not afraid to plan for expansion.
  5.11 p.m.
  Sir Robert Boothby: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will not be stunned to hear that I do not think this Budget is sufficiently expansionist in character. I am one of those who believe that by judicious and timely action on the part of Governments inflation can be brought under control without stopping economic growth; and I think that the timing has not been good over the last ten years on either side of the Atlantic.
  Mr. Arthur Burns, who was a brilliant chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the President of the United States, and who has now, unfortunately, retired from that position, recently wrote:
  "Even mild measures on the part of government can be effective in the early stages of inflation or of an economic decline. On the other hand, if action is withheld until inflation or a recession gathers momentum, strong and costly measures may prove insufficient."
  I think that that is what we are finding out to a considerable extent in this country, and what they are finding out to an even greater extent in the United States.
  The word "stagnation" has been bandied about a good deal on both sides of the Committee in this debate, and it makes everybody flinch a bit. I will not use the word "stagnation". I will merely say that our economic growth has not been sustained at an adequate rate during the past two years. That is a more delicate way of putting it; it is longer, but it is quieter, and it does not upset people.
  Apart from the motor car industry, production in this country has been sagging during the past two years; and if right hon. or hon. Members have any illusions about the dangers of the present situation, I recommend a trip to the Clyde, where the spectacle of Holy Loch is something to make one think. There have not been so many ships laid up in that loch since the depression of 1929–31. That is an indicator, and a dangerous indicator, of what is going on, because shipping nearly always leads the way. It is not a pleasant sight.
  Mr. R. T. Paget Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)
  rose——
  Sir R. Boothby: I am resolved not to be interrupted. I have a good speech, and I shall make it as rapidly as possible. If the hon. and learned Member starts interrupting me we shall be off into an argument which will take us until 5.20 before I get back to my speech again.
  I seems to me that our problem in this country is twofold, and I believe that there is a good deal of agreement in the Committee about it. First, we have to increase productivity and, secondly, we have to build up our reserves, which at present are exiguous, while keeping the wage-cost inflation in check. I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no distinction to be drawn between the two types of inflation. I believe that the demand inflation, except in certain categories of consumer goods, is now over; and that the main danger is now what they call a cost-push inflation, to use a technical term.
  I cannot see how we can solve our problem by excessive and costly interest rates, accompanied by an indiscriminate credit squeeze, which hits the weaker and smaller firms and individuals hardest. As has been said from both sides of the Committee in the debate, restrictive policies do not prevent prices from rising. They may even contribute to a rise in prices. We have seen this both here and in the United States during recent years.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to ask the Chancellor whether he will not have another look at the instructions which he has given to the joint stock banks about the credit squeeze. I think he has given them an impossible task, under which they are now writhing in misery. Apart from anything else, they lose a lot of money. Other people are lending money all over the place; but it is the job of the banks to lend money and to give overdrafts to everybody, as far as possible. They like doing this; but they are not allowed to do it, and at present they do not quite know where on earth they are. As somebody said the other day, "If you go into a bank and ask for an overdraft of £100,000 you are asked to lunch, but if you ask for an overdraft of £50 you are kicked downstairs". There is a good deal of truth in that. The banks do not know where they are,

  395
  what they are trying to do, or what the Government want them to do; and the instructions to the joint stock banks should at least be clarified.
  We have, also, the Capital Issues Committee. This Committee gives no reasons for anything it ever does, and what it normally does is absolutely idiotic. I say without fear of contradiction that the Capital Issues Committee has completely lost the confidence of the City, and of industry, in this country. It does the most crazy things without giving any reasons. Indeed, it is not required to give any reasons. I think that the Chancellor should now give much more precise instructions to the Committee, and compel it to give reasons for what it does.
  Consider what happened last year. The Committee allowed a share distribution to Woolworth's and Marks and Spencer and refused it for Great Universal Stores, but gave no reasons for any of those things. Suddenly, today, five months after the refusal, it says, "All right, Gus. Go ahead. You can have your one-for-one." No reason is given of any kind. This goes for the whole of industry. The Committee's actions are incalculable and to some extent, I think, irresponsible; and, if we are to continue with the Capital Issues Committee at all it should be required by the Government to give reasons for its actions.
  I cannot help agreeing with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) that there is a good deal to be said for the restoration of the original investment programme for British Railways. I am not saying this simply to facilitate a settlement of the present wage dispute. The fact is that our railways today are an absolute disgrace. They are the worst in the whole of Western civilisation. This is almost entirely due to the fact that we have not spent any substantial amount of capital on modernising them since the war.
  Last week, impelled by an urge to take part in a television programme, I had to take a long circular tour by rail. I decided to commit myself to the railways. It was a complicated tour in Lancashire; I had to get to Manchester, and then to go a long way back from Manchester. I looked up the timetable, and the train timings seemed to fit, so
  396
  I decided to do the journey by rail, although I knew that I should have to travel in unlit, cold and very dirty carriages. I expected that; but what I did not realise was that the arrival and departure of the trains bore no relation whatever to the timetable.
  I spoke to an inspector at Preston, whose name I shall not give, and it was rather like talking to Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass". I said, "None of these trains seems to arrive at any time remotely approaching that given in the timetable." He replied, "But you do not read the timetable, do you?"; and added, rather reflectively, "Time no longer has any meaning on British Railways." I think it is a great pity that this programme of investment, which was the minimum, should have been cut back.
  Let me return for a moment to Mr. Arthur Burns and his Economic Advisory Committee, which said, three years ago:
  "The best service that a Government can render the national economy, besides helping to maintain stability and ensuring a floor of protection for the population, is to create an environment in which men are eager to make new jobs, to acquire new tools of production, to improve or scrap old ones, to design new products and develop new markets, to increase efficiency all round, and thus be able and willing to pay higher wages and provide better working conditions."
  That is a very good description of what a Government ought to do, whether they call themselves Socialist, Conservative, or anything else; and it is just what we are not doing at the moment in this country. That being so, not for the first time in my life I have had to strike a somewhat critical note; but I should like here to give a warm welcome to the Chancellor's courageous effort to simplify and clear up some of the anomalies of Purchase Tax. It was long overdue, but at least he has made the effort.
  Although I understand perfectly well the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) against it, I also welcome the rationalisation of the Profits Tax. This was recommended very strongly by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. There was a memorandum of dissent by Mr. Woodcock, Mr. Bullock and Mr. Kaldor; and I think that, for the record, I ought to quote one paragraph from it on the Profits Tax:
  "We do not disagree with the majority's view that the artificial encouragement of the

  397
  retention of profits by companies is not necessarily an economic advantage. Beyond a certain point it does not in itself stimulate the rate of capital formation—as is shown by the fact that in the last few years the net amounts retained by companies have greatly exceeded their financial requirements, both on account of capital expenditure and of investment in working capital. It can be argued also that the system of financing capital expenditure so largely out of the undistributed profits of companies, does not ensure the best use of the community's savings. It makes it more difficult for fast-expanding firms to raise funds in the capital market; it strengthens the monopolistic tendencies in the economy, and it encourages wasteful expenditure on behalf of those firms who have more money than they can use and who are yet prevented (by custom and tradition as well as by the instruments of public control) from channelling these funds to their most profitable potential use."
  That is a formidable argument in favour of what the Government have done.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: They went on to argue for a capital gains tax as well.
  Sir R. Boothby: I quite agree that they subsequently recommended a capital gains tax; but, nevertheless, they made a formidable argument in favour of what the Government have done about the Profits Tax; and I think that it is as well to put it on the record.
  The increase in the initial allowances is a valuable first step in the right direction; and I am warmly in favour of the reduction of the duty on heavy wines. That will do good to our relationship with Spain and Portugal; and to all of us. Port and sherry are very valuable drinks, even though they have been costing too much.
  But I must ask my right hon. Friend: why has nothing been done about whisky? The duty on whisky is penal. It is a punitive tax; and, in the final analysis, whisky is the greatest consolation of them all. I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) for making that remark. He once told me that it was the most sustained and reliable consolation in life.
  I have been arguing for a reduction of the duty on whisky, a duty which is outrageous, for years and years. I remember going on a delegation to the late Sir Stafford Cripps, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask for a reduction of the duty on whisky; and Sir Henry Ross, Chairman of the Distillers Company, a splendid figure, though not, perhaps, always absolutely tactful, said to
  398
  Sir Stafford Cripps, "Chancellor, I have left my most formidable argument to the last. I have to make this statement: that a terrible thing is happening in this country as a result of the tax imposed on whisky." And then, in a hoarse voice, he said, "The younger generation are losing their taste for whisky." I shall never forget the inscrutable expression that came over the face of Sir Stafford Cripps. He did not say anything, but I felt that he did not find this argument absolutely convincing.
  I now have a very serious complaint to make. I cannot conceive why this Government, of all Governments, have gone in for this retrospective provision relating to dividend stripping. It is outrageous and intolerable. Of course, we have to stop dividend stripping. I quite see that; but I cannot see why, merely because a Financial Secretary issued a warning which nobody read, three years ago, this retrospective legislation can be justified. It is not justified. Retrospective legislation is, on balance, open to grave suspicion, because it is bad and vicious in principle.
  I think that the Government, unless they revise their views, will have a very rough tune in Committee on this matter. Hon. Members opposite may back the Government up, but I shall be against them in this matter. It will be very rough indeed. I do not think that the Government will want to do it with the support of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I do not think so. Anyway, they will have a job. We might well get the whole of the 1922 Committee to go against them, and then they would be beaten, whatever the Labour Party did.
  On the home front a major requirement—I will not say "the" major requirement—seems to me to be an increase in productive investment, because it is the lack of productive investment in the past from which we are suffering to a considerable extent in this country today. This applies to the 'thirties as well as to the 'forties, when we might have put both the rail and road systems of this country right, with the aid of 2 million unemployed.
  But, of course, investment means saving. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Conservatives were in power before the war."] There was a National Government before the war. I am prepared to say it was the

  399
  worst Government that we have ever had—although I supported it intermittently.
  But I repeat that if we are to have adequate productive investment we must have savings. I do not think that I shall carry the whole of the Opposition with me if I quote one sentence of Professor Lionel Robbins, with whom I seldom agree about anything. However, he wrote the other day:
  "Our present system of progressive taxation on earned incomes constitutes a discrimination against enterprise and ability such as has never before existed in any large-scale civilised community."
  There is a lot of truth in that. Today it is virtually impossible for anybody to save and invest out of earnings, and that cannot, in the long run, be a good thing.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the Stamp Duty on conveyances. I want to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend which I hope he will pass on to the Chancellor. Why does he not make a reduction in the Stamp Duty on the purchase and sale of shares on the Stock Exchange? It would cost very little, and it would definitely encourage productive investment. I will tell him that my constituents, at any rate, who are very good and shrewd Scotsmen in Aberdeenshire, like investing in good shares. Even if they are Socialists, they still like investing on the Stock Exchange, and their great complaint to me now is, "Whereas, under the Socialist Government, our shares steadily rose, under the Conservative Government equity shares have steadily fallen."
  Of course, they never went in for gilt-edged securities under a Socialist Government—and how right they were. They kept well clear of "Daltons". But they did buy fairly substantially, as much as they could, equity shares, despite the heavy Stamp Duty; and under the Chancellorship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) those shares showed very appreciable and enjoyable profits. Now they come to me and say, "What has happened? We bought shares when you got in, and they have gone down and down—15 per cent., 20 per cent., 30 per cent." And that is one of the things which puts them in a rage. They do not dare say so because they do not want to admit
  400
  that they bought the shares; but I believe myself that one of the main reasons for the unpopularity of this Government is the continuous and sustained fall in the stock market. People do not like to admit that they got equity shares; but they have got them and they resent the depreciation.
  Mr. Jay: Was this not called "investing in success" under this Government?
  Sir R. Boothby: Naturally. That is what they thought, and did. That is why they bought them. As I said in this House two years ago, anybody who invested in success must have lost about 20 per cent. of his money. It is nearly 50 per cent. now.
  On the subject of restriction, I should like to say how much I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) yesterday. I thought, on reading his speech, how much we in this House will Miss him. What a loss he will be to all of us. His going away will be a gain to Australia, but such a loss to us. I agreed when he said that over the next five years
  "We shall thus have an almost overt political conspiracy to prevent expansion, to preserve restrictions and to encourage a conspiracy between labour on the one hand and employers on the other to exploit the consumer, for whom nobody will stand up and speak."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 261.]
  My hon. Friend went on to make the point that there was far too much restriction on both sides of industry in this country. He had something there. I believe myself that on both sides of the Committee it was felt that there was more than a germ of truth in what he said. I should like to see the Tory Party setting up the "Opportunity State", in the context of sustained economic expansion. We have taken one tiny step forward in that direction now, but we are not going nearly fast enough.
  I should like now to refer to the basic problem, a far more severe and a far graver problem than anything connected with the Budget, or our immediate domestic needs. On 6th November, 1957, Mr. Khrushchev gave an interview to one of the leading publishers in the United States of America in which he said:
  "We declare war upon you. Excuse me for using such an expression in the peaceful field of trade. We declare a war we will win

  401
  over the United States. The threat to the United States is not the I.C.B.M., but in the field of peaceful production. We are relentless in this and it will prove the superiority of our system."
  This argument was borne out in a subsequent letter to The Times on 7th December last year from the Vice-President of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., who gave precise facts and figures relating to Soviet production at that time; and when the Soviet Governmen give precise facts and figures they are usually right. They certainly give food for thought.
  I believe that the economic war is by far the most serious war which we have to face at the present time. The Russians have always said that they would beat us with economic weapons, and the awful thing is that they believe it. They are doing very well; and they are not deterred from production in the Soviet Union by the exchange value of the rouble in Zörich or New York. That does not worry them in the slightest degree.
  I hope that I can carry the Paymaster-General and the President of the Board of Trade with me in this proposition. The lack of liquid reserves in the free world today is really terrifying, and I will give the Committee some rather startling figures, because we ought all to bear them in mind. The physical volume of international trade has increased by about 120 per cent. since 1938, which can be compared with only a 20 per cent. increase between 1913 and 1929, a comparable period; but the gold reserves of the free world, as a percentage of world trade, are now only about 19 per cent., as against 49 per cent. in 1937. We do about 40 per cent. of world trade, in so far as it is financed by sterling; but in June of last year, the United Kingdom gold and dollar reserves were equal to only one-fifth of our sterling liabilities, and only 4 per cent. of the total world currency reserve. This simply will not do.
  We all agree, and the right hon. Member for Smethwick stressed this very strongly, that an expansion of international trade is absolutely essential, above all to this country, because we depend upon it more than any other country in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) also pointed this out on the first day of the debate. We cannot
  402
  hope for an expansion of international trade if the underdeveloped countries are starved of capital, if we have no liquid reserves, which are the oil of trade, and if commodity prices continue to fall, as they have been falling over the last two years. Obviously, the purchasing power of all the primary producing countries has been greatly diminished.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—and I am very glad to see him here—made a remarkable speech at San Francisco some little time ago. He said:
  "The West is fragmented into sovereign States and as often as not is pursuing rival economic policies."
  I think that that is profoundly true, and it is absolutely terrifying.
  Yesterday, again, speaking of the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference, the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "… most of our thinking should be on how demand for all forms of goods and services can be sustained at all times. Clearly, at this moment, the most important element in the situation is the American recession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 197.]
  My right hon. Friend gave it as his opinion that the American recession would be over fairly soon. I am not at all sure about that. I read a disturbing article by Mr. Niarchos, in the Financial Times the day before yesterday, which did not seem very optimistic to me. Meanwhile, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick said, the dollar gap has reappeared, and the growth of a United States trade surplus, with a consequent absorption of the remaining dollar reserves by the United States, constitutes a grave threat.
  The simplest solution to the problem would be to raise the dollar price of gold, the only commodity the price of which has remained artificially fixed at the 1938 level; and to give the increased reserves, instead of allowing them to exercise an inflationary effect on the United States, to the International Monetary Fund. I believe that we should ourselves make a strenuous effort to persuade the United States to come round to this point of view. I believe that the argument that we should use is the one that that is the only possibility of getting convertibility of the £. As my right hon. Friend is well aware, the Americans are passionately keen to get convertibility of the £. We have been through all this once before;

  403
  and I am on record about it. I said then that it would last five weeks, and it lasted four weeks and three days; and it was the Government of the party opposite that did it.
  The only chance of getting convertibility today is for the United States to do something drastic to increase the liquid reserves of the free world; and I think we have formidable arguments to use in that connection. The truth is that our co-operation on the economic front is nothing like that which existed in the days of Governor Norman, Governor Strong and Governor Schacht. Mr. Norman used to go to the United States twice a year for consultations with Governor Strong. The resulting policies were nearly always fatal; but at least they agreed about them, and the fact that Mr. Norman sometimes called himself Professor Skinner did not greatly detract from the value of his visits. I do not think that Mr. Cobbold has gone to the United States either as Mr. Cobbold, Mr. Skinner, or anybody else, often enough. Anyway, there is nothing like that close collaboration which there used to be.
  We want a Summit Economic Conference with the United States, bringing in both Germany and France. I know that France is in a bit of a fix at the moment; but we could at least bring in Germany, with Canada and the United States, and see what we can do about the exchange reserves. If the United States will not help, and it is conceivable that it will not, we shall be driven back, as the President of the Board of Trade told us yesterday, upon the sterling area.
  I want to say this about the sterling area. I was delighted with what the Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Huyton said about it. It is of vital importance to the free world. While we do not need physical controls, or any violent impositions on the sterling area, there must, if it is to survive, be much more strategic direction than we have at present, and more effective machinery to carry out the decisions of the Commonwealth Economic Conferences that take place from time to time. In this respect, I beg my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who is conducting these arduous, difficult and almost impossible negotiations about the European Free Trade Area, to be under no delusion that
  404
  our economic problems can now be solved by a purely negative reduction of tariffs, without anything else. I feel some sympathy with the French point of view, when they ask for investment plans and a central bank because the French feel that the mere reduction of tariffs, from which they will certainly suffer, is not the long-term answer to the problem.
  The problem confronting us today is not one of trade so much as one of investment and of the means of payment. I think that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade mentioned something in the nature of a Clearing Union, to be built up within the sterling area and Western Europe; and, if the United States refuses to come in on this matter, for heaven's sake let us bring the Commonwealth in. The Strasbourg Plan was really much better than the projected Free Trade Area, and not only because I helped to draft it. It was just a better idea; and it is still better. I do not think that we are going to be of much use to Europe on our own. But with the Commonwealth we could be, even if it holds up the negotiations for a Free Trade Area for a time, it would be worth it if we managed to bring the Commonwealth in, and take them with us in a comprehensive plan for the economic recovery of the sterling area and the countries of Western Europe.
  As a party, I feel that we should oppose unnecessary controls and restrictions; but I was a little disturbed to hear what my right hon. Friend said about discrimination. I suspect him sometimes of being a real old Free Trader. There is a bit of something in my right hon. Friend of which the Manchester Guardian accused him a few years ago—an advocate of undiluted laissez-faire. He fights against it, but the old dogmas of the Cobden school are deep down in his subconscious.
  I joined the Tory Party because I believed in discrimination. We called it Imperial Preference in those days, and thought it a good idea—"Three cheers for the Empire." We used to have the Union Jack on the table at our meetings, and that irritated hon. Gentlemen opposite, who said that we were getting a monopoly of patriotism. I say quite frankly that I still believe in discrimination.

  405
  We have had quite a gay debate. I accept with pleasure the fact that nobody, with the possible exception of my right hon. Friend, has seriously espoused the obsolete doctrines of laissez-faire; but I want to end on a somewhat sombre note. We in the Western world have the gravest challenge from the Communist world that Western civilisation has ever had to face. I propose to conclude with a rather startling and surprising quotation from a leading article in the Daily Mail this morning, which said:
  "Let us be under no illusion.… Since neither side wishes to destroy itself as well as the enemy, an H-bomb war is highly unlikely. But the other war is going on all the time… This is the war which will decide our destiny. And the West is losing it."
  5.33 p.m.
  Mrs. Mary McAlister: I hope I may look for the kindly indulgence which I am told is traditional when Members address the House for the first time. I trust that that indulgence will not be withheld, because I may find it a little difficult to adhere to what I am told is the traditional practice for new Members, which is to keep their remarks entirely outside the realm of controversy.
  Having just emerged from a by-election in a constituency where housing is a problem of such magnitude that even the H-bomb had to take second place during the election campaign, I was glad to find a reduction in Stamp Duty for those who might be endeavouring to buy their own house. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the Government's financial policy in relation to housing will so cramp the efforts of local authorities that it will be completely detrimental and cancel out any good results which might accrue from what the Chancellor has given the home buyer. I must be honest about The Government's financial policy will simply cripple house building in Scotland, certainly by local authorities, and that is a very serious matter. It is particularly serious in an industrial centre such as Glasgow where, as a direct result—at least, I say that it is the direct result—of bad housing, we have infant mortality figures and T.B. figures which are a disgrace to civilisation.
  I was glad to find some relief being given to a section of old-age pensioners. That is very good; but I would remind the Chancellor that the incomes of a
  406
  large number of old-age pensioners do not come anywhere near the amounts in his tables and that they live only on the old-age pension. I had hoped that we might have been given some hope that at least their tobacco coupons might be restored. That is a small, almost niggling thing, but some people might say that it is a niggling Budget altogether. The basic increase for pensioners will be found in most cases to be about 2s. 8d. per week. I would remind hon. Members opposite that at that rate it will take three weeks to buy a bag of coal.
  I feel extremely disappointed about this. Most pensioners came up the hard way, having to find work when unemployment was common and it was very difficult to save. Even where some savings were made, inflation has eaten seriously into them. An old fellow said to me, "I saved good money, Missus, but I'm getting back bad." Most pensioners were unable to save anything and have to depend on the pension, and I think something more ought to have been done for them.
  As a result of the operations of the block grant, the position of these people will be worse than ever. There are many services which could be given to old-age pensioners which would ultimately save the Government money, but, instead of being extended, many of these services will now have to be restricted. It may seem far-fetched to talk about chiropody, but an efficient chiropody service could keep old people mobile for many years and thereby save money on other services which must be provided if they become bedridden or housebound. That is not propaganda; it is a plain fact which has been proved over and over again. Due to the operation of the block grant, the condition of these people will be worse than ever. They are the people who helped in their generation to build up the economic prosperity and security of this country. I feel that they have been treated in a very niggling way indeed.
  In relation to the economic situation in general, the Chancellor said that he would endeavour to keep up productive work as far as possible. He said that it would be the Government's continuous aim to see just how near they could get to the objective without sending up prices and endangering the £. There is a section of people to whom the Chancellor's words may not sound very ominous, for

  407
  the simple reason that they never knew what it was to look for a job, much less to be one of 100 men looking for the same job. However, there is an older section of people—not too old—whose experience has been very different, and I can frankly say that they are absolutely terrified by the growing menace of unemployment. Can we blame them, particularly in Scotland, where the unemployment figures are twice the average for Great Britain? We could not blame them if unemployment were growing slowly, but it is growing steadily. There is no doubt that that is an absolute fact. Many honest people who are not at all revolutionary in outlook are most apprehensive about the way in which the Government are dealing with the unemployment menace.
  I was glad to find a concession in respect of woollen goods, but I notice that the tax on hairpins has risen. However, it will still be cheaper for me to buy hairpins than to get my hair cut.
  I want also to refer to the Rent Act. This, too, has greatly worsened the position of old-age pensioners. We have been told over and over again that this perfidious Act has not caused widespread hardship, but I can tell a very different tale. The hardship is very widespread, and I am afraid that it is in no way alleviated by reassurances from Government quarters, or even by grandfatherly admonitions by the Ministers concerned, to bold, bad landlords. Bad landlords will do what they have always done, namely, whatever the law permits them to do. Good landlords will not, but the bad ones will take full advantage of the law. Grandfatherly admonitions from Ministers or anybody else have not the slightest effect upon them.
  A very cynical misquotation is current in my constituency in regard to these admonitions to landlords. It is said, "You may take a horse to the water, but what are you going to have yourself?" I did not say that; my constituents did. The blunt fact is that we may take a horse to the water, but the landlords will have their pound of flesh.
  I am pleased with one or two things in the Budget. I am glad to see that some articles of children's clothing have been reduced in price.
  I am sorry that I was unable to be completely non-controversial.
  5.42 p.m.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am very glad that I have been called immediately after the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister). Making a maiden speech in this House is one of the greatest ordeals one can undertake, and the hon. Lady has come through it with flying colours. Our congratulations to her are very sincere. And why would she not come through with flying colours, when I understand that she came originally from County Donegal and had the good sense to marry a man from Ballycastle?
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: And then they came to Scotland.
  Captain Orr: And then they came to Scotland. That is a fall from grace. The name of Kelvingrove has been very well known in the House in recent times. It has been made famous and illustrious by the hon. Member's great predecessor and, from the undertones of controversy detectable in her speech, I think we may take it for granted that the name of Kelvingrove is not likely to be forgotten in the future. We sincerely look forward to hearing the hon. Lady in the cut and thrust of debate, when we ourselves need not necessarily be so quiet under the lash that she may wield.
  Before coming to my main point, I want to draw attention once more to something which has often been mentioned in the House. It may appear to be a small point, because it concerns only a few people, but it is none the less important. I refer to the question of the pensions given to those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who formerly served in the Royal Irish Constabulary. That Constabulary was disbanded in very dark and troublous times, and a proportion of those who were so disbanded joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary, at a time when it was dangerous and in parts unpopular to do so.
  They suffer from a sense of grievance of which the Home Office is well aware. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is well aware of it. These men consider that when the Constabulary (Ireland) Act was passed Parliament did not seriously consider its application to those members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were joining the R.U.C. They contend that the terms of

  409
  disbandment which were seen by them indicated that their compensation allowance would not be payable if they joined any form of Government service or any office of profit under the Crown. They joined the R.U.C. and, subsequent to their doing so, the relevant Bill was amended on reaching the House of Lords, and the provision concerning the loss of compensation was made to apply only if they joined the police forces.
  They feel, therefore, that they are the victims of a long-standing misunderstanding, and that something should be done about it. Details of the case have been deployed repeatedly before Members of the Government and in the House. I am aware that there is a potential area of disagreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Ulster Government as to who should find the money to put the matter right, but for heaven's sake let the two Governments get together to see whether something cannot be done for these very few but very splendid men.
  I now come to my main subject, and I start by saying that it will commend itself to the hon. Member for Kelvingrove. She talked about unemployment in Scotland, and I want to talk about a problem of unemployment which is even graver in extent, namely, that of unemployment in Northern Ireland. First, however, I would tell my right hon. Friend that I am one of those who believes that the broad policy of the Budget is the right one at the moment. It will not be the right one for very long. I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). Risks are certainly involved in maintaining a policy of stringency at a time when there is a possibility of a slump in the United States. But I do not share his view that there is likely to be a slump of any great dimensions in the United States.
  From such contacts as I have in the field of trade and industry, I am inclined to the view that we are seeing a period of readjustment and pause, and I believe that demand will shortly be resumed, if not upon exactly the same pattern, at least roughly to the same extent. I do not believe that we are on the edge of a world slump, and my view is that trade will once
  410
  again move forward in the United States and Canada.
  It is therefore very important that we should appreciate the risk of the opposite policy. It is bad to be left as an island of inflation in a world of deflation, but equally bad to be left as a pool of stagnation in a general garden of exuberance.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Does not the hon. and gallant Member agree that Northern Ireland has nothing to look for in the future? At the moment it has 10·7 per cent. unemployment, and it is against that background that the hon. and gallant Member suggests that the present policies are right.
  Captain Orr: I shall come to the question of Northern Ireland shortly. We in the House must consider not only our purely sectional positions, but the position of the United Kingdom as a whole and the fate of sterling. If the policy is right for the United Kingdom, however unfairly it may operate against Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland ultimately depends upon the fate of sterling, and there would be a sight more than 10 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland if sterling collapsed.
  I hope that the Government really are aware of the fact that it is one thing to put the brake on consumer demand but a very different thing to stimulate it again. In that respect, at least, I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). His analogy of the piece of string was well taken in that context. I hope, therefore, that when the Chancellor says that he is not intending to keep on the brake one day longer than is necessary, he realises that, even if he has to produce another Budget next week, we will gladly undertake the burden of listening to it, because the sooner we resume expansion in this country the better for us all.
  Having said that in my view the broad policy is the right one, let me come to some of its effects—and this will deal more or less with the point raised by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). The trouble is that when we apply a policy of financial stringency, we are bound to produce some unemployment. Looked at nation-wide it may not be anything to be seriously alarmed about. A rise of 1 per cent. over the United Kingdom may not be alarming, but it

  411
  falls unevenly, and some portions of the country feel the effect in a way which is not experienced by other parts. There are parts of the country where the unemployment figure does not rise at all, and there are other parts, like the constituency of the hon. Member for Kelvingrove, where the unemployment figure rises very seriously indeed. There is one part of the country where it falls heaviest of all, and that is in Northern Ireland.
  I am one who agrees with what the Chancellor said about unemployment. There are a few people whom one may sometimes hear arguing that it would be a good thing for business and for our economy if the unemployment figures were allowed to rise considerably and if the demands on labour were not so excessive. I do not believe in that policy. I think it a very bad one economically and politically. It is even a bad policy party politically. It is a policy which cannot be defended on any grounds whatever, and from the point of view of humanity it is the worst possible policy of all. An instance of it being a bad policy politically has occurred recently. I think that some of the resurgence of violence in Ireland has as one of its factors the existence of unemployment on both sides of the border. There is nothing like unemployment and a sense of frustration to lead people into wild and dangerous paths. It is a bad doctrine, as I think every hon. Member would agree.
  A month or so ago, the Prime Minister said,
  "I am determined as far as lies in human power never to allow the shadow of mass unemployment to fall upon this country",
  but not only has the shadow of unemployment fallen upon a part of this country, but the very repulsive body and substance of unemployment has been squatting upon part of this country for a very considerable time. When the Prime Minister talks about "this country", I hope he remembers that he is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom which is not only of Great Britain but of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland. The House of Commons, by virtue of keeping within its own power control over the financial affairs of the United Kingdom, is directly responsible in a major way for the question of employment in Northern Ireland. We hope that that will be remembered.
  412
  That we are members of the United Kingdom is highlighted by the fact that my right hon. Friend's Budget applies to Northern Ireland. During the recent debate on Malta, someone arguing against integration and the presence of Maltese representatives in this Chamber, said that it would produce the effect of Maltese representatives interfering and voting upon purely British affairs. Another hon. Member advancing an opposite argument said, "Yes, but the representatives of Northern Ireland do that already." There was an implied criticism, as if we had no right to do so. Of course we have. Not only does the old slogan "No taxation without representation" apply, but it applies also the other way round—"No representation without taxation". We are represented and we are taxed. The really valid argument which I can see against the Maltese situation is the fact that the Maltese at this stage are not prepared to accept the same burdens as we have within the United Kingdom.
  We in Northern Ireland have the same Income Tax, Super Tax and Purchase Tax, and we pay the same duties on beer and cigarettes. Burdens placed on the United Kingdom taxpayers by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer are placed upon the people of Northern Ireland in exactly the same way except for very small alteration. Therefore, we have every right to criticise any aspect of taxation and any question affecting the United Kingdom from Orkney and Shetland to the Scilly Isles. We have the right to an equal voice and we claim our fair share of the national expenditure.
  In some quarters in Northern Ireland, it has been suggested that we do not get our fair share of the national expenditure. I do not hold that view. Broadly speaking, I think that the annual conversations between the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance have enabled us to get our fair share. Voices are raised in Ulster suggesting that what is left in the Treasury—the Ulster Imperial Contribution—is too high. I do not share that view except that I think the Ulster Government should be allowed to spend more on public works and buildings and on roads. Quite a lot could be done in that way, and in that respect I think we may claim a little more.

  413
  One claim is made in Ulster about which there is no difference of opinion between members of one creed and another or one party and another. We are all united in the claim, the still outstanding claim, that our unique position regarding unemployment is not sufficiently recognised and that nothing really effective is being done about it. We are part of the United Kingdom, as I have said, and we have unemployment running at a uniquely high rate. Something dramatic must be done. The case has been stated time and again in this Chamber, and the Committee may well be bored by the story of unemployment in Northern Ireland. We make no excuse for boring the Committee. It may be a tedious subject, and one may have to repeat it over and over again, as many of my colleagues from Northern Ireland and other hon. Members have done. But we do not apologise for doing so, and we shall not apologise or desist until something is done about it.
  Let me restate the position as shortly as I can. In the debate on 24th February, my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said that unemployment in Northern Ireland was at the rate of 9·3 per cent. of the insured population. Now, as has been pointed out rightly, it has reached 10·7 per cent. We may set that figure against 3·6 per cent, for Scotland as a whole and 3·7 per cent. for Wales. Even if we set it against the 9 per cent. for North-East Scotland and the 8·5 per cent. for North-West Wales, it is still staggering, because, as the Financial Times said yesterday, in some parts of Northern Ireland about 20 per cent. of the insured population are now unemployed.
  If we translate it into a comparable figure for the United Kingdom, it will be clear to anybody who has a conscience at all that the patience of Ulster representatives must by now be exhausted. We must not now simply beg the Government and the House of Commons to consider the unemployment position in Northern Ireland as a matter of extreme urgency, but we must and do demand action as an urgent right.
  The reasons for the present position have been stated over and over again. I will summarise them. The first is that we have a birthrate which exceeds that of any other part of the United Kingdom.
  414
  In 1956, it was 21·1 per thousand as against 15·7 for England and Wales. Other factors are absence of National Service and absence of basic raw materials. We also have difficulties about communications and transport, and we have to make up the leeway of centuries of misgovernment in Ireland.
  All these reasons are well known. What hardly anybody seems to have appreciated fully is how bad the situation is. When we translate that statistic of 10·7 per cent. of the insured population unemployed into numbers, it means in terms of England and Wales 2½ million unemployed. If that situation existed in the whole country it would not be treated with equanimity; it would not be a boring topic; it would be something which demanded immediate and drastic action. If this is not the "shadow of unemployment," I do not know what is.
  Hon. Members have often heard about the measures taken by the Government of Northern Ireland, with the assistance of the Treasury—which we acknowledge—to deal with the problem. Those measures include diversification of our industry and a new industries policy under which 130 new firms have been established with Government assistance and employing more than 30,000 people. It has been announced that new industries are coming which will employ another 2,000. Assistance which has been given to existing industry through the Development of Industries Acts will employ about 5,200 workers, of whom 3,000 are men. Various other things have been done in Ulster to improve the situation and prevent it from becoming worse. They have been admirable in their way, so far as they have gone. The Ulster Government could not have done more.
  In my right hon. Friend's Budget and throughout the Budget debate, we have heard a good deal about measures which the Government propose to take and about the "patches" of unemployment which may be developing in certain parts of the country. We have heard about the Bill to amend the Development Areas legislation, about directions to the Capital Issues Committee and about instructions to the banks about advances. I would direct the attention of hon. Members who may not be aware of it to the fact that these measures have all been applied in Northern Ireland for some years, certainly

  415
  since the credit squeeze began, and yet they have not solved the problem. No one, including the Government, imagines that they will solve the problem. They will help very greatly, and we are grateful for them. We are particularly grateful for the direction to the Capital Issues Committee two or three years ago to look favourably upon applications for capital to be spent with us.
  The problem is not really one of capital, although it is desirable to have it. What troubles us is the question of demand. The troubles of our textile industry are not due to lack of capital but to lack of demand. Even if the credit squeeze ceased to apply to Northern Ireland, that would do nothing about demand or improve the position of our textile industry. Therefore, in our view the Budget does nothing for Northern Ireland, except for what the Chancellor said about financing dry docks. We hope that his statement applies to Northern Ireland.
  The building of a dry dock here and there is a matter for private enterprise. I hope that Messrs. Harland and Wolff of Belfast and other authorities concerned with this matter in Ulster will look favourably upon the prospect of building a dry dock in Belfast. There is the possibility of doing something in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. He tells me that there is an admirable dry dock there which is not being used. I trust there is the possibility of hearing from the Admiralty whether it can be derequisitioned or not, and if so, I hope the local authorities will consider this matter.
  There are ways in which the Government can assist us. I hope they will proceed with the extension of Nutts Corner Airport. Projects of this kind may be small and only palliatives. If we are asking that something be done, it is only fair that the Government should ask us, "What do you want done?" It is not up to us as private Members always to have to suggest what the Government should do, because the Government have at their beck and call all the necessary resources to determine what is possible. When facing a problem the Government are responsible for solving it. We hope that they will look at this matter in that way.
  416
  I would make one suggestion which may sound fantastic and might not be administratively possible, but at least it is original. I hope that the Treasury will look at it without too broad a grin. I said not long ago that our problem was one of demand; I would like the Treasury to look at the possibility of exempting from Purchase Tax goods bearing a Northern Ireland certificate of origin. I know that it sounds odd and difficult.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Is that not representation without taxation?
  Captain Orr: My hon. Friend says that that would be representation without taxation. It is true that this is special pleading for special treatment, but I make my suggestion in order to deal with very special circumstances.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: I am very much interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. If there is exemption from Purchase Tax for textiles, there is no reason to secure the same tax yield in other ways.
  Captain Orr: The hon. Member is suggesting that we might provide some quid pro quo by providing a higher tax on the whiskey we consume. I invite my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, who I know looks at our problems with a sympathetic eye, to look upon my suggestion and give some answer about its ridiculousness or feasibility, whatever it turns out to be.
  I hope I have the sympathy of the Committee in this whole subject. I know I have the sympathy of the Government, but our position in Ulster is such that sympathy is not enough; we really need something to be done. I think Harry Truman once said, when asked what in his view was the difference between a depression and a recession, that it is a recession when the fellow next door is out of work and a depression when oneself is out of work. We do not need reminding of the 1930's to understand what unemployment is. In Ulster we know.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: It is very agreeable from this side of the Committee to join with the hon. and

  417
  gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister) on her excellent maiden speech. I think that hon. Members on both sides who heard her felt the utmost pleasure and gratification. Scotland is quite well represented here today and must indeed be proud of the hon. Lady. The temperate and moderate way in which she referred to the iniquities of the Rent Act and the treatment of old-age pensioners was in the highest traditions of a maiden speech. We shall look forward very much to hearing future contributions from my hon. Friend.
  Turning to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, which did not err on the side of brevity, I should say that he lent rather half-hearted support to the Budget. He made some very sensible contributions on the matter of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I think most of us here fear that unemployment may well spread in a massive manner towards this country in future, although we hope that will not be so.
  Perhaps one of the most disappointing events this afternoon was the speech of the Paymaster-General. It seemed as disappointing as the Budget itself. No doubt the Financial Secretary will pass on these few minor comments to the Paymaster-General. Certain things he said, I thought, require further elucidation. He suggested that a great deal of weekend work occurred and that the earnings from it were not declared to the Inland Revenue. He suggested to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that it would be undesirable to probe into that matter because it would lower productivity. For the Paymaster-General to adopt even a mildly approving attitude towards tax evasion seems a quite extraordinary eccentricity, to say the least.
  The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that there was no strict need to control dollar expenditure because in the trade accounts we are in some degree of surplus with the United States, but he was completely overlooking the fact that we are the bankers and trustees of the gold and dollar reserves of the whole of the sterling area, Lind that the rest of the sterling area is having considerable difficulties with the dollar area. The Paymaster-General also took considerable pride in saying that investment was at a record
  418
  level. In saying that, he was merely echoing the remarks of the Chancellor on Tuesday. He said that investment was at a record level and appeared to take considerable pride in that; but one thing which stands out is that ever since the days of the Industrial Revolution investment has increased on an average year by year. There has been a steady progress in investment. Therefore, one expects investment to be at a record level every year, unless the economy is going backwards. Why that should be a source of pride on the Treasury Bench is not quite clear.
  It would be churlish indeed if we on this side of the Committee did not express some approval of some part of the Budget. There certainly are easements for miscellaneous categories of unfortunate people and we must applaud the help that is being given to them. We are very glad about the relief in Entertainments Duty. We pressed for that for some time, but it does not go so far as we would wish. We are also glad to see that there has been some simplification of Purchase Tax, although it still has not got back to the standard at which we left it in 1951.
  While on the subject of Purchase Tax, I must, as representative of a large mining community, express some disapproval of the vicious attack on miners' helmets, footwear and garments. This illustrates the extraordinary lack of knowledge of industrial relations on the part of the Government. Why choose this moment, when the mining industry is going through considerable difficulties and when there is a natural feeling of irritability in mining circles, to introduce this extraordinarily tactless tax? It is quite inconceivable. I am quite sure that miners will feel in no way consoled by the fact that a £2,500 mink coat can now be bought for £2,300. This is the measure of the tact of the Government in this matter.
  I think there is undoubtedly a case for merging the two forms of Profits Tax—tax on undistributed and on distributed profits. One must accept many of the comments made by the Royal Commission, both in its majority and minority Reports. We all know that Profits Tax as it is at present is causing a certain amount of unfairness to companies which have a high proportion of preference shares in their capital structure. We on this side of the Committee also appreciate

  419
  that companies carry a continuing potential burden of having to pay back non-distribution relief; but whatever arguments there are in favour of the change, it obviously is a very contentious and difficult subject, and it seems extraordinary that such a change should have been made now, of all possible times. The inevitable effect of this merging of the two types of tax will be a big increase in dividends.
  At the same time, the Government are exerting every possible pressure to keep down wages and we have the position that the Chancellor is in favour of a wage freeze and yet that dividends should boil over completely. This is a remarkable inconsistency in economic policy which I cannot follow. It also seems rather odd that the merging of the two forms of Profits Tax should affect the particular companies it does affect. A little elementary calculation, or, easier still, a reference to the front page of the Financial Times on Wednesday, points out that the merging of the two forms will be profitable chiefly to those companies whose dividend cover is less than about three and a half times.
  If one looks at those groups of companies which will benefit most, one finds that they are drawn largely from the entertainment companies, stores, brewers, shoes and leather, and finance and land companies. What is the fiscal purpose in giving encouragement to these groups at this moment? Why the brewers? Why the stores? What is their immediate and important contribution to the national economy?
  We find certain inconsistencies also in the Government's attitude to initial allowances. Why are they choosing this rather odd way to encourage investment? Would not it have been simpler to reduce the credit squeeze? Why are we having a situation in which the banks and the Capital Issues Committee are doing all they can to discourage investment and yet in the Budget we have this minor encouragement of investment? None of this is clear. One notices a considerable inconsistency of purpose. It would seem that the banks and the Capital Issues Committee are going full speed astern, whereas the Board of Inland Revenue is launching the dinghy to pull the ship ahead. It simply does not make sense.
  420
  A disappointing circumstance of the Chancellor's speech was his obvious determination to persist in a deflationary policy. That is something which is not clearly comprehensible. When the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) plunged into deflation, he really was in difficulties—we were up against a serious balance of payments crisis. Surely, conditions are rather calmer now and the Chancellor could to some extent mitigate the credit squeeze. The right hon. Member for Monmouth plunged into the waters of deflation when his trousers were on fire, but there is certainly no excuse for the present Chancellor's belly dive into them.
  An unfortunate feature of the Budget is that, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the Government have no plans whatever for dealing with the imminent recession in this country. There can be no doubt that there is a recession ahead and we are moving straight into it. On every previous occasion when there has been a recession in the United States, this country has been affected, with one exception, in 1954, when world conditions were much more buoyant. It has been said with justice that when the United States sneezes, Europe catches pneumonia. What will happen to us when the United States has pneumonia, as it has now? It must be inevitable that we are moving into a recession. What are the Government's plans for it?
  In the present recession, the United States has its highest unemployment for twenty years. The Chancellor's move is to take 2s. off a bottle of port.
  Mr. Diamond: Forget your troubles.
  Mr. Cronin: Exactly. The countries which produce primary products, who are our customers and who buy our exports to the largest extent, are going through the severest difficulties they have had since the war. The Chancellor thinks in terms of reducing the tax on cinema seats as the riposte to that. It seems that the Government have no plans whatever for dealing with the recession. They are simply moving ahead sans peur et sans avis.
  Are the Government waiting for the recession to appear? If so, they are unlikely to do anything very effective. The Americans made the unwise mistake of waiting for the recession and now that

  421
  they have it, nothing they do seems to be able to control it. It is not saucering out in spite of all kinds of efforts being made to achieve that result. We know that when the great recession occurred in the 1930s, in spite of the most vigorous action on the part of the Roosevelt Government and the New Deal policy, there was still no effective way of coping with it. It must be accepted that the only effective way of dealing with a recession is to deal with it before it comes. The Government apparently have no plans at all for that.
  Another unhappy aspect of the Budget is its psychological outlook. We have been told that the country is going through severe economic difficulties, and they are obvious. We have been told that there is no room for increases in wages. We have to have a 6 per cent. Bank Rate. We carry every kind of heavy economic burden. Surely, this is the one time when the country is entitled to expect economic leadership of the highest order, and yet we have this timorous and mediocre Budget.
  The effect on the trade unions is of the most tactless nature. Nothing has been done to give the railways help towards paying an equitable wage to railway workers. Nothing has been done for the transport undertakings, such as London Transport Executive, in the form of hydrocarbon oil duty reductions. There is nothing at all to give any indication to the trade unions that the Government are adopting a helpful attitude. It seems that members of the Government are quite incapable of learning the most elementary lessons of social psychology.
  I turn now to what seems to me to be a more constructive approach to the country's economic problems. We have had considerable discussion this afternoon about investment. The Paymaster-General became a little confused as to the distinction between an increase in investment and an increase in production. All of us, on both sides, must realise that an increase in production by itself will not necessarily cure inflation. That is obvious, because an increase in production alone usually necessitates a large increase in imports and there is real danger of balance of payments difficulties and increasing inflation.
  That does not apply to increased production when it is brought about by
  422
  increased productivity. Increased productivity is a direct result of increased investment. It would be desirable for hon. Members, on both sides, to reflect why we in the United Kingdom have a much higher standard of living than countries like Spain and Finland. The reason, very simply, is that we have had a tremendous accumulation of capital equipment over the last hundred years or so. That is the only reason.
  Again, one can look at what is happening in the United States. Why is the Americans' standard of living so high? Why can they always out-produce us? The reason is simply their massive accumulation of capital equipment. The United States worker is in no way more intelligent or industrious than the British worker. In fact, the average intelligence quotient of the United States worker is rather lower than that of the English worker. The American worker, however, has behind him on an average between four and five horsepower, whereas the average English worker has about one and a half horsepower of machine power. Capital equipment must be the final determinant of a country's standard of living and its competitive ability.
  I think it will be agreed on both sides of the Committee that our capital investment over the last few years has been the lowest of all the countries of Europe. If any hon. Member opposite cares to disagree, I shall be happy to produce the figures; but the situation is self-evident. What does that augur for our competitive power for the future? How can we compete with other countries if we are steadily dropping behind in capital equipment? How shall we cope with the European Free Trade Area and, possibly worst of all as a menace of the future, how are we to cope with the Soviet Union?
  The Soviet Union is increasing its output by from 6 to 8 per cent. every year. So far, it has not seriously attempted to compete with us economically. It has not declared any form of economic war on us, but one day that policy may change, and how do we cope with it? With this low investment policy, the prospect is gloomy indeed. Therefore, it is most urgent that investment should be increased as soon as possible, and the restrictive monetary policy dropped as soon as possible.

  423
  There are, of course, certain priorities to be given. One appreciates that if investment increases, something else in our economy must decrease to avoid inflation and balance of payments difficulties. Plenty of leeway can be made good by reducing expenditure on other things. First of all, it appears a comparatively simple matter to decrease inessential investment. The Paymaster-General referred in a rather scathing manner to building controls, and to their disadvantages with regard to factories, but he made no reference to these office buildings that we see going up all over the place in London, or to the petrol stations. There is inessential investment to the tune of millions and millions of pounds that could be easily brought into order by the institution of building controls.
  The Government should pursue further the policy of differential investment allowances. We already have them for shipping and for research and heating economies—why cannot that principle be carried further? There seem to be very wide possibilities there.
  Consumption can certainly be curtailed considerably. We had a reference today to having a Budget surplus, and that, of course, would certainly curtail consumption. One knows that, politically, it is undesirable to talk in terms of increased taxation, but no case at all could be made for the massive "give away" to Surtax payers by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth last year. That is the kind of unnecessary consumption we could easily do without.
  There should be a certain amount of temporary restraint in incomes, and here I refer to wages as well as to profits and dividends. Wage restraint, however, could be brought about only by some agreement between the Government of the day and the trade unions, and this Government, adopting their rather vicious anti-social policies, cannot really expect to come to a satisfactory agreement with the trade unions. The trade unions will insist upon social justice before they lend their very powerful aid to the Government of the day.
  The Government, and particularly the Chancellor, now carry a very heavy responsibility. There is no doubt that,
  424
  economically, the times are bad, and that there are worse approaching. We on this side feel very uneasy as to what the future augurs. All of us have a considerable respect for the Chancellor. He is probably one of the few members of the Cabinet who does not show the authentic cloven hoof. He is the white sheep of the Cabinet, but the road to a recession may well be paved with good intentions, and our only chance of getting out of this very serious difficulty is by careful and detailed economic planning.
  I fear that it is of no use talking to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about detailed economic planning. It is something that is an absolute anathema to Conservative ideology, and one does not get any further. It is incomprehensible to them. It is rather like discussing nuclear physics with Hottentots. Planning of that kind is something that cannot be accepted by hon. Members opposite, but there is no hope or future for this country unless there is some careful and detailed economic planning. We cannot expect that from this Government, so we can only hope that time will pass and that an early General Election will result in a salutary and urgent change.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on his nautical cruise which befitted his position as rear-commodore of a certain organisation, but I must point out that he made quite a lot of mistakes in his not too brief discourse. First of all, it is quite wrong to talk about the inadequacy of British investment. If one takes the critical investment, which is the manufacturers' durables as O.E.E.C. calls them, we are not only on a par with most people, but ahead of a great number. In terms of the percentage of our national wealth we are ahead of the United States of America, and we run very close even to Germany when it comes to manufacturers' equipment. It is quite wrong to say that we are behind, and the hon. Gentleman does no service to this country in pretending that we are.
  Secondly, it is very wrong, especially in the House of Commons, to talk about our heading for a recession. Recessions are, in a large part, psychological, and great damage is done to the economy when individuals, without any authority for

  425
  making the statement, say that we are heading for a recession. With 2 per cent. of the workers unemployed—which, I should think, is the lowest practical level at which any economy can possibly operate—and with a fairly high level of activity, there is no reason to talk about a recession.
  Even if there were some dangers, the proper way to tackle them is for the Government of the day responsibly to take what action they can in advance of the situation, and for the rest of us to keep up a spirit of reasonable optimism which will not discourage people from proceeding with new projects, and certainly not encourage them to reduce stocks and curtail activity. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that, whatever his motives, he is not serving the interests of the people, and particularly the workers, when he pursues that pessimistic line.
  Before coming to my main theme, which is our economic position, perhaps I may be allowed to run over one or two points in the Budget. It was not a very exciting one. I do not think that anyone imagined that it could be, because this is a period when we have to watch carefully and to be wary. My right hon. Friend struck the only possible note in the economic circumstances, but he did one or two things for which I am grateful.
  I am grateful for what he did for the cinema industry. I know that some hon. Members think that more ought to have been done, and that may possibly be right as an assessment, but if it was not all that everyone expected it was more than quite a lot of responsible members of the industry thought that they would get. In my experience, it is seldom that people get more than they expect, but I think that they have done so in this case.
  I welcome the slight assistance that my right hon. Friend has given to exporters. There is no doubt that we must improve our exports in the next year or so, and I am very glad that he has done something, even though it is only small, to assist our exporters with credit facilities. There is no doubt that in the export markets we are meeting an increasing tendency by our competitors to offer improved credit terms, and our exporters are finding it increasingly difficult to finance production for export. The changes that my right hon. Friend has
  426
  made will, I think, be helpful, and I am relieved and reassured by his statement that if other countries continue to grant exceptional credit terms to secure business against us, we shall retaliate. One of the biggest offenders is the United States. It is very good at holding up the book to others and putting it down when it comes to its own turn.
  I think we are not doing enough in the export field today. Some of the criticisms against our exporters are valid. I will quote one short criticism from The Director, a journal which would not be assumed to be entirely without a favourable slant towards British industry. It is a comment on the export race:
  "Strangely enough, the shortcomings"—
  that is, of British goods—
  "are not major ones."
  As they would be, for instance, if the cost level were significantly higher than that of our major competitors.
  "They appear to be rather a lot of little things such as unsatisfactory finish on certain products, consumer as well as industrial, lack of suitable colour, lack of adequate promotion and unenterprising publicity."
  The article goes on to discuss refrigerators, and shows that German refrigerators are in many respects, although dearer than ours, superior in design and finish. We surely need to do something about this. It is the same with washing machines. German designs and finish are often superior to ours. With typewriters, the British have not begun to get anywhere near the Germans. There is no reason for this. We ought to be able to do a lot better. I hope that exporters in various fields will be encouraged to do better than they are doing at present.
  None of us has any sympathy with tax loss operators and dividend strippers, but I cannot feel that our lack of sympathy towards these individuals should compel us to approve retroactive provisions. I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter. A very small amount of money is involved. For a small gain in terms of cash we are sacrificing a very important principle.
  Mr. Paget: A warning was given.
  Mr. Shepherd: It does not matter about warnings. If a man believes something that he is doing is legal when he does it, the Executive ought not at a later date to make it illegal.

  427
  I hope that we have not abandoned the hope of doing something to reduce the general level of Surtax. Surtax at the level of £2,000 is hopelessly low. I look forward without any concealment to the time when the Government will raise the Surtax level to £5,000. It ought to be done, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to do it in his next Budget.
  Mr. Diamond: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that the next Budget will be next autumn or next spring? In either case, will it be before the General Election?
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not have the hon. Gentleman's gift of prophecy. Knowing my limitations, I will not attempt to prophesy.
  I approve of the Profits Tax alterations, although I realise that there are certain disadvantages. If one wants to change a system which has admittedly been wrong in principle, one cannot do it without certain disadvantages. On the whole, I feel that the advantages materially outweigh the disadvantages, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon being courageous enough to make the change.
  I do not think, as did the hon. Member for Loughborough, that we shall see any tremendous change in policy as a consequence. Companies are like human beings. They have certain policies, out looks and characteristics, and will not change them overnight because of an alteration in fiscal policy. Firms which are by the nature of things conservative and industries which require large sums for development—the growth industries—will stick to their profits and plough them back. Those in industries like brewing and entertainments, where the growth is not so large, will stick to their policy of paying out rather more. I do not think we shall get such a dramatic change as hon. Gentlemen opposite imagine. I was surprised the other day to find that the retention of savings by companies today is a lower percentage of total saving than it was before the war. That is surprising, but it is a fact.
  May I turn to the general economic situation? Since the war we have fought three successive battles—first, the battle to secure redeployment after the upset of the war; secondly, the battle for production and exports; and, thirdly, the battle against inflation. Looking at our
  428
  post-war records, it must be admitted that we fought the first two battles rather well. We redeployed fairly successfully, and we certainly did extraordinarily well in the battle for production and exports.
  However, in the third battle we have failed in a very grievous way. Judging by what I hear from hon. Members opposite, they are almost prepared to fail in this battle. They are prepared to sacrifice the soundness of the currency to some gain in production. That is very misconceived, and I hope that if hon. Members opposite return to power they will never pursue that objective.
  Why have we failed in the battle against inflation? I am here talking about the Conservative Party's part in the battle. I think we have failed because of lack of decisiveness. It is terribly hard to fight inflation in a modern democratic society. One has to use with absolute decision all the limited resources at one's disposal; and we have not done that. Often we have done something to help and something to harm. Some little time ago we were restricting credit and at the same time reducing taxes; these things were clearly in conflict. It is like the Socialist policy of applying physical controls and then steaming up the economy with cheap money. The lesson to be learnt by the country and all of us is that we cannot afford to allow the economy to get out of control.
  What we have failed to do in the past six years is to find the mechanics with which to keep a given level of demand We have not got our mechanics right. This applies not only to the Conservative Party, but to hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have to find a means by which, without pettifogging restrictive controls, we can keep reasonable control over the level, pace and growth of the economy.
  I do not pretend that we have done that in the last years. I do not think that putting up the Bank Rate last year, although the measure succeeded in its particular purpose, was in any way a weapon of any discretion or refinement. Indeed, I hope that my right hon. Friend is not too impressed by the Bank Rate method. In present conditions it is exceedingly difficult to get any results from the Bank Rate, for reasons into which I will not now go.
  One of the main difficulties in controlling the economy in present-day

  429
  conditions is the extraordinary strength and financial soundness of our public companies and corporations. It is very hard to restrict the total volume of money when public corporations have so much in the kitty. It is awfully difficult, as we have seen in the last eighteen months or two years, to get results from restrictive policies when these corporations have so much money and so many resources behind them. Unconsciously, in the last eighteen months, public corporations and companies have almost sabotaged the Government's policy to fight inflation.
  Why do I say that? If we look at the broad figures we find that, after putting roughly £4,000 million gross into British industry in the past two years, we have had little or no increase in production. This means, in effect, that the companies concerned have spent the money and improved their technical equipment but have not increased their production. It means that they have continued to employ people whom they did not strictly require. This is a very dangerous process and we have seen it happen in the United States. When it became clear that it could not go on, there was a very dramatic pushing out of all surplus workers. A dangerous situation then arises.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his present argument with his earlier remark that anyone who suggested that there might be a recession in this country was doing a great disservice? It is along the lines of the argument that he is now deploying that we come to that sort of conclusion.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am not saying that we are now in this danger, but companies retaining staff that they did not need over a long period could bring about this result.
  We are now seeing some of the consequences of the Government's policy. The results have been delayed by the policy of retention based upon the big resources behind these companies and by the expectation that at a later date they may require these employees. I feel that the Government ought to make this most serious state of affairs known to public companies and corporations. If there is to be this resistance to, and—although unintentional—almost sabotage
  430
  of, the Government's policy, we have to push ourselves on to a more deflationary line than is strictly necessary. If we could have an immediate correction we should be able to deal with the situation without having to go to such lengths. I hope that the Minister will try to make this known to industry.
  Mr. John McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us to which industries he is referring and what kind of goods they are producing? Are the goods for home consumption or for export?
  Mr. Shepherd: I think that it applies to almost the whole of industry and to goods produced for export and for home trade.
  Obviously our objective is to secure expansion without inflation. Obviously that must be the prime purpose of our policy; but we have not succeeded as yet in this purpose.
  I deplore the talk about stagnation which has come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not true. It is not right to talk—as the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) did in an otherwise excellent speech—about there being three years' stagnation. We must try to get the picture in perspective. If we take the years from 1954–57, we find that during that period we have had a total rise of 10 in the index of production. If we take 1953–57, we have had a 19 per cent. increase—an increase of a little less than 4 per cent. per annum over five years. This cannot be represented as stagnation, and it is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to represent it as such.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: What we say is that there has been stagnation for two and a half years. That is undoubtedly the fact. The tables in the Economic Survey make that perfectly clear. We do not say that there has been stagnation over four years, but two and a half years.
  Mr. Shepherd: The tables do not make that clear at all.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will look in page 38, he will see that that is so.
  Mr. Shepherd: I will read to the right hon. Gentleman the tables that are given in the Cambridge Economic Survey. I will give the index for the various years. In 1953 the figure was 136; in 1954 it

  431
  was 146; in 1955 it was 154; in 1956 it was 153; and in 1957 it was 156. Those figures do not show stagnation in the year 1956. According to the Cambridge Economic Survey, these figures show an increase of three over 1956.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: This is a table of production at stable prices?
  Mr. Shepherd: These are obviously stable prices.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No; they cannot be.
  Mr. Shepherd: If they were not stable prices, they might be very much larger. It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to talk about stagnation when last year, according to his own statement, the volume of production went up by 1½ per cent. We cannot talk about stagnation and at the same time have an increase of 1½ per cent.
  In the past years our expansion has been too fast. I do not believe that it is possible for us to increase production by 5 and 6 per cent. per year, to finance defence and Welfare State programmes and at the same time keep stable prices. If we cannot reduce defence expenditure, if social security expenditure cannot be materially lowered, in order to maintain even prices, we have to reduce the pace at which we expand. That may be very objectionable. Indeed, I think that it is. I should like to see a fast rate of expansion, but not expansion encouraged at the cost of increased prices. It is clear that we on this side would prefer to have a reduction in the pace of growth rather than have growth at any price. I hope that when the country makes a choice between those two views, it will accept ours.
  In conclusion, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will try to develop the mechanics that we need to keep the economy in proper control and, in particular, to keep the volume of money under control. No one can pretend that the existing mechanics for controlling the volume of money are in any way adequate. We must try to produce a new method for controlling the volume of money. Secondly, we have to try to make sterling more secure. I do not intend to go into the means by which that might be done, but I am satisfied that we must
  432
  try to make sterling more secure so that we can proceed towards industrial expansion without undue risk.
  I approve in general the Government's policy as expressed in the Budget. I am not prepared to acquiesce in a policy of increasing production at any cost. I believe that a period of consolidation and utilisation of existing capital investment is the right policy at present. If we can have a period of stability we shall then have a foundation upon which we can build and proceed which will be much sounder than we have had in the past.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: I am more than glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and to congratulate him, if I may without embarrassing him, on putting his finger on something which worries us a great deal on both sides of the Committee. It is one of the reasons for the lack of increase in industrial production—namely, the fear which is in the minds of many employers that if they lose labour which at present they employ, but not fully, they will not be able to recover that labour when the time arrives of increased orders and increased production.
  This is based on past experience of a number of years since the war when, as every employer knows, the trouble of reorganising as a result of a temporary reduction in labour and reorganising again with a full flow of labour has played havoc with the production lines, with a good deal of unnecessary expense and causing quite unnecessary unhappiness and upset to the employees. It is therefore very understandable that this unnecessary retention of labour should go on, but the hon. Member is right in stressing it as one of the obvious causes.
  We have been told, and we accept, that investment has risen satisfactorily for some years. It should have gone up more, but in any case it has gone up. That means that there should have been more production per man. On the numbers employed, there should have been greater total production. Why has this not happened? Hon. Members opposite, with the Chancellor heading them, say that this is the direct fault of the workers, who have apparently not played their part. That is the thought underlying

  433
  everything which has been said from the Government Front Bench since I returned to the House in November. Everything which has been said has implied that problems arise from excessive wages in relation to lack of production, the implication being that it is up to the wage earner to do something about increasing production, ignoring all the time the essential fallacy in the argument that the last person who can control production, and particularly productivity, is the wage earner.
  He does the job he is told to do, and if he is given the tools and the time and, if necessary, an extended time to do it, he will use the tools and produce the goods. If he is not given the work to do, which is clearly what is happening at the moment, and if he is retained by an employer without being fully engaged, knowing full well that when the present job is finished then, as a result of Government policies, there are no further jobs to follow and there is not that pressure of demand which is essential to keep firms working at top rate and efficiency, it is inevitable that there will be a falling off in production. This is caused essentially by Government policy working through the employer, and there is nothing whatever that the employee can do about it.
  It is high time that the Government ceased this silly argument, which does nothing except cause disservice to labour relations. The Chancellor repeated the same sentiment in his Budget speech when he said that we must take care to see that wage earners increase their production so that they can have increased wages, even though this will only keep them at a stable standard of living.
  Having congratulated the hon. Member for Cheadle on making that important point, may I say how profoundly I disagree with him in practically everything else he said? In particular, he started by criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) for drawing attention to the fact that we are certainly heading for a recession if we do not do something about it. I wish every hon. Member would continually din that into the Government Front Bench. I have never seen such a lackadaisical Front Bench in the face of such economic difficulties. They have carried laissez faire to the extent that the accent is on the laissez, except that it is spelt "lazy".
  434
  We had a languid speech from the President of the Board of Trade; the tones could not have been more languid if we had been at the height of a business boom instead of facing unemployment in various areas. We had a great deal of volubility, which convinced nobody, from the Paymaster-General, and from the Chancellor we had a Budget which is as lacking in the economic leadership which the nation needs so urgently at the moment as any Budget I have ever heard. I was bitterly disappointed because, like all other hon. Members, I bear the right hon. Gentleman the greatest good will and respect his personal qualities. I have been told that it is to be regarded as a housewife's Budget, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman must have drawn on the rich experience of his married friends in order to achieve that admirable result.
  I have been looking through it to see the points on which I could comment. One way of assessing the economic effect of the Budget is that of turning up the statement which shows the proposed changes. If one looks at the proposed changes, one gets a good idea of the weight of this Budget. In the Inland Revenue figures, there are ten changes totalling £4¾ million out of a total Inland Revenue collection of £3,000 million. The Budget's effect on the Inland Revenue duties is the grand sum of one-sixth of 1 per cent. That is the measure of the imaginativeness which the Chancellor brought to bear in his Budget proposals. I do not want to exaggerate it; there are ten proposals which together make up one-sixth of 1 per cent., so that on average each proposal has had an effect equivalent to one-sixth of one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the revenue collected.
  To call it a mouse of a Budget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) did, is an exaggeration which my right hon. Friend rarely permits himself. It is not a mouse; it is barely the flea in the mouse's ear.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: It is the microbe on the flea.
  Mr. Diamond: Among the figures, one word—negligible—is repeated seven times. Against Income Tax and Profits Tax for 1958–59, it says "negligible"; Profits Tax, negligible; enlargement of life interests, negligible; Customs, spirits,

  435
  negligible; Excise, spirits, negligible; motor vehicles duties, negligible. After all that, is it surprising that one is driven to conclude that the Budget as a whole is negligible?
  Out of the personal good will which I bear the Chancellor, and to continue my disagreement with the hon. Member for Cheadle, may I offer the right hon. Gentleman all the support I can—and it is clear that he will need it—in retaining the wise principle which he has incorporated, not for the first time, in these Budget proposals of retrospective legislation against tax avoidance? I refer to the dividend stripping proposals, the legislation against which include a very clear warning that if that legislation did not have the necessary effect further statutory provisions would be introduced to give effect back to the date of that warning.
  As long as there is a warning of that kind issued at the time, referring to the date to which the retrospective action will be effective, and provided that the date is not earlier than the date on which the warning is given, and provided that the principle involved is easily understood and quite obviously related to the matter against which legislation is framed, I say that to deprive the Revenue of that weapon would be a great disservice to the country and would be extremely costly.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle has spoken in terms suggesting that this is a small amount. It is £4 million this year, but that is negligible compared with the amount involved if the Chancellor will only stick to his guns, because by doing so he will announce clearly to all those who at the moment are engaged on getting round tax provisions of this kind that this sort of activity will not pay in the long run.
  I can speak with some knowledge and experience of this, and I would say how much one regrets that the kinds of able people, which ought to be directed to constructive action, to production, are directed to increasing their net wealth by getting through loopholes in tax provisions. It is perfectly clear what the dividend stripping arrangements were intended to achieve; it is perfectly clear what the legislation was intended to catch. The fact that a new partner has been introduced to the company with rich
  436
  reserves makes not the slightest difference. The essential object was to strip. It is quite easily recognisable by all those concerned.
  I therefore congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most heartily on firmly bringing into his Budget this proposal, following precedents which are not young, which were established in the 'thirties, respectable precedents created by both sides of the Committee. I hope he will not be induced, either by The Times or by his own back benchers, into taking away from the Revenue an absolutely essential weapon whose use will save an enormous amount of trouble and cost to the Revenue in future years.
  This is, of course, not going anything like far enough. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get rid of tax avoidance problems for all time, he will not achieve it by approaching the matter in this limited way. He will never achieve it until he sets his mind to the task of eliminating the difference between capital and revenue and the difference, for death duty purposes, between life and death.
  As between capital and revenue, everybody knows that the way fortunes are made is by accumulating income, converting it into capital and selling it at a rich, tax-free profit. As long as the barrier which is erected by the Revenue is a barrier between the stony ground inside the barrier, where every one of us has to earn a difficult living and pay tax on it, and the lush green fields on the other side of the barrier where capital gains, capital profits of this kind, are to be made and are so very attractive in terms of money, so long as the barrier is a barrier between those two, it is not surprising that the barrier is not regarded as a barrier but as a challenge, and there will be some of the best minds in the country devoted to finding methods by which to scramble under it or over it or through it.
  Once the territory on either side is more or less the same, although I do not say the rates of capital profits or revenue profits should be exactly the same; once it makes no difference whether a man dies leaving a great fortune or distributes his money legally to his family; once he is quite sure, whether because of capital profits tax, capital gains tax or gifts tax, in the way they manage their affairs so sensibly in the United States—once we

  437
  have achieved that sensible state of affairs—people will, of course, find their minds are not preoccupied with tax avoidance but getting on with a sensible job.
  There is this great difference between people in the City of London and New York. Every second thought of every person who is responsible for any transaction in the City is, what will the tax effect be, and what will the net result be? That is a thought which hardly enters into the mind of his American opposite number. It makes no difference to him which way the thing is organised, so he gets on with his job.
  I do not expect the Chancellor to go quite that far on this occasion, but I hope that at all events he will hold his ground very firmly in the limited retroaction which he has provided for in his Budget.
  There is another matter on which I should like to welcome what the Chancellor said, although he did not carry the logic of his argument to its final conclusion. He said that when he was in industry he was impressed by the wisdom of writing off plant reasonably fast so that one could change it for better plant whenever the opportunity arose. He was, therefore, proposing to increase the initial allowances by—I think it was—onequarter, from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.
  I share that view. It is a wise thing. I dare say that the Chancellor would agree with me that it is part of our failing as a nation that we are too conservative-minded, especially in relation to writing off depreciation of plant. However, he did not take the matter to its logical conclusion, and I invite him to consider adding to the freedoms of which Conservatives so often talk, the freedom to write off, the freedom to depreciate.
  There is no earthly reason why there should be any difference between the amount which a company decides to write off and the amount which the Inland Revenue allows over the total life of plant. There is no cost to the Revenue of any amount at all. In the early stages there might, perhaps, be some safeguard necessary to protect the Revenue, but when a man decides in drawing up his balace-sheet that he will replace the plant in ten years, which is normal, or in less because he wants to make a change-over more quickly, why should he not have that liberty and the Revenue allow it?
  438
  The whole attitude of the Revenue vis-à-vis the taxpayer is that it shall be for the taxpayer to decide how to run his business, without interference by the Revenue, and for the Revenue to collect the tax on any profits. The Revenue never attempts to say, "You are unwise to do this and, therefore, we shall not allow it as expenditure." It always accepts the wisdom or the lack of it of a person who runs his own business—except in this one case of the depreciation of plant. In this case it goes against its normal approach, against the normal approach of the Conservatives, against the argument which the Chancellor himself deployed. I can see no reason, therefore, why he should not at all events consider going this further stage and adding to the freedoms one which would be welcome in industry generally.
  Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just been saying, but is it not in conflict with what his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said yesterday? His right hon. Friend was talking about restoring investment allowances and the difference between that and increasing the depreciation allowance, the capital allowance, but whatever the company chooses to write off, in one case it may get only 100 per cent. of the cost of the asset, in another case it may get more than 100 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman in conflict with his right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Diamond: I am never in conflict with my right hon. Friend. I am always grateful for interruptions by the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens), and he has reminded me of something I omitted to say, namely, that what I am suggesting would not in any event limit the freedom of action of the Chancellor at any time to encourage or discourage investment in plant, because, in addition to what I am saying, he could have investment allowances which would give a total of more than 100 per cent. at any time. I am grateful to the hon. Member, and I think I have indicated that what my right hon. Friend was saying was just as apposite as it always is.
  One further thing I should like to thank the Chancellor for, though again it is regrettable he has not gone far enough, is his proposals for the Entertainments Duty on the cinemas,

  439
  Although during the six years during which I was resting from this place I had considerable responsibilities in the cinema exhibition industry, I have no longer such responsibilities or interests and have, thereore, only slight knowledge of the facts and have no personal interest to declare.
  I disagree wholeheartedly with the Chancellor's approach to this matter of Entertainments Duty on cinemas, and there are three things which I should like to draw to his attention. He has received a document, as I am sure we all have, showing that if there were no Entertainments Duty on cinemas for the year we are discussing, that is, to May, 1959, there would still be barely sufficient income to cover the necessary outgoings of the cinemas of the country. If there were no Entertainments Duty, they would not be able for this year to make any profit, provided that these figures are accurate, and all one can say about the figures is that in the past they have been conservative and have been shown to be optimistic as regards the future.
  The second thing I want the Chancellor to realise is that the industry would be in this unsatisfactory position notwithstanding the fact that the wages paid to the employees are ludicrously low, so low, in fact, that the safety of the public is affected. May I explain that one of the essential safeguards for the public is that there should be a sufficient number of operators in that box behind the audience which reproduces the film on the screen? Notwithstanding the fact that they have been negotiated with such ability by one of my hon. Friends, the wage rates are so low that they are not sufficient, no matter how hard one tries, to attract young men to this industry, having regard to the unsatisfactory hours.
  As everybody knows, we expect our entertainment in the evening, and when we have gone to the cinema and gone home again, the operators have to finish off their job and catch the last bus or train, or walk it. These are unsatisfactory terms of employment, and the result is that we cannot get sufficient men or boys, so that a cinema is often inadequately staffed. This is against the rules, and the local authority responsible for maintaining the rules can do nothing
  440
  about it. The responsible officials find out, and they say "I was not here today; I will come again tomorrow. Try and find somebody else."
  The third thing I want to point out to the Chancellor is that the exhibition side of the cinema industry is already penalised as far as taxation is concerned, and I am now talking about Income Tax. One of the major items of expenditure concerns the amortisation of the lease. Companies generally have to pay a premium to get hold of a furnished cinema, and this premium they write off in amortisation over the period of the lease and it is a very heavy item of expenditure. For tax purposes, they get no allowance whatever. The average cinema exhibitor would be penalised by taxation, as against another trade, would be unable to pay satisfactory wages and would still make no profit if there were no Entertainments Duty whatever for the year 1958–59.
  In these circumstances, I say that it is nonsense to talk about giving part of this duty away. There is no justification for raising any duty whatever. I make this statement myself. I do not represent the trade, and I have not been asked to make this speech. The arguments which the trade put forward were weak arguments, and perhaps I may put this point forward the better because I see the position from the outside. The trade asks for abolition, but it should not have to come asking. It is the Chancellor who has to stand up at that Box and justify taxing an industry having no taxable capacity. The Chancellor can tax an industry's taxable capacity, but he cannot tax it out of existence, and that is what the Chancellor is doing at present.
  I know that the Chancellor understands the problem, and that, otherwise, he would not have made this reduction. I know that he understands the problem of the small cinema, but these are the facts. I will not go into them in any more detail. That is the information which I wish to put before the Chancellor, and I am sure that he is receptive to ideas of that kind.
  May I finally make two comments on Profits Tax and one or two about expansion? So far as the Profits Tax is concerned, it is without doubt true that the differential rate in the tax which has hitherto prevailed encourages saving, encourages the productive use of these

  441
  savings, and prevents the fragmentation of these savings by their distribution to a large number of individual shareholders, each of whom, individually, cannot make use of them. It is no use saying that they will put that money in the bank, that the bank will lend the money, and that as a result the money will be collected together so that a new industry will be able to be created. We could say exactly the same about a company which retains its profits, does not use them, but invests them in gilt-edged or what we like, so that they are available for loan or use by some other industry.
  We have had the Report of the Royal Commission quoted before time and time again, and an hon. Gentleman quoted it last night. We are all equally adept at quoting the bits that suit us. One hon. Member opposite today quoted the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. I am going to quote the Majority Report in favour of what I am saying. The majority looked at the arguments and weighed them, and I admit weighed them with different scales from those I would use, but the arguments are still there, so let us have a look at them. This is what the Majority Report says in paragraph 5391, referring to the existing scheme of the Profits Tax:
  "It had and probably still has some influence in encouraging the retention of profits for use in business at the expense of distribution. Further, the differential structure … is likely to give a limited encouragement to the application of profits in some new venture or expansion of activity;"
  The majority do not regard this argument as being more weighty than the argument the other way. I do. There are further arguments which apply.
  Mr. Stevens: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the Report of the Royal Commission, would he quote the conclusions of the Majority Report, which he has, for some reason, failed to do?
  Mr. Diamond: I have already said that the majority weighed the arguments differently from the way I weighed them, and came to a different conclusion. I have already said that: but I am a Member of Parliament, and I am supposed to do some thinking for myself. I weigh the evidence, and I draw my own conclusions. I put them forward in this Chamber, and the Committee can either accept or reject them. I refuse to deny myself the right to think.
  442
  If I may, I will now go on to tell the Committee of the effect of this additional distribution which is likely to take place as a result of the equalisation of the rates. Here I quote from The Times of yesterday, because it is a reliable paper to quote from, and because if one refers to it sufficiently frequently at least one respectable newspaper will comment on one's speech.
  I find figures set out for a number of companies showing what the last dividend was and what it would be under the new Profits Tax rate, without affecting their reserves one farthing. Here are some examples: Charrington's Brewery, was 15 per cent., would be 25 per cent.; Whitbread's, was 24 per cent., would be 30 per cent.; City of London Real Property Company, was 9 per cent., would be 12½ per cent.; another property company, the London County, was 15 per cent., would be 19½ per cent.; Decca, an Electrical Company, was 43¾ per cent., would be 54 per cent., without affecting reserves.
  As the Committee knows, when directors get together to decide on a dividend, they are moved by one of two considerations, either the dividend or the reserve that is to be left. Those who are moved solely by the amount of dividend want to keep it at a maximum figure irrespective of what reserve is left. What happens to those companies? Obviously, they will be able to increase their dividend.
  Let us consider the other approach, where a company decides on the size of its dividend not because of the dividend, but for reasons of its reserves. If they put the maximum amount to reserve, there will be more to distribute in that case. Whichever way one looks at it, therefore, there will be more to distribute, and, indeed, more will be distributed.
  Just in case it is thought that some horrible Socialist is saying these things, let me read tonight's Evening Standard and hold it open in case hon. Members opposite cannot see the headline, which states:
  "Socialists head for 80 majority"—
  not in this House, but merely in the London County Council. The Evening Standard asks:
  "How careful are our companies in dividend paying?"

  443
  It states that, by any measurement, many of them are much too careful and that with the change in Profits Tax, their policies should be reviewed. Last year, nearly 3,000 companies announced dividends. On the average, they were covered just over two and a half times by profits. The Evening Standard adds:
  "Those firms that exceed this average should now take a more liberal dividend line. Today's message from the county council elections is that a 'freeze' on dividends is a possibility to be reckoned with. If the Socialists get back to power, they will surely clamp down on them."
  That is an invitation to all companies who can afford it to increase their dividends as a result of the variation in the Profits Tax rate.
  I do not know what the Financial Secretary will tell us about the Chancellor's attitude to this. The right hon. Gentleman did not say one word in his Budget speech about restraint in payment of dividends. The Evening Standard refers to the possibility of the Labour Party restraining dividends. Is the Conservative Party doing anything to restrain them? Can we be told at the end of this debate whether it is the view of the Conservative Party that dividends should be restrained? Further, what method does the Conservative Party now propose to adopt? The Chancellor having rejected fiscal encouragement to dividend limitation, what weapon is left in his Amory? It is certainly not the weapon of exhortation.
  No responsible company will again listen to a Chancellor saying, "Do not pay too large a dividend", after the lesson which is being given in the Budget, under which the responsible directors will be penalised and the irresponsible get the advantage. No company director will in future listen to a Chancellor on his pure request to reduce dividends. In short, we are in for a dividend spree.
  Mr. Stevens: I apologise for intervening again, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but the statements that he is making are so remarkable that they need a little correction. Is he aware that if he turns to Table 2 of the National Income Blue Book for 1957 and compares 1938 with 1956, he will see that wages and salaries have increased by 291 per cent. and dividends have increased by 94 per cent. in the same
  444
  period? If he has the Blue Book available, he will see that those figures are correct. How he can then talk about a dividend spree is beyond my comprehension.
  Mr. Diamond: I do not have the Blue Book available, but I know that the hon. Member refers to it regularly. I know that he reads it with care and I accept his figures. He quoted from it in his speech last night, to which I listened with great interest and without making a single interruption.
  The short answer to the point behind the hon. Member's intervention is that it is interesting that he, like many others, regard 1938 as the year when morality was so widespread that everything in the world was right. I regard it as a year when most things in the world were wrong. I have spoken of a dividend spree because I stand for an increasing share of total production for the worker and a reduced share for the non-worker. I shall go on standing for that as long as I can stand up.
  I was asking the Financial Secretary what method the Chancellor will use, if he uses one at all, to encourage dividend restraint. Or will he adopt the line of his hon. Friend and say that dividends are proportionately miles behind what they used to be and, therefore, they should be allowed to go up? If he does this, he will be merely adding a slap on the other side of the face of the worker which the Chancellor already slapped during his Budget speech by introducing an enactment of this kind at a time when wage earners are being told by the Chancellor that they must not expect any benefit from arbitration awards and when the Chancellor adds in his Budget speech that private employers should also take note of what he has said and that he regrets very much that private employers have by agreement given increases in wages.
  At the same time as he does all that the Chancellor wants to introduce an enactment which tells us that dividend receivers shall be encouraged to have greater dividends. If that is the attitude of hon. Members opposite, we shall he glad to know it precisely and to know that it is true, as we have been saying for a long time, that the Conservatives are concerned solely with keeping the wage earner down. They are satisfied that he

  445
  has had too rapid an advance in relation to others and that we should get back to 1938, in the words of the hon. Member for Langstone, as fast as possible.
  My final word concerns production. Much could be said, and has been said, by my hon. and right hon. Friends better than I could say it. What emerged today as a result of the speech of the Paymaster-General was that whereas the Conservative Government were previously exhorting an increase in production and recommending the nation to take every possible step towards increasing production, their knowledge of the lack of any increase in production over the last two and a half years, of stagnation, is driving them to concentrate all their arguments on justifying the new principle that they do not want an increase in production. They suggest that it is the last thing we want, because it would endanger our whole economy.
  It is true, as the Chancellor said, that we will not continue to have production unless we have a stable £. That is one aspect of the truth. Another and more important aspect, however, is that we will not have a stable £ unless we have a strong economy founded on full and increasing production. It is because the Government are running away from their responsibilities in that direction that the Budget is to be criticised.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: During most of the afternoon hon. Members opposite have been painting horrific pictures of a forthcoming slump. If the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), as I take it he does, believes what his hon. Friends have said, he need have no fear about increased dividends, because profits will be reduced; and whatever the merging of the Profits Tax may bring, the dividends would most certainly be reduced if there was a slump. If the hon. Member has any fears on that score, his hon. Friends ought to be able to satisfy him.
  I was sorry that the hon. Member took such a gloomy view of the Budget as to be bitterly disappointed with it. As an accountant, he will realise only too well that a large number of people are pleased with the Budget. Apart from the Purchase Tax changes, I refer to a number of small adjustments which have removed annoyances and frustrations. There is
  446
  the removal of Stamp Duty in connection with the purchase of houses; Income Tax reliefs for elderly people and—a small matter, but one which has caused annoyance—the allowance of subscriptions to institutions to rank for relief from Income Tax under Schedule E.
  I should like to give an example in this respect. A dentist in my constituency tells me that when he was in civilian life he was able to charge his fees to the British Dental Association against his income, but when he joined the Army he was not allowed to do so, under Schedule E. That was a matter of considerable frustration to him, but it is now going to be put right.
  During the past two days the main attack on the Budget has been that it is restrictive, and will hold down production. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) produced the fantastic idea that our industrial production last year should have been £3,700 million higher than it was. He cannot have thought this matter out very far. He certainly cannot have thought out the consequences of his grandiose assertion, because one-fifth of the value of our finished manufactured product is represented by imported materials, which means that to achieve an extra £3,700 million worth of production we should have had to increase our imports by no less than £700 million, which almost equals the total of our reserves. I can imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a fit if any such thing happened in practice.
  To pay for these additional £700 million worth of imports we could have tried to increase our exports, but to do that to the extent necessary, which would mean raising our exports by 20 per cent., would be a prodigious task, and quite outside the possibility of achievement. If we had adopted the right hon. Gentleman's ideas we should by this time have run into a gold and dollar crisis of colossal magnitude.
  When I entered the House, three years ago, the motor car industry had boosted its production to record heights, and the right hon. Gentleman was a vociferous critic of our importation of American steel sheet for the purpose of carrying out that production. I am sure that if the Government had increased our national industrial production by this colossal

  447
  figure the right hon. Gentleman would have been one of the foremost critics in the light of the consequences that would have ensued.
  I want to consider the criticism which has been freely made that this is a holding Budget, designed to keep inflation in check. We can quote all kinds of figures, either way, to prove a case, but this is a case where we have to exercise our own judgment—and my judgment is that even now it would be suicidal to let up on the inflationary pressures. There are still enough of them around, ready to raise their ugly heads at any moment. I believe that we killed the demand inflation by putting up the Bank Rate to 7 per cent. in September, but the fear of cost inflation is still a very live one.
  The other night I had the interesting experience of listening to Mr. Frank Cousins in a discussion on the radio in the north of England. Other hon. Members may have heard it. Mr. Cousins took the view that anything which was good for the trade unions must be good for the country. He argued that since there were nine million trade unionists in this country, and since they represented, with their families, between 20 million and 25 million people, thereby comprising almost a majority of the population, what benefited trade unionists must benefit the nation. That proposition cannot be true by itself. Trade unions are a sectional interest, and I would ask Mr. Cousins and others to remember that.
  Let me give an example. If the wages of trade unionists rose tomorrow by 10 per cent., since the labour content of manufactured goods is between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. prices would have to rise by 5 per cent. straight away. That might or might not be good for the manufacturing industry, but it would be bad for old-age pensioners and others living on fixed incomes, besides salaried persons and many others. We cannot fairly argue that any increase for trade unionists must benefit the rest of the community.
  We have a system of industrial courts and arbitration tribunals who make their awards on the best evidence available. If trade unionists were to flout those decisions generally—which, thank heaven, they do not—we should run into economic and industrial anarchy. The Government
  448
  must, therefore, continue to give a lead against cost inflation. One of the complaints which hon. Members opposite raise against the Budget is that it gives just that lead. It is a lead that I encourage.
  Having been in or connected with industry for twenty years, I can say that I never remember a time when, in the industry with which I was connected, somebody or other was not asking for higher wages or salaries.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: Including yourself.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Including myself. Fortunately, there was somebody above me who could control me.
  There were times for employers to yield, and times for them to resist. We should not take fright at the claims which are now being put forward. If the men in London Transport wish to withdraw their labour they can do so, but the public, the employers and the Government know that the decision of the Industrial Court to give London busmen an extra 8s. 6d. a week is not made wrong by the fact of a strike.
  Returning to the Budget, I should like to make a constructive suggestion which the Financial Secretary might be good enough to pass on to his right hon. Friend to ponder during the coming year. People generally do not realise how much capital expenditure is provided out of revenue by each of our Budgets. For instance, schools and colleges, roads and research establishments are provided through the Departmental Votes. In addition to all the capital provided out of revenue, tremendous sums are set aside each year below the line, by way of loans for capital expenditure.
  The Chancellor finished the last financial year with a surplus of £423 million. In commercial terms, he made a profit of nearly 10 per cent., which is a quite satisfactory result. But he could not distribute that surplus to the taxpayers because he had to devote a large amount of it to pay for capital requirements below the line.
  Let us examine some of these requirements in our national commercial concerns. In the current year the Post Office requires £38 million; the National Coal Board, £76 million; and the other

  449
  nationalised industries—gas, electricity, and so on—£370 million. Railway finance requires £66 million. This adds up to a grand total of £550 million below the line for the forthcoming year, and that is in addition to housing, local authority requirements, and other matters.
  If the Chancellor could hive off these commercial concerns and allow them to look after their own affairs, and provide their own capital from their own surpluses, or by way of debentures or in some other manner, he would find himself greatly relieved, and would be able to say in the future that he could safely distribute much more of his £400 million surplus than was possible in the past—to the great content of the taxpayers.
  I suggest that the hiving off of these commercial concerns—and some of them, like the Post Office, have been doing very well lately and making substantial profits—would have many beneficial effects. It would make competition fairer. For instance, British Road Services and the road hauliers would compete on level terms in the raising of industrial capital instead, as is at present the case. British Road Services having the benefit of the Government guarantee and thereby enjoying a substantial advantage in being able to raise capital at a considerably lower rate than the ordinary road haulier. It would bring about more healthy financial discipline within these undertakings.
  I realise the difficulty of telling these nationalised concerns that they must find their own money from their own surpluses. For instance, it might mean that they would have to be allowed to charge more freely to the public the prices they thought that they ought to get. But I put the idea forward to my hon. and learned Friend so that it may be considered further in the coming year as a line of progress.
  Mr. C. Pannell: Who would gain from this idea? Only the moneylender apparently, because if the public pay increased prices they would lose. How is the hon. Gentleman considering the consumer?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks so badly of the idea. I am considering the interests of the taxpayer.
  450
  It is obvious, as every Chancellor has said in the last few years, that he cannot distribute a large sum above the line to the taxpayer, because he has to think of the capital requirements of the nationalised industries and others below the line. The surplus this year was £423 million, but my right hon. Friend could distribute only a small proportion of that. I am indicating a way by which he could distribute a greater part of that sum in the future, if he could be relieved of the necessity of finding capital for these nationalised concerns.
  I should like to advance that idea for consideration by the Chancellor, because I believe that he would find himself in a greatly improved position next year in proposing substantial reductions of taxation to the great content of the taxpayer.
  7.54 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I have struggled hard to find some point in his speech on which I might agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), but I cannot see any item he mentioned with which I can honestly say that I concur. The hon. Gentleman started by saying that if a slump did come, it would adversely affect dividends and that shareholders would suffer as much as the working people. I suppose that would seem a fair point except that, since we have been talking about 1938, one remembers that dividends were not unreasonable then—at least that is the impression that I am given by the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens)—while we know that in that period the army of the unemployed was a formidable one. It is possible, therefore, that we may enter upon a recession in which the businessman would not be too unhappy with his dividends but in which the working man would suffer greatly through unemployment.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: I should not like the hon. Member to think that I said that there would be a slump. I was commenting on what hon. Members opposite were saying.
  Dr. Mabon: I did not quite follow that, but I am willing to agree with what the hon. Member said, just for the sake, of agreeing with him.
  This seems to me to be a good time now that the terms of trade are in our favour—although that has nothing to do

  451
  with Government action—to cash in on lower import prices and to expand our production. That is the fundamental thing which divides the two sides of the Committee. The Government do not believe that this is the time to expand. They are not against expansion, I understand, but they say that this is not the time to expand. We want to know, when is the time? Is it when we have cured inflation, or will deflation have overtaken us by then?
  Before I left for America about three weeks ago, as a member of a Parliamentary delegation, we had a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers who briefed us about the position of this country vis-à-vis America. We were told that if the American recession continued into June, it was possible that in the third quarter of our trading year—which is the worst quarter—we might have even more severely adverse balance of payments problems. In America the recession is still continuing and although President Eisenhower has said that they have reached the bottom and that they are "saucering out", in the week following his statement the unemployment figure went up by another 200,000. In those circumstances, I do not think it unreasonable that we should return to this House and feel that the Government might have anticipated the possible result of the recession and taken action in advance.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) lectured my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) about being pessimistic, and claimed that it was unpatriotic. The hon. Gentleman qualified that by saying that if the Government had taken some anticipatory action then it was rather unpatriotic to be pessimistic. But the Government have not done anything so far. I believe this Budget is an "Asquithian Budget"—it is a wait-and-see Budget. The Government want to know what will happen in America. There unemployment is something like 7·2 per cent. of the insured workers, and that is a false figure because not all the workers are covered. My constituency represents a microcosm of the picture, because we have an unemployment figure of 8 per cent. and so I am entitled to be pessimistic, and not even the hon. Member for Cheadle can call me unpatriotic. That is why I was
  452
  interested in the argument between the Paymaster-General and some of my right hon. Friends about discrimination in favour of extending investment in certain export industries.
  The Paymaster-General claimed that this was impossible, and it was argued by hon. Members on this side of the Committee that discrimination in trying to build up industries was an integral part of the Budget proposals. In his speech, as reported in column 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Tuesday, the Chancellor referred to an amending Bill to be brought in by the President of the Board of Trade to deal with pockets of unemployment not covered by the Distribution of Industry Act under which certain Development Areas are laid down. Since my own constituency is in a Development Area and suffering from a high degree of unemployment, I think it comes best from an hon. Member such as myself to say that people in pockets of unemployment like those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) will welcome this Bill. But it makes no difference to the situation in my constituency.
  I make no apology for speaking in a narrow constituency manner. In fact, the provisions of the Act are operative in my constituency where we have had 8 per cent. of unemployment for a long time. I wonder how long it must be before the Government are willing to do something specific. It took the whole of 1957 for me to get the Government to agree to an extension to a local factory. That was agreed last December, but it will not be effective for another 18 months. I wonder whether the recommendations of the Chancellor will take as long to take effect in my own constituency.
  The second paragraph in column 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT makes it clear that the Government presently have powers, and how they propose to operate them. It is that in which I am interested. I would much appreciate it if the Minister who is to wind up the debate either tonight or on Monday would answer some of the points which I wish to raise.
  The second proposal of the Chancellor is that the Government are ready
  "… to make finance available under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act to assist in the provision of dry docks in Development Areas, if appropriate arrangements can be made for proper contributions from the enterprises

  453
  themselves and from non-Government sources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 58.]
  That is the promise. My constituency is absolutely cock-a-hoop about this, because for about 14 years we have been struggling against all sorts of difficulties to build a graving dock in Greenock for the service of the Clyde. It would be one of the largest in the country and of great service to the nation, and would provide a lot of employment for our people.
  In the 1955 by-election in which I was returned to this House, the then Minister of Defence, who is now the Foreign Secretary, made a speech promising aid of some kind in the building of this dock. That is why I will not apologise for looking the present gift horse more circumspectly in the mouth than I might otherwise have done. I want to know what it means. Is this just another hoax, an election stunt? It took me 18 months, despite the promise of the Foreign Secretary, to get the Government to answer. They said, frankly and fully, "No"; they would not render financial assistance in the building of this dock.
  Now this hare—I hope it is more than a hare—has been started again, just when we had a committee of industrialists working on the matter for months and just when it was on the brink of finding the capital. It had investigated and settled the site. The people concerned know the market possibilities, and were about to raise capital when the Government make this statement. These people were keen, but now they are in confusion. Industrialists want to know what the Government will be doing in this area. Are they proposing to give money for capital investment; are they going to make a loan; are they proposing to be responsible for the running of the enterprise?
  The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) mentioned the problems of Belfast, and the difficulty confronting the constituency of Londonderry in relation to its dry dock. I do not think that anybody in Scotland, reading the report of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, would think that it meant anything but Greenock. We have one of the largest unemployment problems, and our dock scheme was just about to be promulgated by a private
  454
  consortium of shipbuilders and ship repairers. Would someone tell us in precise terms what the Government propose to do?
  We believe that, under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, the Treasury
  may, in accordance with recommendations of an advisory committee appointed by them, agree with any person carrying on, or proposing to carry on, in a development area an industrial undertaking to which this section applies … to give financial assistance in the carrying on of the undertaking …"
  either by making
  "annual grants … either towards the cost of paying interest on moneys borrowed or to be borrowed for the purposes of the undertaking or generally for those purposes"
  or by
  "… making loans."
  All these things are very relevant and we are most anxious to know whether the committee is being formed, when it will call for evidence and when it will be prepared to negotiate so that the dock proposal will become valid this year. We are anxious that the dock should be constructed this year. Tankers are now beginning to come in, and we see trade slipping south to the Mersey or to Tyneside where an unemployment problem does not exist.
  We subsist on this particular form of trade. The Clyde is a very great river and has a noble tradition of service and workmanship all over the world. We are entitled to insist upon getting the treatment we deserve in this difficulty. That is why I hope that the news will go out from this Committee that the Government are setting up a body willing to negotiate quickly with the local people to find out whether the dock can be built this year. If it cannot, then, far from the Chancellor's announcement being of help, it will actually have hindered the construction of the dock. It will have delayed it by coming just when we were within a very short distance of having the dock constructed by private capital.
  Nevertheless, I welcome the Government's intention to participate in this venture. If the Government had a stake in a dock of this kind instead of its being left to a private consortium, we should have some kind of public control over

  455
  the use of the dock and its selfless integration with shipbuilding and ship repairing on the Clyde. It would not be used solely for private purposes, but would serve the national interest as well.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I know that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will not want me to go into great detail on what he said. He was acting in the interests of his constituency. Hon. Members are always very sympathetic towards those who are pursuing questions which concern the interests of their constituents. But one thing I would say to him: he really must get out of that habit of bending forward slightly before he has finished speaking as though he were about to sit down and bringing us all to our feet in anticipation. If he is going to sit down, let him sit down, and if he is proposing to go on standing up, let him stand up.
  Dr. Mabon: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Holy Writ, which says:
  "What man by taking thought to himself, can add one cubit to his stature?"
  Mr. Iremonger: Scottish hon. Members are usually very well read in the Bible. It is a particularly moving experience for one who has spent as much time in the Navy as I have, to follow the hon. Member for Greenock.
  As a matter of general interest, I would take up one point with him. He asked an extremely important question which he was entitled to ask. He said that the Government maintained that expansion was a good thing but this was not the time to expand, and he asked, "When is the time to expand?" It is a proper question to ask, but I suggest that the right question is not when but how much to expand at any particular moment. To ask when we expand implies that there is no expansion at the moment, whereas there is a positive but limited expansion.
  The right answer is determined by two things, the state of the reserves and strength of the £, and the inflationary or deflationary situation at home. It is on analysis of these two questions that we are able to give the answer. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor may have given the wrong answer. This is a matter of judgment and opinion, and my right hon. Friend has given his judgment. I
  456
  feel very much happier supporting him than I would be in taking the other view.
  I want to make a preliminary point, before I proceed to my principal point, in regard to the proposal to introduce retrospective legislation. This is not the time to go into the argument; there will be plenty of opportunity to do that. But it is only fair to say now that I shall most certainly not be able to support it and I hope that there will be a large number of hon. Members on this side who will organise an effective protest in the Lobbies.
  I want also to say a word or two about taxation, because I welcome the remark of my right hon. Friend when he said:
  "… we must continue to reduce, as opportunity offers, the heavy burdens of taxation."
  If we are to get the full force of his observation, we should read it in conjunction with two other quotations. One was when, referring to last year, my right hon. Friend said:
  "The rate of personal saving reached the record level of 10 per cent. of income after tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 38 and 59.]
  We should also read the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) where he said: "We"—that is, he and his right hon. Friends—"shall"—and I think it would probably have been better if he had said "should"—
  "… need to maintain an effective Budget surplus of public saving to finance essential investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April. 1958; Vol. 586, c. 185.]
  That is about taxation, although the right hon. Member did not say so. It means that "we" shall put 1s. 6d. on the standard rate, and I think it would have been batter to have said so. I hope the significance of the attitude adopted by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. Member on the same subject will not be lost upon the country. We can finance investment either by compulsory saving or by voluntary saving. I prefer voluntary saving. It has been one of the most notable changes in the atmosphere of public life since this Government have been in office that the volume of savings has gone up immensely. I should be very sorry to see a return to the policies of the party opposite. This policy is to promote compulsory saving, which is done, and done only, by taxation.
  Generally, in considering my right hon. Friend's Budget statement, I think the

  457
  Committee must always ask itself the question, what is the objective? What should the Budget be trying to do? I ask myself those questions every year. The question which naturally comes to one's mind is, "What is there in it for me?" I think that is the question at which most people in the country stop. It is understandable and reasonable that that should be so, but I do not think in this Committee we should be satisfied with such a narrow view. I submit that the two questions which should always be asked about the Budget are, does it strengthen the £ abroad? and, what effect does it have on the inflationary or deflationary situation at home? I still think those are the two questions to ask, and today I want to confine my remarks to the effect of this Budget on inflation at home.
  I am not one who thinks inflation does not matter. That is a view sincerely held in some quarters. I am also not one who thinks we have finished with it. I wish to deal with one particular aspect of inflation which was brought to public attention very forcibly by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) the other day, whose speech I will not quote, but which was given prominence in the Press. It was also brought to the notice of the Committee by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. This is what my right hon. Friend said:
  "We certainly cannot be sure that we have yet fully attained price stability; and whether we do or not will depend a very great deal on the moderation shown by all concerned in fixing the level of wages and salaries on which our costs so largely depend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 54.]
  For a Tory Member of Parliament to address himself to the subject of wages is, of course, asking for trouble. If the Committee will be patient with me, however, I will try to put forward a point of view which I hope will not be entirely unacceptable. I think we have to consider much more seriously than we have been prepared to do in the House the relationship between wages and production and productivity.
  In trying to enlarge on that, I should like to correct what I think was a mistaken view expressed by the right hon. Member for Huyton. He said that the "dominant view of the Government was that all our problems were due to wages." I think that was probably a hyperbolical interpretation of his idea of
  458
  the Government's view. It would be more fair to say that the Government's view is that wages in relation to production and productivity do undoubtedly have an important effect on an important part of our problem—not all of it—and wages is an element we cannot ignore. It is an element in the very important problem of inflation. The problem is important to many people whom I represent and, therefore, one of which I am acutely sensitive.
  I base my general submission to the Committee on two quotations. One is from the Cohen Committee Report, and again I say that for a Tory Member of Parliament to submit anything from the Cohen Committee Report is asking for trouble. I often try to work out exactly what it is that hon. Members opposite object to in that Report. I used to think it was what they said that they objected to, the policy, but I have come to the conclusion it is the facts—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."]—which are presented in an attractive way if one wants to find the truth, but in a most unattractive way if one wants to disguise it. The Cohen Committee Report said:
  "the difference made by rising prices"—
  and that, for our terms of reference, is cost of living or inflation—consisted of as to roughly half in wages and salaries.
  Hon. Members opposite would be perfectly entitled to say, "Why pick on wages and salaries? What about income from profits, such as dividends, the income of self-employed persons and so on?" That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, but I am confining my attention to wages because wages are such a very important element in inflation. I do not think it is disputed, wages affect inflation to the tune of half, whereas the whole area of profits make up only a fifth. Also the rise in wages has been much less than the comparative rise in profit incomes during the recent past, from 1938 onwards.
  Maybe I ought to be considering only dividends distributed to the idle rich, or to trade unions or insurance companies, or whoever it may be, but I am actually considering wages. I do not think there is any reason to feel that any other form of income is exempt from scrutiny and whatever legislative attention we might seek to give it. If it would help economy to curb dividends, I would not hesitate

  459
  to welcome such action, but I do not happen to think that would help. I am concerned at the moment with the problem of wages and inflation.
  I wish to submit to the Committee a further quotation, which I think comes very near the mark:
  "Low productivity coupled with ambitious ideas about wages and social services is one cause of inflation; but the unbridled individualism of great trade unions in their wage demands is another cause.… Should the vested interests of the officials of the greater trade unions (for the rank and file get only illusory gains out of the present system) condemn us to progressive inflation, erosion of the social services, and ultimate disaster in the field of foreign trade?"
  Those are two sentences taken from a paper which I very rarely find myself able to commend to anyone, the "Socialist Digest" of December, 1957. It is a remarkable article to find anywhere and an extraordinary one to find there.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I hope the hon. Member will read the whole article, because what he has quoted is taken completely out of context.
  Mr. Iremonger: I should be unfair to the writer of the article if I agreed with the hon. Member. I think the article most imaginative and constructive, and I thought that the writer was in all sincerity asking those questions which ought to be asked. I do not welcome the rift between the two sides of the Committee on the question of the functioning of trade unions and trade union policy or the effect of the trade unions on the national economy. I welcome that attempt from a traditionally trade union and Socialist quarter to make a statement which I found constructive and courageous.
  In addressing oneself to this problem, the first question one has to ask is whether we should have a national wages policy. This question has been asked for at least the last ten years. For my part, I can answer it only with an unequivocal "No," not only because I believe that it would just not work. It did not work in the United States and it did not work in the Netherlands, but even if it did work, as, no doubt, it does in the Soviet Union, it would be undesirable. All the same, I feel that it is important that we should achieve some agreed flexible framework for wages, some criteria and some yardstick to stop the damaging wrangles which
  460
  are an unhappy part of our traditional economy. I do not see why there should not be some kind of voluntary national wages policy without in any way impairing the rights of organised labour to negotiate and the rights of employers to consider their wages policy.
  To achieve such a policy, we require three things, good will, good faith, and a good example. If some sacrificial gesture in the sphere of profits would help to bring about a voluntary wages policy, I should welcome it, but it would be absolutely wrong for the Government to try to control wages. I have very little patience, although I cannot help having some sympathy, with those who say that the Government ought to stop these constant rises in wages which are not matched by increased productivity. One can understand that those who have suffered from inflation have increasingly less sympathy with those who are unable to protect themselves against it, and we should be wrong not to recognise their plight. However, I am absolutely against the rather dangerous and bogus attitude of organisations like the People's League for Freedom, who are supposed to be promoting the interests of trade unions, but who are really motivated by unpleasant and deep-rooted resentments which should not be encouraged in any section of the community.
  These are the things which we should do to try to bring about a voluntary national wages policy. First, I should like the ordinary people to get rather more idea of what economics are about. It is futile in the House to talk as we do in terms of, for example, investment. To the ordinary constituent whom we represent, this highly technical term means shares which a rich man has bought and from which he gets a dividend. The ordinary public, I am certain, has no conception that when hon. and right hon. Members in this Committee talk about investment we are talking about the building of factories, and such like.
  I am sure that the fundamental alphabet of economics is Greek to the ordinary citizen, and that is a bad thing. It is dangerous when the legislature debates in a language which is not understood by those whom it represents. I should like to try to get economics explained to the ordinary man, and I do not think it would be nearly as difficult as some

  461
  people imagine. It cannot, and must not, be done at an academic level.
  It should be possible to arrange a representation, which would not be too fantastically distorted, of the economic system which could be operated electronically. There could he a frame in which there was a series of electrically connected lights and wires. I am not designing the thing here and now, but the conception is a sound one. One could say to the ordinary man, "Press that button and you will see your wages going up. The next button represents an extra motor car off the production lines each month"—or whatever the case may be, in easily understood conceptions. In that way, one could trace exactly what happens through the whole economic system. I am not sure that we could not go to the extent of saying, "Press that button. That is devaluation in 1949 and you see it coming out in the postage increases last year". People ought to understand these things and be able to discuss them in terms of reality instead of in terms of outdated and unseemly passions, which is what happens now.
  Secondly, I should like to see the establishment of a statutory body like the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes which should be able to issue pronouncements of which notice, in the legal sense, should be taken at the right time and in the right places. Hon. Members opposite have created a situation in which it would be futile to recommend that the present Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes should perform that function, because the party opposite has killed it as far as public esteem goes. I am sorry. I think it was a dirty deed. Nevertheless, it is not a had concept that there should be some kind of independent criterion to which everyone of good will, whether in politics, in organised labour or on the management side, could go to find out the readings of the dials.
  I should then like to see the arbitration legislation amended so that the silent witness who is never called—the consumer—could appear at the deliberations of arbitration tribunals—thorough notice being taken of the pronouncements of my suggested statutory body—in order that that the award made should not merely be reached, as so many of us suspect it is now, by adding two and two together and splitting the difference, but
  462
  should be an award that would have some regard to the effect on the national economy generally, upon those who are part of the national economy and who are at present unable to influence that kind of arbitration deliberation, and unable to protect themselves from inflation.
  As to the example that should be set by Government, I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health did the right thing, whatever the Whitley complications, in turning down the award to the National Health Service employees. He said. "In my judgment this would be a bad thing, economically, at this time," It was right of him to do so, because, although the Government cannot and should not control the economy as a whole, and, in particular, should not control wage negotiations, they can and should control that part for which they are responsible and thereby set an example and, to some extent, regulate the economic climate.
  I should like to see it made a statutory duty for nationalised boards—and I pick on them because they are the only industrial concerns that are subject to legislation in such a way—when making wage awards to have regard to the effect upon the economy as a whole. In having such regard, they would be guided by my statutory council, tribunal or whatever one likes to call it, to which they would have recourse in deciding what would be economically sound or unsound in the general national interest.
  That is my submission for a voluntary wages policy. I advocate it now because I believe that inflation is still the danger. The danger at the moment is not the slump that some hon. Members foresee. My right hon. Friend was right when he said on Tuesday:
  "If we tried to halt a world recession by undiscriminating expansion of economic activity at home we should fail; we could not hope to buy ourselves out of it and we might well come near to ruining ourselves if we tried."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586. c. 50.]
  I do not think that we should try that, but I do think we should do what we can about the highly unsatisfactory and continuing menace of inflation at home.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Mulley: When the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) began his speech I

  463
  wondered why he was so alarmed at the prospect of getting himself into trouble. Having listened to him, I can well understand that after making public speeches he often finds himself in some difficulty. If I might give him a little charitable advice, it is that if I were he I do not think that I would go round complaining about people not knowing the basic alphabet of economic science because, without wishing to be at all offensive, I do not think that he showed a very advanced knowledge of the subject himself.
  The hon. Member's remark about the machine was interesting, but there happens to be such a machine in the London School of Economics and, if he wished to do so, I am sure that the authorities there would let him play with it. If one represents an injection of so much investment, or so much extra wages, the machine shows the economic consequences according to the traditional economic pattern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would enjoy himself playing with it——
  Mr. Iremonger: To do myself justice, I may say that I know all about that machine—it was that one to which I was referring—but it is not yet finished.
  Mr. Mulley: I saw it operating some two or three years ago but, perhaps, like so many other machines, it has broken down.
  However, the whole point of this is that economics is not a sufficiently exact science, because it deals with human behaviour. In one of his many illuminating observations, Lord Keynes said about liquidity preference that one really could not tell without asking everybody with a bank balance whether they were holding it in the bank for a deliberate purpose, or for speculation or just why they were holding it. Unless we know the personal and human reasons for various economic activities one cannot make any machine work. Life would, perhaps, be easier, and it would certainly be much duller if economics was a science similar to the physical sciences.
  Another point that I think ought to be made quite plain to the hon. Member is this. I was not sure whether he was in favour of or against a wages policy. He talked about statutory boards, tribunals
  464
  and the like, but the position in relation to wages and trade unions obviously depends on the kind of economic situation of the times. I do not think the trade unions would object to a reasonable amount of planning in the wages sector of the economy if they were assured, and saw, that the rest of the economy was planned, too, but if we have a Government who prattle about free enterprise and the virtue of a free economy it is hardly likely that the trade unionists will offer themselves as the one exception to the rule. The trade unions would prefer a planned economy, and I am satisfied that when the Labour Party takes office we shall get the necessary co-operation from the trade union movement.
  If I were the hon. Member for Ilford, North, I would not place such great reliance on councils and tribunals. The Cohen Committee would be a very different body and would have produced a very different Report if the economist and the accountant on it had been changed. That is bound to be the case with any outside body which is asked to give high-level decisions on these vital matters. I am surprised to hear a Conservative Member of Parliament suggest that the responsibility for these vital decisions affecting the whole community should be taken from the Government, which is responsible to hon. Members, and given to an outside tribunal or council.
  When the Paymaster-General opened the debate today, in his usual amiable way, I was rather surprised when he said, perhaps with his tongue in his cheek, that the Opposition had seen no reason to criticise the Budget except in respect of the Profits Tax. As I understood the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and speeches by other hon. Members, our criticism is simply, but fundamentally, that the Budget is totally inadequate to deal with the country's economic situation. It is true that we have little complaint about the individual, negligible proposals. Indeed, many of us are extremely pleased that it has been possible to make various adjustments, reductions and simplifications in respect of Purchase Tax.
  Perhaps I might, in passing, make a constituency point, one which I have rather laboured over the years. I am still very disappointed that the Purchase

  465
  Tax on cutlery has not been further reduced. The only essential articles in daily use which, in the history of Purchase Tax, have never been exempt are knives, forks and spoons. It has never been possible to buy a knife, a fork and a spoon without paying Purchase Tax, but I still hope for the day when it will be. No doubt we shall have further opportunities to debate these detailed matters.
  I was rather alarmed during the Budget speech. I thought that, except for its length, it could well have been made in the days of Mr. Gladstone. Indeed, with the emphasis on port, sherry, and madeira, it might well have been made a century earlier. It seemed to follow the Gladstonian principle of tidying up here and there. I am sure that an assiduous Chancellor in the future will find several other Treasury Chests which can be suitably brought to an end. I do not for a moment wish to criticise this very satisfactory tidying-up of the Treasury accounts.
  It is generally recognised today that the Chancellor is more than a mere national book-keeper. As has been said, the Chancellor always speaks about driving a car, about the brake and the accelerator, but never realises that his real job is to handle the steering wheel. That represents our complaint, that the Government and the Chancellor do not appear to he concerned about their responsibility for the future development of the economy, their responsibility not only for the financial statement given to the House of Commons, but for the economy as a whole.
  The Chancellor in his speech, like the Economic Survey issued earlier, skated over what seem to us to be the crucial factors—production, exports and increasing unemployment. The Chancellor said at column 55 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "But the moment has not yet come for any general relaxation of credit policy. It is still necessary for the banks to hold down the level of advances and for the hire-purchase restrictions to be kept on. The Capital Issues Committee will continue for the present to maintain its critical scrutiny."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c 55.]
  In passing, it is worth mentioning that all these controls seem formidable for a Government which, in other contexts, say that they do not have any and do not
  466
  believe in them. I believe that the Chancellor is wrong in his assessment of the present situation and in his consideration of the future.
  Putting the matter shortly, I believe that it would have been wiser to give tax reliefs or preferably, perhaps, increase expenditure on social services, particularly old-age pensions, or not impose the additional insurance contribution, or in some way like that release at least £100 million more in purchasing power. Quite apart from that, in a sphere which will not have any immediate budgetary reaction, the time has come for some relaxation in what is commonly called the credit squeeze. There should be some relaxation now in the attitude of the banks to advances, because we all know, as has been frequently pointed out in these debates, that if one has the chance of a quick profit from a speculation one is able to raise the money, even if it means having to pay 15 per cent. or even 20 per cent. interest. Many worthwhile enterprises are being held up today because they cannot get money in the orthodox way.
  Of course, I admit that this is a difficult question. We cannot forecast the extent of the slump before us and it is difficult to time the appropriate measures to reverse a recession should it accelerate. We on this side have no great faith in the Government's timing. We have no great faith in them when they say that they are ready to deal with the situation, because we all remember the fiasco that they made of the preparations for Suez.
  Frankly, I feel, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), knowing the time it takes before a decision by the Government is translated into factory building and people employed in them, some steps in that direction should now be taken. I evidently take a much more serious view of the future than the Chancellor. I sincerely hope that I may be proved wrong.
  The other difficulty that the Chancellor is in is that he fully accepts the philosophy which has been so clearly expressed by the Cohen Committee. It is clear, as I have said myself in the House before, and as has been brilliantly brought out by the Cohen Committee, that it is impossible to have a stable £ in an unplanned economy and also to have full

  467
  employment at the same time. No one doubts the sincerity of the Chancellor and many hon. Members opposite when they say that they do not want to have unemployment, and certainly do not want serious unemployment. This is not a matter of sentiment, but of hard, economic fact. If the Government pursue the policies that they are at present pursuing, I do not see how serious unemployment can be avoided. Apparently, that is also the view of the Cohen Committee.
  I stress the fact that unemployment is extremely cumulative in its impact. To put the matter in a phrase, as soon as a man gets the sack he immediately starts to get one of his pals the sack as well. His spending power is reduced and inevitably he cannot command the resources and goods that he formerly had with a full wage packet and, consequently, plays his part in the rundown in the demand for labour.
  Apart from the accumulative effect of unemployment, I ask hon. Members, when they bandy statistics about the Committee—this percentage and that percentage of unemployment—to remember that for the unemployed man and his family, although they may be only a very small decimal point in the monthly Digest of Statistics, it is an enormous tragedy to be unemployed at any time and especially when, in my view, the country needs every ounce of productive capacity that it can give.
  The question is tied up with that of production. It is here that our major criticism of Government policy rests. If I may, I will quote the remarkable view of Professor Lionel Robbins in Lloyds Bank Review of April, which was quoted yesterday by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Professor Robbins said:
  "Between 1950 and 1957, while our real output per head has increased by about 15 per cent., the German has risen by nearly 60 per cent. Is it not the bankruptcy of statesmanship and national morale to argue that this sort of thing is impossible for us?"
  I do not favour the whole of the arguments which Professor Robbins put forward as a way of obtaining increased production, but the force of that quotation should strike everyone. I ask hon. Members opposite: who are the people at whom he is getting when he talks about the bankruptcy of statesmanship?
  468
  Who were responsible for the finances and economy of this country between 1950 and 1957?
  The Committee will recall that in his speech yesterday my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton said that if the Government had been able to maintain the rate of expansion which the Labour Government achieved, the total gross domestic product, which I think is the technical phrase, would be £3,700 million higher than it is today. It is worth reflecting that at the present rates of tax the Chancellor would have another £1,200 million on the revenue side, which makes complete nonsense of the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, North when he said that in talking about increased output we are talking about putting 1s. 6d. on the standard rate of Income Tax. We should have had £1,200 million to spend on behalf of the nation or for tax reductions.
  Mr. Iremonger: That was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). I am sure that he was quite right, but I should not like to be given credit for it.
  Mr. Mulley: If the hon. Member looks at HANSARD tomorrow, I think he will find that he made some reference to the standard rate of tax. I will deal later with some of the observations made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).
  I need not go over figures to try to convince hon. Members opposite that there has been no increase in productivity worth speaking about since the autumn of 1955. The hon. Member for Ilford, North said that we did not like the facts of the Cohen Committee's Report. I suggest that he should read it a little more closely and look at Appendix V, where he will find abundant statistical evidence for the view which has been put by hon. Members on this side of the Committee that there has been no appreciable increase in production since the autumn of 1955. The increase of 1½ per cent. in the gross domestic product for 1957, as compared with 1956, is confusing because there had been a drop in industrial production between 1955 and 1956. At least 1 per cent. of last year's increase was necessary to get back to where we were in 1955.

  469
  The fundamental error of hon. Members opposite is their belief that their objective of a stable £ is an alternative to expansion or, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, that it is first necessary to get a stable £ before we can move towards expansion. I submit that this is putting the cart before the horse. If we have a planned economy, the only and obvious way to keep prices steady or to reduce them is as a result of increased production. If we do not take the necessary central planning steps in the economy we shall never get increased production and steady prices.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Will the hon. Member enlarge upon what he means about planning the economy—shortly, perhaps?
  Mr. Mulley: In view of the short time left for the debate, and of the fact that other hon. Members would like to speak, I think that it would be a little unreasonable of me to do so, but I will send the hon. Member an article I have written on the subject.
  Any achievement the Government may have obtained in reducing prices is due not to their economic policy but to the fortuitous circumstance of the 11 per cent. drop in import prices and the enormous swing in our favour in the terms of trade. I thought that the President of the Board of Trade yesterday was extremely naughty in his dealing with this point, and I would try to put him right, because the hon. Member for Twickenham—among others, no doubt, but most certainly the hon. Member for Twickenham himself—swallowed this argument by the Minister.
  Import prices have dropped by 11 per cent. It is true that that represents about 2 per cent. in the retail price of an article, and the figures for the whole year show that costs all round have gone up by about 4 per cent. The whole point is that the beginning of the improvement in the terms of trade was in May, and between May and now there has been less than a 2 per cent. increase in wages and other costs.
  The attitude of businessmen is simply that they will not reduce their prices unless they absolutely have to. This was illustrated by a journalist in one of the papers today. He went out yesterday to
  470
  buy a glass of sherry and asked if the price was coming down, and the barman told him, "It has not come down, and it will not come down."
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: It has not come down here, either.
  Mr. Mulley: That is the attitude of many people, if they can get away with it.
  We all know, surely, that it is elementary common sense that if we want to reduce the price of something we do so by increasing the number of the articles we produce. We also know that when businessmen in the retail and other trades, who all need to make a living on their turnover, find their turnover reduced, they seek to get a higher margin of profit on each article with which they deal. Any restriction in production will surely add, to the cost of each individual item. Lord Keynes said that the workers were "sticky" about the reduction of money wages. I am quite sure that many sections of industry are "sticky" about reductions in money profits, and will indeed so organise themselves that if their turnover is reduced they will yet obtain roughly the same amount of return.
  An interesting phenomenon of the last twelve months is that the Conservative Government have discovered the virtues of a stable cost of living. One might almost have thought they had in 1951, when they plastered the country's hoardings with posters to this effect. What happened to this ideal of a stable cost of living between 1951 and now? If the Government put up the bogy of the cost of living only to knock it down, they are only criticising themselves, because they have been in charge of the economy for a very considerable time. The taunt about the misrule of the Socialists has surely worn rather thin by now.
  I should like, but have not time now, to develop this, but in considering the reasons for inflation and particularly the reasons for the crisis of last autumn, I believe, although no one would he dogmatic about this, that it is absolutely unproven to say that wages or costs have been the major factor in inflation. Again, on this particular point, I am very happy to quote Professor Lionel Robbins in support. It is a technical and difficult argument to deploy, and I will not attempt to do it. But I think that the majority of economists would agree that there is no basis at all for the popular

  471
  public meeting argument of Conservative Members of Parliament that the whole blame for inflation rests on wages. Wages generally have tended to follow increases in prices, and have not tended to be a factor in producing increases in prices.
  The other interesting features of last autumn's crisis were that it took place when we were running a very reasonable balance of payments surplus of over £200 million, and that it took place at a time when the terms of trade were running very strongly in our favour. If we cannot avoid an exchange crisis in these favourable circumstances, what will be the position if these trends, as they very well may be, are reversed?
  I should like to make some observations about our responsibilities to the sterling area, where we have liabilities of almost £4,000 million. I would make a guess that we could not raise more than £1,200 million even if we took all the dollar securities of private citizens and every bit of foreign exchange that we could raise. I was rather shocked by the Paymaster-General when he made play of the very clear statement by my right hon. Friend yesterday about supporting sterling. We have consistently done, and we shall consistently do, our utmost to maintain the purchasing power and the international reputation of sterling. Any other view would be quite suicidal, and it is because we see the present Government's policy undermining the future of the sterling area that we are so extremely concerned.
  I should like to hear from the Government, either now or next week, what they are going to do about trying to get some agreement on the sterling area position, because, as we all know, the greater part of the sterling area liabilities are on demand. Frankly, I think it was a miracle that, during the Suez crisis, newly independent countries in Africa did not demand the full payment of their sterling balances.
  In view of the late hour, I will not do more than make one comment on the other most unsatisfactory aspect of the Government's economic policy, namely, their failure to deal with the export position. We all know that our exports are extremely vulnerable, and I was very impressed by a table of figures which I saw recently showing the shares
  472
  of world trade in manufactures. If we compare the position in 1950, when the share of the United Kingdom of total world trade was 25·6 per cent., with the latest figures, which are for January to June of last year, we find that the figure has dropped to 18·3 per cent. I will not take up the time of the Committee by reading out the rest of the figures; obviously, the shares of West Germany and Japan have increased, but every country except Switzerland held its proportionate world trade position except ourselves.
  Yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade asked: if production is expanded, where do imports come from, and what about a balance of payments crisis? I would put to him—and he ought to be concerned himself about it, because he is the President of the Board of Trade—that if a Conservative Government had only been able to hold, let alone increase, the United Kingdom share of world trade in 1950, there would have been another £1,200 million in exports, not only enough to pay for the extra imports but to give us a balance of payments surplus big enough to deal with the whole of our economic problems.
  If I may sum up the position, in our view, the Government's economic policy, either by design or incompetence, is directed towards unemployment and does nothing to assist exports or raise production. If the Chancellor and the Government are either unwilling or unable to take effective action to deal with our serious economic problems, they should get out now, as is the wish of the whole country, and let in a Government who will.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin): We may have admired some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), but we were sorry that he ended with that tone. I have gone around the country since returning from the United States and the conclusion has been that the Chancellor's Budget is the only thing which he could possibly have done. As I have spent six weeks in the United States, I should, in the ten minutes left to me, like to refer to the present situation there and how it is likely to affect us.

  473
  I would not go around the country saying that the United States has pneumonia, 'flu, economic measles, is a misery, and is run down, merely because the motor industry is having a slightly difficult time. The position is perfectly clear—although I admit that I am not an economist; the Korean trade boom has ended and the tempo of world trade has slowed down. There is nothing more to it than that at the moment.
  In the Budget debates of 1956 I tried to point out one or two matters which seemed to me likely to affect the country's economic position. One of them which I noted was the change in Soviet economic tactics, especially in the Middle East and in other world markets. I was not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) drew the attention of the Committee to that today.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest when referring to the United States, because when I was over there, being tough by nature, I was made an honorary Texan citizen, and I am very glad to say that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, was also honoured.
  The reason for one of the changes in the United States economy has been the switch from the aircraft industry and other armaments into a vast missile programme. That has not been stressed, but it is one of the major economic problems in the United States. The second factor has been the consumer resistance in certain markets, especially the motor car market.
  However, United States Treasury officials are in a position at any moment to take action to help the economy. There has been a much unfortunate Press comment which has made the situation even more difficult, but if the United States Administration had any anxieties about the general world trade position, they have the methods and powers to ensure that production is taken up again. At present, they would be making a grave mistake if they attempted to take any large-scale, crash, panic action. We should not pretend that we are about to have an enormous slump.
  The only other problem which is causing a certain amount of anxiety in international markets has been the Russian release on the European and London
  474
  markets of large quantities of ferrosilicon and aluminium. When those commodities were released on the London market, Soviet officials in Moscow said that they would continue to release those minerals and to undercut Canada. They said exactly the same thing about ferrosilicon. Many people believe that it was a deliberate act of Soviet economic policy, to make our present situation more difficult.
  This opinion was expressed by some of the more responsible people in Canada, but when I returned to London I made more careful inquiries, and I believe that it is safe to say that the Soviet Union is not deliberately trying to break our economy. The worst possible thing that could happen at this time would be for Mr. Foster Dulles to make another of his crashing speeches. He really is a monument to tactlessness. We should not too readily believe that the Soviet Union is trying, at this juncture, to damage international trade.
  I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East said about the speech made by Mr. Khrushchev. I only hope that since the United States and this country are trying to solve the present world problems, especially in regard to nuclear weapons, they will also pay a great deal of attention to international trade. If acts like this are done deliberately it will certainly cause unemployment in this country, and may have devastating effects all over the world. The proposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East, that the statesmen of the Western world should immediately consider a finance summit conference, is a wise one.
  It is quite obvious that the Members of the House of Representatives, who will be concerned in an autumn election in the United States, are all talking about protecting their own areas. They want a tariff here and a tariff there. This is gradually building up walls against trade. If this happens, together with another slight reversal of the trend in the United States economy, what will happen to all the aid which sustains the entire Afro-Asian world in its fight against Communism?
  I am very grateful for the hospitality which the people of the United States showed me during the six weeks that I

  475
  was there. They are the greatest and most cordial cousins that we possess. I must also point out that I now possess a small American citizen, which gives me an additional interest in the United States. But unless we are prepared to think and work together, and introduce psychological plans to deal with the penetration of Communist intrigue in the Middle and Far East, we shall not have a very happy future.
  During my visit to the North American Continent I discovered that the one thing which upsets the average citizen of the United States or Canada is the thought of the return of a Socialist Government. I am sorry to mention this, but they have some reason to feel as they do. They believe that the philosophy of the Socialist Party is about fifty years out of date. All the students in European universities will also frankly admit that classical Socialism no longer fills present world needs. They consider that Socialist philosophy involves a looking back, and that the philosophy of a party which obtains its motive force from envy and jealousy is wrong.
  I regret to say that Americans and Canadians are very nervous of one of the most uncontrolled missiles in British politics—the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I am quite convinced that the kind of Budget and financial policy produced by a sound and sensible Conservative Government is the best thing for our country and for the world.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are in no position to know what type of sane and sound financial policy is produced by a constructive Tory Government. It is something of a contradiction in terms. We have never yet had the pleasure of finding out what kind of Tory policy is sane and sensible.
  Mr. W. Yates: It was mentioned the day before yesterday.
  Mr. Lee: Well, there it is. It is, no doubt, a fine thing when we see 2s. slashed off the duty on a bottle of port wine at one fell swoop. We observe the relevance of that upon the increasing amount of unemployment.
  476
  During the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) I was worried whether, at its conclusion, he would still retain his qualifications to remain a Member of this House. I thought he was telling us that he was a citizen of the United States and I wondered whether he had forfeited his citizenship of this country.
  Mr. Yates: I must explain that I am a British citizen, but that a child born in the United States of British parents remains an American citizen until reaching the age of 21. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. It was not my fault.
  Mr. Lee: I will not pursue that too far, or the hon. Gentleman may find it even more complicated.
  May I, first, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mrs. McAlister) on an extremely able maiden speech? We hear so many learned discussions on all sorts of economic formulae that it is a splendid thing to hear a really good, sound address by a housewife. My hon. Friend made us understand the problems of her constituency and we are convinced of the rightness of the decision made by the electors of Kelvingrove to send her here to represent them.
  The problems, economic and financial, of the nation are now crystallised in the Budget. We recall the great change-over which took place during the period when the late Sir Stafford Cripps was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The thing which puzzles hon. Members on this side of the Committee is that while we have heard statements tending to show that the Government are to some degree worried about the economic situation, they can come forward with a Budget which is without relevance to the economic problems facing the country. I find it difficult to discuss at great length issues which, of themselves, are trivial when we know so well that millions of people are concerned about their future security.
  I was pleased that in the final stages of today's debate several hon. Members drew attention to the industrial situation, and I wish to say something about that. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) referred to the shipping industry. I recall that the Manchester Guardian reported some weeks ago that almost 1 million tons of merchant shipping was tied up round

  477
  our coasts. This is a barometer of trade and when we see that kind of indication of a slowing down of our trade it is almost unbelievable that the Government should choose this moment to say, "We still intend to fight the battle of inflation. We do not believe there are any signs of depression at all."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said that we believe that the time has come for a repriming of the pump, when the Government should let up on many of the restrictive policies which they have carried out for the last two or three years, and that a fillip should be given to industry so that it could achieve greater production.
  We have seen one remarkable thing in the debate. Three right hon. Gentlemen who addressed us from the Government Front Bench agreed that Tory freedom does not pay. They argued that if we now increased production and let the wheels go round faster the result would be a crisis for sterling. That is fantastic. Can it really be that the Government have now got us into the position where the one thing upon which we depend for our livelihood, an increase in production and in exports, is the very thing which could destroy sterling? That is a fantastic situation for any nation to face and is an indication that the basis of the Government's economic policy must be wrong.
  I do not wish to go too deeply into the measures proposed in the Budget, but I welcome the statement of the Chancellor that changes will be made in the distribution of industry policy. I remember that in the unemployment debate on 24th February I suggested changes of this sort. We welcome the new approach to the distribution of industry policy, but I wish that the President of the Board of Trade were present. I would tell him that to do that kind of thing, while playing party politics on the other hand and saying, on television, that industries can be frightened away from Development Areas because of certain Opposition policies, will not help the Government to get firms to go to areas where they are badly needed. The President of the Board of Trade should confine his activities to doing the job for which he is paid rather than acting as a party hack on television.
  The Chancellor pointed out that many pockets of unemployment are appearing
  478
  in areas which are not now Development Areas. We see the need for special assistance in areas where there is heavy unemployment and which are not Development Areas. I hope that the Chancellor will not run away with the idea that we are satisfied with what is being done in certain Development Areas. In North-East Lancashire the textile industry is in very great trouble, but practically nothing has been done in that Development Area since it was scheduled. We are very conscious of the need for expansion, but we must carry out the policy laid down in the Distribution of Industry Act within the Development Areas. Between 17th February and 17th March there has been an addition of about 7,000 people to the unemployed in the Lancashire textile industry. What proposals have the Government for meeting the tragic situation in that industry?
  The Chancellor said:
  "If wage increases in general go beyond the national increase of productivity this is bound to damage the national interest."
  Therefore, the Chancellor wants to restrict wage advances to the levels of productivity while the President of the Board of Trade thinks that increased productivity will bring a sterling crisis. We are entitled to ask the Government what their real policy is. They go on restraining production.
  We have had three speeches from the Government Front Bench in which each right hon. Gentleman has agreed that they are doing that. They have argued different reasons for it, but all agreed on it. They have curtailed the power of the workman to increase production and then say, "You can only have increased earnings if and when you increase production". It is a fantastic policy and we must ask the Government to clarify the position.
  I should have thought that when we heard the Chancellor go on to say what I shall quote in a moment, hon. Members would have been extremely perturbed as to where the policies of the Government are sending them. The Chancellor said:
  "It looks very much as though this fact has been ignored in a number of voluntary agreements within the past few months."
  He was speaking about wage advances being given when not related to productivity, and continued:
  "It is no use those concerned in industry pressing the Government to follow a firm and

  479
  consistent line in these matters if they themselves ignore, in practice, the precepts which they urge on others so strongly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 54.]
  There is a clear intervention by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in agreements entered into between trade unions and employers, agreements arrived at by the negotiating machinery in the industries concerned. Now the Government, even after those wage increases have been paid, go to the extent of charging the employers concerned with having failed to act in a proper and responsible way by agreeing to wage increases at all. I must say that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are fast reaching a point at which it will be completely futile for trade unions to go into negotiation at all. If they are to deploy their arguments and convince the employers of the justice of their case, only to see Government intervention, even after such wage advances have been paid, it will make for a most dangerous situation for British industry.
  We now see 2 per cent. unemployment in Britain and there is no sign of any easing of the situation in areas where the amount is far and away greater than 2 per cent. The number in the North-West increased by more than 7,000 to 71,142 in the last month. In the debate on unemployment the Minister of Labour pointed out that the January returns are generally the worst and went on to say that February should be a little better than January, after which we got out of the bad season and people got back to work. Let us see what has happened. The February returns were more than 20,000 worse than the January returns, following which the returns of 17th March again increased.
  There is no question now of it being purely seasonal unemployment. Taking the indications in the speech of the Minister on 24th February, we have now passed the period when unemployment should be at its worst, yet we see the position getting worse. I do not want to go through all the details, but it is running at 433,000. We know that in some of the worst areas, such as Northern Ireland, it again shows an increase to 10·7 per cent. and in many other areas referred to during the debate on unemployment as being particularly bad there have been no signs of improvement. It is against this background that the
  480
  Government have presented a Budget by which they have shown that they are still more concerned about quelling inflation than facing the issues which so obviously require their attention.
  To return for a moment to my point concerning the shipping which is now tied up, the Manchester Guardian, in showing that almost 1 million tons was tied up in March, reported that these were the worst figures for twenty-five years and that one had to go back to the great depression of the early 'thirties to find anything like a parallel.
  Hon. Members opposite have been telling us that we must not say anything which may seem to indicate that a depression is coming. Goodness knows, we are in no way desirous of seeing depressions. Nevertheless, it is not good enough merely to ask that, when we see clear indications of this type, we should refrain from saying anything about them. If the recession in the United States continues, it may not be a question merely of our position becoming gradually worse. I believe that we could go suddenly into a very serious position.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin referred to our exports to the United States. We know that the motor industry is doing very well, and we congratulate it upon its achievements, but the dangers of the position in the motor industry are fairly obvious. Before long, we shall see the power lobbies in America demanding increased tariffs against British cars because America's own industry is in fairly bad depression. We shall see a lobby spring up not merely because British cars are getting in, but because America's own motor car industry is in such a bad situation.
  Whilst we are happy to see the important contribution which the motor industry is making to our exports into the dollar areas, it is obvious that the American industry is now shaping up to the production of the small car. Once that happens, he would be a very brave man who would believe that he would keep the great levels of our exports which we now see in the dollar areas.
  Serious differences exist within industry because of the policies of the Government. In this respect, I start with something which is almost a declaration of the

  481
  policies of this movement, past, present and future. To us, the concept of discussion between the parties to a dispute and, in the event of failure to agree, consideration of the merits of the arguments of the contending parties by an impartial authority, is a central principle. We believe the machinery for avoiding disputes which now exists in most industries, although, in some cases, it is in need of modernisation, is the product of our dedication to the principle to which I have referred.
  No knowledgeable person would underestimate the part which the creation of this machinery has played in ensuring a high level of industrial peace. Indeed, the Bulletin for Industry for March states:
  "The time lost in strikes is about a tenth of that lost through industrial accidents and about a hundredth of that lost through sickness. Between 1951 and 1954, the time lost per person through strikes in the U.S.A. was eight times as much as in the United Kingdom; in Australia and Canada it was four and a half times as much; and in France, three and a half times. Only in the Netherlands, Sweden and West Germany were there better records"
  And this, of course, during a period when a Tory Government have been in power. We have every right to be proud of our part in making this kind of record possible.
  Surely, against a background like that, we are quite justified in asserting that only irresponsible fools or political knaves would attempt to suggest that in both the political and the industrial wing of the movement we would welcome strike action in any section of industry as a political weapon. Some of us have grim reasons for knowing that, in any strike, the principal victims are the strikers and their families, and no one has yet produced any evidence that strikers give up the right to draw wages out of a fiendish desire to exist in the worst circumstances imaginable.
  It has been bruited about in some quarters that we have now moved into a situation in which a strike in a certain type of nationalised industry could be interpreted by a new and far less distinguished Sir John Simon as a strike for political motives. Any such accusation would be a most monstrous perversion of the truth, and should be treated with complete contempt.
  482
  I want to look back at the origin of the policies about which we now complain. I remember that on 20th February, 1956, I protested at this Box against a statement made by the British Employers' Confederation on negotiations in nationalised industries. The Confederation argued that the nationalised industries were conceding wage increases far greater than responsible negotiators in private industry could give because, they said, they were simply passing on the price rises to the public.
  I drew attention to that statement then, and suggested that it might be as well, at that early stage, if the Government caused the Confederation to be informed that it would be much better if it minded its own business, and kept out of negotiations between the nationalised industries and the trade unions.
  I returned to that theme on 12th November, 1956, and pointed out that instead of heeding that advice the Government had, in fact, taken note of what the Confederation had said, had sent for the chairmen of certain nationalised industries and had told them that they must not increase the prices of their goods. I called it a
  "… maladroit manner of ensuring that they would not have the wherewithal to increase wages."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1956; Vol 560, c. 653.]
  That was the next step in the Government's determination to stop all advance in the nationalised industries. I was so disturbed that, on 9th July, 1956, I wrote a letter to The Times, and in view of what has happened since, I think that that letter is worth quoting. I said:
  "The Government's maladroit handling of our industrial problems has landed the nation in a critical situation. By permitting the British Employers' Confederation and the Federation of British Industries to bully them into their price standstill in the nationalised industries they have, in fact, broken down the whole machinery of collective bargaining in those industries. A less charitable mind would find it hard to believe that this result had been achieved by nothing worse than ignorance.
  Collective bargaining has been built up on the premise that each side has the power to respond to a convincing and adequate argument presented by the other party to the exitsing agreements within a given industry. To take the sort of action which is deliberately designed to preclude managements from paying increases is to ensure that there is no point in negotiating. Even a recourse to arbitration is a waste of time, as the arbitrators are bound to have regard to the fact that the employers

  483
  are unable to meet the increased costs which an award favourable to the trade unions would entail; and that such an award would be contrary to Government policy.
  It is quite clear that the Government has imposed its will upon the boards of the nationalised industries without first obtaining any type of agreement with the unions whose members are employed in such industries. As several of these unions have now given notice of their intention to submit claims for increased pay, may I pose the following questions:

  (1) In the event of a wage claim being turned down because of the ban on price rises, against which body does the trade union concerned proceed?

  (2) In the event of an official strike taking place in one of these industries, will it be construed as political action against the Government?"

  I think that we have practically reached that position now. It was cemented when the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made his statement on 29th October in which he involved not only the Government and private employers but independent arbitrators in his phrase "those who adjudicate about wages".
  Our concern arises for this reason. Some of us do not believe that the Government's present attitude as portrayed in the Budget arises from an analysis of the economic situation. It arises far more from the danger of what may happen to them if they are seen to rescind anything which the right hon. Member for Monmouth laid down as policy. Therefore, it is not an objective analysis of the economic situation. It is, rather, one of those issues which are internal to the Tory party itself.
  We are not saying—we never have said—that the Government have not the right to take an active interest in wage questions. In debates in the House I have argued that such an interest may well be a condition of any Government's ability to govern. However, we believe that there is a need for a constructive approach to such difficulties as wage rates in those nationalised industries which cannot pay average wages because of their inability to make profits, and so on. Our complaint is that the Government are forcing the workers in those industries to subsidise those undertakings.
  484
  We have previously asked that the Government should bring together with themselves the trade unions and the boards of the nationalised industries in order to think again and to analyse the problem—I confess at once that it is a very important problem—constructively in the hope of getting a new approach to collective bargaining and to arbitration itself in these very difficult types of industry.
  The Government argue that their policy is designed to prevent further inflation. The fact is that it is not merely to prevent inflation. Experience has shown that the purchasing power of the workers is not being held; it is now actually decreasing. The British Transport Commission agrees that railwaymen require an increase of about 3½ per cent. to restore them to the level of last March.
  Thus, we see that by political action the Government are able to attack the living standards of these workers and then claim that any resistance will be interpreted as an attempt to usurp the power of the Government. I recall that at the 1952 Labour Party Conference the National Council of Labour rightly went on record as saying that we will never in any conditions use industrial action for political ends. I believe it was argued that one day the Tories would use political action for industrial ends. We have now seen that take place.
  Both the British Transport Commission and the Forster Tribunal agree that the pay of railwaymen is very low, and both refuse advances because there is no money in the "kitty". In other words, we have reached an absurd position in which the Government apply the same principles to employment as they do to their Premium Savings Bonds—if one is lucky in picking the right industry in which to work one gets a decent return, but if one picks the wrong one, then that is just too bad. We cannot run great industries in that way. I ask the Government, at this period when things are so tense, to take our advice and bring the parties together to obtain a new look on the whole matter.
  The claim that the trade unions are seeking to challenge the power of the Government, and resisting their policy with regard to wages, is grotesque. The Government are invading territory to

  485
  which no other Government in modern times has ever claimed access in peace time. In other words, the Government are the aggressors while the unions are charged with trying to usurp the power of the Government if they resist the encroachments. The effect of the Report of the Railway Staff National Tribunal is to show that now the basis of discussions and even arbitration is not justice but inability to pay. So we have reached a position where trade unions functioning in such industries know that going to arbitration is equivalent to giving up and accepting defeat.
  In trade union circles, it is far better to be turned down by an interested party—in other words, by the employer—than by one which possesses at least the outward appearance of impartiality. If we press the position where obvious stress is being laid upon so-called independent tribunals we must not believe that this will encourage trade unions to tolerate the conception of arbitration which we have seen for so long. I know the answer. The Government always say that the nationalised industries are in a different position because we are the employers. That makes the matter worse, because it means that as employers the Government claim the right to nobble the arbitrators while as a Government they condemn the trade unions for the results achieved, which is giving the worst of both worlds to the trade unions concerned.
  One may wonder what will happen to independent members of, for instance, wages councils. They are the people who, having to take notice of what the Government are doing, may refuse to agree to advances to lowly paid workers when those advances are obviously necessary. Voluntary arbitration is enshrined in the conciliation Acts of 1896 and the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. The conception of voluntary arbitration has played a great part in creating our great record in strikes about which I was speaking.
  One is compelled to ask: if we see voluntary arbitration discredited, where do we go from there? Could it be that we should see a more rigorous use by the Government of the Industrial Disputes Order, 1951? I hope that the Government realise that it is a most dangerous thing to continue, as they have done, to lessen the confidence of organised labour in arbitration of a voluntary type,
  486
  because it cuts off, as it were, any possibility of getting fresh thinking on a dispute once the two parties have broken it.
  I think that the Government have become obsessed about wages being the villain of the inflationary piece. Professor Robbins has been quoted in other contexts, and I have been reading what he says in his Lloyds Bank Review. He says:
  "For the greater part of the time, profit prospects were good, earnings were rising faster than wage-rates, and the volume of vacancies remained higher than the volume of applications. As I see the picture, the rise of wage-rates was, for the most part, the consequence rather than the cause of the situation."
  In other words, he does not believe that the inflation from which we have been suffering has been caused in any marked degree by wage demands by the trade unions.
  One of the objectives that the Government have had in mind—and one can almost see it in the first few words of the Economic Survey—is to blame the economic effects of Suez and the inflation in the economy upon the trade union demands for wages. They say, in the introduction to the Economic Survey:
  "There were several promising developments in the United Kingdom economy during 1957 but the year as a whole was dominated by the crisis of confidence in sterling which came to a head in August and September. In the earlier part of the year the economy appeared to be generally in balance; the economic results of the closing of the Suez Canal were less serious than had been expected. But by the middle of the year it was clear that the wage increases granted in the earlier months were greater than the economy could absorb without a further rise in prices."
  I do not want to pursue the economic argument, but the Government's argument is at least suspect when people like Professor Robbins show that in the first part of the year we had a good surplus in our export position. It is not good enough for the Government to vent their spleen upon the trade unions when so much of our trouble comes about as a result of the Government's industrial and economic policies. I believe that the time has come when we on this side of the Committee must tell the Government that we are so utterly and sincerely desirous of seeing production increase and seeing us get back to I position where there is no longer the gradual loss of our

  487
  share of the world markets which has gone on every year that this Government has been in office that we believe that the only answer to the problem is to allow the British economy to get into a healthy condition in which we can vastly increase our production, and in which the men and women in industry know that they can increase their earnings as a result of that increased production. We believe that only by that method will it be possible to sustain a high standard of life for the 50 million people in the islands.
  We believe that with the Government's inability to see this, they demonstrate the rightness of Socialist Middlesex and Socialist London. The people are giving them the true answer, which is that only by getting rid of Toryism can we hope to sustain a proper standard of life in Britain.
  9.46 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), in a characteristically pleasant speech, has carried out the duty which, presumably, his colleagues laid upon him to rebut a charge which has never been thrown at him by any responsible Tory—the charge that the Socialists desire to foment strikes. This has, of course, saved him and I am sure he is grateful for it—from having to explain exactly what the Socialists would do if they set about expanding production and if they were no longer to treat sterling, as we understand is their point of view, as the sacred charge both to our own inhabitants and to our creditors and to the trading world that we as Tories believe it to be.
  The hon. Member seems to think that it does not matter at all what job a man does; he is still entitled to the same ever-growing wages, whether he works in a modernising, expanding industry or in an industry threatened—through no fault of the men, I fully agree—with obsolescence. By that argument we should still be paying handsome wages to coach drivers and wheelwrights making wooden wheels. I will deal with various parts of this aspect of his speech later in my remarks, but I should like to congratulate him on at least being able to claim credit, justifiably, for seeing in the Budget something which he himself has urged. I remember that in the debate on unemployment he urged that the Government should take some
  488
  action about those areas where unemployment was above the national average. He was gracious enough in his speech to acknowledge the Chancellor's prompt action and the Government's plea to the House to pass quickly into legislation a law to make this intervention in areas of higher than average unemployment as quickly as possible.
  I do not want to appear in the least smug about the trading arrangements of the free world. We have much room for improvement in our own arrangements, but let us not forget that in the last 20 or 30 years great improvements have been made in our knowledge of economics. Thirty years ago very few hon. Members on either side of the House realised that to combat an internal slump one had to go in for large deficit finance. The Socialist Government at that time were nonplussed. We all remember that the Minister for Employment did not reduce unemployment, although we all know that he tried hard to do so. We have learned more and, if one admits at once that we have more to learn, surely we can take hope from the past.
  I speak as a passionate expansionist—no more of an expansionist than most of my hon. Friends, but perhaps a little more enthusiastic about it. It is my comfort to feel that there is one person even more expansionist in the long-term in the Tory Party, and that is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whose views are shared by all of his colleagues in the Government. This is a party dedicated to expansion. I do not deny that right hon. and hon. Members opposite share the same view. All sensible people in this country must share this view, and it becomes sheer politics to accuse anyone in the House of wishing deliberately to be restrictionist. Only the most romantic mediaevalist thinks that happiness necessarily consorts with poverty. It is equal folly to suggest that happiness necessarily consorts with wealth. Nevertheless, everybody has the right to that chance to work to make his own sort of happiness or unhappiness.
  We are a highly industrialised international trading concern on a virtuous spiral which forces us to become ever more and more productive and efficient if we are to survive, and it is nonsense to accuse anyone on this side of the Committee of doing anything to limit the

  489
  long-term expansion. Peace itself and the tranquillity of the under-developed parts of the world depend upon the fraternal help which can come from countries like ours. I would pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) for putting to this country, against massive unpopularity, the theme that all parts of the Committee should applaud, the theme of fraternal co-operation for more benefits for all from the Free Trade Area in Europe. I only hope that the Paymaster-General can succeed in his negotiations in that great endeavour.
  I have, as some may know, a particular interest in the social services, and I have recently been trying to carry out some inquiries by my own research into what the social services will cost us in twenty-five years. It is a very enlightening inquiry. We are an ageing population with an ever lower fertility and also a lower mortality, and we are going to have an ageing population to support We have very properly higher standards and provisions for health and education. Unless we have an expanding economy the burden of the cost of the social services in twenty-five years will be utterly intolerable. My comfort is in knowing that there is no greater expansionist in this Committee than the Prime Minister.
  I welcome the Budget, though each one of us doubtless would like to see some things which are not in it; but the debate has not been about the Budget but about whether expansion should come before a stable £ or a stable £ before expansion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about stagnation, but they seem to forget that we are stagnant, if that is the word, at the highest gross national product this country has ever known. We could all regret, it is easy enough to regret, that we did not level it at that plateau at a time when world trade was booming, but that was not the problem the Chancellor faced when drawing up his Budget.
  Expansionists take grave risks with the reserves, and they all pray in aid an American loan or they all talk of calling international conferences, but they would not be in time to save the reserves if there were any increase in production without any protection for the reserves. The hon. Member for Newton confuses production with productivity. He thought
  490
  higher productivity would ruin sterling. That is not so. It will save sterling. What the Government are frightened of is a higher production of everything haphazardly without any question of productivity or costs, which would jeopardise sterling, and we have to remember that we are looking after not only our trade but international and Commonwealth trade as well.
  However, I think the Socialists have the right to ask, what will permit us to expand? We have lower import prices, wages are coming on to a plateau, perhaps. When shall we be permitted to expand? It is a very legitimate question. I ask it myself. I feel that the time for expansion will come when wages are stable; not static, but when they can be seen to be rising only in proportion with productivity in the industries in which are employed the individuals having the increases.
  I, for one, stand, as I am sure every Tory in this Committee stands, for higher wages. Quite apart from moral or humane considerations, it is only a sensible business view, for unless there are high wages there is no consumption at a high level. However, for the Socialists to pretend that higher production must mean lower prices is to forget the experience of the Last few years. The fact is that the Socialists have to explain to themselves that there is in this world high unemployment, as in Italy, and rising prices, and that there can also be high unemployment and rising production and productivity, as in this country in the 'thirties. The fact is there is need for a little more humility on both sides of the Committee.
  The Chancellor has to predict and equate a year hence, with utter accuracy, supply and demand in the international theatre with characters political, economic and psychological intruding from every part of the world. He may make no mistake of even 1 per cent., because if he miscalculates by 1 per cent. in one way there may be inflation, or by 1 per cent. the other way there may be massive unemployment. When we remember that the gross national product runs at £650 per second day and night, it seems to me to be a formidable task.
  I should like to agree that too often stress is put upon wages. The fact is that management has the leverage in any industrial country, and I wish there were

  491
  a bit more exhortation to management to absorb wage increases, though exhortation, as we know, is not the answer. Tories must depend, it seems to me, on competition. It is the only thing that forces management to watch costs, and if we are to have competition, we must always have demand a fraction below supply. It is easy enough to say that, but it is a very different thing to achieve it, but that it seems to me is the legitimate job and task we can ask of the Chancellor; for the key to expansion, it seems to me, is confidence, and businessmen and public enterprises will have confidence, even if demand is dammed up by some sort of artificial restriction like hire-purchase control. What makes for healthy expansion is confidence and a stable currency.
  I do not believe that the Socialists have begun to have the answer. We have heard the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mulley) talking about planning, and we all remember the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) too late confessing that the Socialists did not think enough before introducing their nationalisation Measures. Are they now sure that they have thought enough about planning? We give them credit for eschewing any planning of labour, but do they think they can succeed just by the planning of imports? They blame the Americans bitterly for the restrictionism of tariffs and quotas.
  I declare an interest here. I am a builder. Do they think that the control of building is the answer? It is only a fraction of building which they regard as frivolous, and that will not solve the national problem. I do not believe that they have begun to have the answer. Their doctrinaire phrases are nothing but cant, and I hope to heaven that they are not deceiving themselves, as well as trying to deceive the rest of us.
  I should not like to blame the trade unions. I think they are desperately keen on productivity because they see that their future interests lie there, but I wish they would pay more attention to an imaginative redeployment of redundant labour so that those men could take up jobs in the expanding industries. That is where the trade unions can help their own members and the country, and management should encourage them. If
  492
  only there were more contracts like those of the boot and shoe operatives requiring work study and methods study, the country would be better off.
  As Tories, we want more competition, more production and, to be quite brutal, more bankruptcies. We want more production at a high level of efficiency and not just more production at any cost. I stress that it is not only the private employer who has a duty to use the modern managerial methods of methods study, work study and cost analysis, incentive schemes and so on.
  The Government are the largest employers of us all, but there are differences between one Department and another. Some Departments are using these techniques to the full, and I particularly commend the Services for their imaginative use of methods study. There are Government Departments which have not yet used to the full these methods. I only wish that when I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health how many methods study experts he had in his Health Service of 400,000 he had answered with a figure larger than the derisory one of nine. The Government should give an example to private enterprise which is itself patchy in this respect, some brilliant and some laggard in the proper and full use of skilled and unskilled labour.
  I have tried to cover far too much in far too short a time. That is the privilege of a back bencher. I hope that I have at least treated seriously the theme which many of us feel basic to the debate, that the Socialists are kidding themselves and the country if they think that this simple eight-letter word "planning" contains a single answer to the problem to which we all want a solution—expansion combined with a stable £.
  The Government are, by temperament and by conviction, expansionist. That is the only solution that any sensible person can wish for, and although I am a passionate expansionist I rely on them to go ahead just as soon as our reserves and the stability of our currency permit.
  I wish that I had more time to deal with the detailed suggestion made by the hon. Member for Newton in connection with arbitration. These are very delicate matters and he was very properly cautious in handling them in view of the national situation today.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again upon Monday next.

  FINANCE [EXCHEQUER ADVANCES]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved.
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the
  494
  sums which, under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, are authorised or required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer, as may be attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session continuing the power to make advances under that section and increasing to one thousand and seventy million pounds the aggregate amount of the advances that may be made thereunder.—[Mr. Simon.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Grammar Schools Science Laboratories)
  Grammar Schools Science Laboratories)
  Sub-standard and Old Schools
  Sub-standard and Old Schools
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Nigeria (Minister of State's Visit)
  Nigeria (Minister of State's Visit)
  Anglo-Soviet Trade (Aberdeen)
  Anglo-Soviet Trade (Aberdeen)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farming Income and Expenses
  Farming Income and Expenses
  Small Farms
  Small Farms
  Executive Committees
  Executive Committees
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Civil Servants (Offences)
  Civil Servants (Offences)
  Trust Territories (United Nations Students)
  Trust Territories (United Nations Students)
CYPRUS
  Detainees
  Detainees
KENYA
  Detainees
  Detainees
TANGANYIKA
  Africans (Senior Government Posts)
  Africans (Senior Government Posts)
UGANDA
  Legislative Council (Buganda Representatives)
  Legislative Council (Buganda Representatives)
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Teachers (South Africa)
  Teachers (South Africa)
NIGERIA
  orin Trade Centre
  orin Trade Centre
BAHAMAS
  Constitution
  Constitution
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Aldermaston Marchers
  Aldermaston Marchers
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  TRANS-ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION
  TRANS-ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION
  Police (Recruitment and Retirements)
  Police (Recruitment and Retirements)
MALDIVE ISLANDS
  Constitution
  Constitution
  DOMINION PARLIAMENTS (OFFICIAL REPORTS)
  DOMINION PARLIAMENTS (OFFICIAL REPORTS)
BASUTOLAND
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
ROYAL NAVY
  Aircraft Carriers
  Aircraft Carriers
  Tank Landing Craft
  Tank Landing Craft
BRITISH ARMY
  Infantry Battalions (Weapons)
  Infantry Battalions (Weapons)
  RADIOACTIVITY
  RADIOACTIVITY
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
POST OFFICE
  Sub-post Offices
  Sub-post Offices
SCOTLAND
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Burghfield
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Unemployment Areas (Credit Facilities)
  Unemployment Areas (Credit Facilities)
  Greeting Cards, Calendars and Postcards (Tax)
  Greeting Cards, Calendars and Postcards (Tax)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  FARM IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
  3.5 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: 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 when they expect to introduce arrangements for paying farm improvement grants on the basis of standard costs, since this will be of particular benefit to farmers using their own labour.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, regulations for this purpose have been made and are being laid before Parliament to-day. They will come into operation on the 21st April. From that date it will be possible for a wide range of improvements and part improvements to be accepted for grant aid on the basis of either actual or standard costs at the option of the applicant.

  CHRISTMAS ISLAND BILL [H.L.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable Her Majesty to place Christmas Island under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia, and for purposes connected therewith, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Perth.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being
  780
  dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Milford Haven Conservancy Bill through its remaining stages.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 41 be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Milford Haven Conservancy Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of the House are perfectly agreeable that this step should be taken, but I should like to utter a word of warning. We are quite willing that this particular Bill should be expedited, but we should not like this to be a precedent and/or to happen too often. We do appreciate a separate Report stage and a separate Third Reading.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration in this particular case, and I am in sympathy with him in his anxiety that it should not be regarded as a normal practice.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.8 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to encourage and assist owners of agricultural land in Scotland to get together to carry out schemes to improve land drainage and to prevent or mitigate the hazards of flooding and erosion. I commend the Bill to the House as a practicable and realistic measure, in spite of the fact that much was said in another place about its shortcomings. There it was compared with the far-reaching recommendations contained in the Report of the Duncan Committee which was published in 1950. The Duncan Committee envisaged the giving of new powers to the Secretary of State for the carrying out of drainage schemes of a very comprehensive character, and after the publication of their Report many discussions followed with the interests concerned, on ways and means of giving effect to their recommendations. But the problem of financing land drainage operations on the scale

  781
  envisaged and in the difficult conditions obtaining in Scotland proved intractable.
  When it became clear that there was no prospect of overcoming these difficulties we turned our attention to what could be done to strengthen existing powers relating to drainage of agricultural land. In this we were assisted by the Scottish National Farmers' Union and the Scottish Landowners' Federation, and I am glad to tell your Lordships that they are in agreement with the broad principles of the Bill now before your Lordships. Under existing powers, the Secretary of State is empowered to make grants of up to 50 per cent. in respect of the capital costs of approved drainage works. Over the past six years about 1,000 arterial drainage schemes, mainly on small rivers and watercourses, and benefiting some 47,000 acres of agricultural land, have been carried out at a total cost of £459,000. That, I hope your Lordships will agree, represents steady and valuable progress.
  Two difficulties, however, confront us at present. In the first place, drainage schemes of this nature, as your Lordships will appreciate, usually concern the land of more than one owner, and up till now the carrying out of these schemes has depended on the voluntary co-operation of all the owners concerned. In a considerable number of cases proposals for carrying out useful schemes have had to be abandoned because of the refusal of one or two owners to co-operate with their neighbours. This means that as more and more of the schemes where there is complete agreement come to an end there will be a considerable slowing up in the present rate of improvement. The second difficulty is that there is no means of ensuring that these grant-aided schemes once carried out are properly maintained thereafter; private and public money has been spent and yet, through the negligence of one or two, it may well be wasted.
  The farmers' and landowners' organisations agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that new powers are well justified to ensure that a majority of owners in any area are not prevented from improving their land by the opposition of a minority, and that, if it comes to the worst, some compulsion should be exercised to ensure that grant-aided drainage works are
  782
  properly maintained. These, in brief, are the objectives the Bill is designed to achieve.
  As to the rights of minorities under this Bill, I can assure the House that we have taken care of this matter. The Bill provides for proper notice of a draft scheme to be given to all concerned, and for a public local inquiry to be held where objections are maintained. It also provides that the majority rule will operate only where two conditions are satisfied: first, that the willing majority will together be responsible for more than half of the estimated cost of the drainage works; and secondly, that the cost is estimated not to exceed £20 per acre of the land benefiting from the scheme. This limit in the granting of compulsory powers to a willing majority of interested proprietors has, like the main principle of the Bill, the agreement of the interested organisations.
  I might point out that power is taken in paragraph 8 of the First Schedule of the Bill to vary the figure of £20 per acre, but only by an order which will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution of this House and another place. I should, however, make it clear that the £20 per acre is an average figure, which means that some owners may be called upon to pay more than £20 per acre, less grant This will, however. become apparent at a stage when it will be possible for objections to be made to the draft scheme and before a majority has decided in favour of it. As I have already said, the final cost will be reduced by the amount of the Government grant. In view of this, I think it is fair to say that no undue burden will be placed on an unwilling owner. Of course, the limit of £20 per acre does not apply where all the owners concerned agree that an improvement order should be made.
  I should now like to indicate briefly the general lay-out of the Bill. Clause 1 enables an owner of agricultural land to apply to the Secretary of State for the making of an improvement order. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a worthwhile scheme can be devised, and that there is a reasonable prospect of adequate support for it by the owners concerned, he will make a draft improvement order, and the procedure set out in Parts I and III of the First Schedule will be followed; that is to say, copies of the

  783
  draft order will be served on all owners and occupiers who may be concerned, and also on any local authority or other statutory body which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, may be affected by the making of the order. A public inquiry will, if necessary, be held into objections. Thereafter the Secretary of State will proceed to make the order if the conditions which I have already described are met.
  Clause 2 sets out the provisions which an improvement order must contain. Here I would draw your Lordships' attention to two details. Subsection (1) (d) enables the Secretary of State to require, as part of the scheme, the carrying out of protective works, such as floodbanks, to prevent injury to adjoining land downstream. Subsection (4) places on the Secretary of State the duty of allocating the total cost, less the amount of the Government grant, among the various owners in the proportions in which they will benefit. Under Clause 3, an improvement order may provide for the appointment of a committee from among the owners concerned to act on their behalf. The detailed management of the drainage scheme will therefore be in the hands of those affected by it. Clause 4 provides for the payment of compensation for any damage done through the execution of drainage works.
  Clause 6 deals with variation of rents. Where the rental value of a farm is increased by a drainage scheme, the landlord, to the extent that he has paid for the scheme out of his own pocket, can obtain an increase in rent. Conversely, if works carried out under a scheme on land outside the area actually improved decrease the rental value of a farm, the tenant may claim a reduction in rent. The Secretary of State is empowered by Clause 7 to carry out the works if the owners so wish, and to recover the cost of doing so. Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State default powers. These are necessary to ensure that protective works are carried out, and that both grant-aided drainage works and protective works are maintained. Subsection (3) of Clause 9 provides that the Exchequer grant may be paid in instalments as the work proceeds. I do not think the remaining clauses of the Bill, which are largely procedural and formal, call for any special comment at this stage.
  784
  My Lords, we recognise that the Bill does not meet the hopes aroused by the Duncan Report, but I do not apologise for the Bill on that account, since, as I have indicated, there is really no way at present of financing operations on that scale. Nevertheless, the Bill is a useful measure, as with its aid it is hoped to increase the rate of improvement work to a level of some 10,000 acres a year. Accordingly, I invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  3.18 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree that in introducing this Bill the noble Lord has done the House and, I hope, the public—because I hope that the explanation he has given will be given wide publicity—a great service. As the noble Lord has indicated, the Bill was, in a sense, conceived in the Duncan Report in 1950, and that is quite a long time ago. The proceedings in another place, when the Bill had been formulated, took a considerable time, and a great deal of labour was incurred in dealing with it. For instance, two days were occupied in the Scottish Grand Committee dealing with the Bill on the basis of a Second Reading—a process that is possible under the special arrangements that apply there. Then on Committee stage there were ten meetings of the Committee between December 17 last year and February 18 of this year. That means, as I say, that the labour involved in bringing this Bill to birth was quite a long one.
  On all sides of the Committee in another place regret was expressed that the Bill did not measure up to what was intended by the Duncan Committee in their Report. The noble Lord has indicated that the Bill falls short in that respect. Yet he claims—and I think rightly—that some benefit can come from this Bill. What stood in the way of making improvements in the Bill in another place was finance. If a practically unanimous Commitee in the House of Commons, where the control of finance is exercised, has failed to make any impression upon the Government in the way of extending the financial provisions, and so making the Bill more effective, it seems to me that your Lordships will feel that in this House, where finance is

  785
  something that we are rather inhibited from dealing with, there would not be much reason or justification for our spending a great deal of time on the Bill. As I say, on all sides of the Committee in another place there was this feeling that the Bill should go further, but I am afraid that the Amendments that were made did not remove the feeling that the Bill still did not reach to the full measure of what was expected of it.
  We have had reminders in Scotland of what this Bill seeks to deal with. Even in the lower regions of the country—and one can visualise the effects being even more heavy and severe in the more precipitous parts of the country—flooding can be a very great menace. I see here to-day many noble Lords who must remember quite clearly the flooding in Berwickshire and along the East Coast, some ten or eleven years ago, when even the railway lines were made unusable by flooding. Even the great main traffic line from Scotland to England, by the East Coast, was out of use for some time. The branch line that ran through the county of Berwickshire from St. Boswells to Reston was rendered unusable; and today no one can find in a railway passenger timetable the names of the stations that were put completely out of use by the flooding at that time. The line runs through Earlston, Gordon, Greenlaw Marchmont, Duns, Edrom and Chirnside, before it reaches the East Coast main line again. None of those places appears today in the railway timetables. That is an indication of how greatly measures of this kind are needed to protect us from the kind of devastation that came upon that countryside ten or eleven years ago.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that this Bill has been rather disparaged because it does not meet the full obligations intended by the Duncan Committee Report, but he claims—and I think quite rightly—that it is capable of doing some good, provided that agreement can be reached amongst those who are affected. That is the great thing; this is a Bill that requires co-operation among all the interests concerned if it is to be of any real value. I think I can declare on behalf of those who sit with me on these Benches that in this accouchement stage of the Bill no barrier will be placed in the way to delivery at an early date.
  3.25 p.m.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. It is a modest Bill, but within its small compass it has the power to do a very considerable amount of good. As my noble friend has explained, it will ensure that a number of important and badly needed drainage schemes will be carried out. It will also, I hope, ensure that these schemes are properly maintained. I was glad that my noble friend stressed that point, because the maintenance of any drainage scheme is of the utmost importance. I envisage these schemes as affecting largely low-lying and near-boggy ground; and, as your Lordships will know, it is astonishing how quickly drains in that type of land can silt up and become quite useless.
  I appreciate the difficulty in specifying the actual estimated cost of the maintenance, as is done for the estimated cost of the actual improvement scheme itself in Clause 2 (1) (f). The question of maintenance is, of course, mentioned in the following pargaraph, but merely to ensure that the cost is shared equally according to the scheme laid down. But the actual cost of this maintenance will be an extremely important part of the scheme, because it is no use entering into a well-thought-out scheme if its implications are so expensive or so complicated to achieve that it cannot be maintained properly. I hope that the Secretary of State, before issuing an order, will go very carefully indeed into this question of the cost of the maintenance.
  This matter is even more important because in Clause 3 arrangements are laid down for setting up improvement committees, with a secretary and a staff. This obviously forecasts comparatively large-scale schemes, which undoubtedly would be well organised and their maintenance work properly carried out; but the scope of the Bill as a whole, giving, as my noble friend said, about 10,000 acres a year (and I understand that the cost to the Exchequer is not expected to be very large, and also there is no limit to the amount of grant) seems also to envisage the possibility of a number of quite small schemes. I am thinking of schemes affecting possibly a small number, three or four, owner-occupiers who would not have the machinery to carry out careful organisation and might, although they were all willing, with the best will in

  787
  the world, have physical difficulties in making labour and time available even to keep a contractor doing the work properly. These comments are not intended to be in any way against the Bill itself—I think it is an admirable Bill—but to try to make clear my feeling that its success will depend greatly on the help and sympathy with which it is put into operation by the Department of Agriculture. As I know myself, they are extremely helpful. I have contacts with them in more than one capacity, and they are an extremely helpful Department.
  There is one final point—namely, the question of grants. A great deal of the waterlogged land in the country has probably at some time or another been drained. If the Secretary of State takes too strict a view in regard to these drains—that although they may have been dug and constructed a long time ago they should in fact always have been kept open—it may make it almost impossible for a grant to be claimed. I think a certain amount of sympathy will have to be shown in the marginal cases in regard to what obviously ought to be maintained and the old, long-standing drain. If some of the draining was done one hundred or more years ago and the drain has gradually silted up, something which will in effect be new work may be disqualified because there had been a drain there. I repeat that I think the Bill is an excellent Bill, but its successful working will depend largely on the sympathetic action of the Secretary of State and the Department of Agriculture. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  3.33 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, in speaking on this matter I feel that I must descend from an ancient family of drainers. Four generations back my ancestors started draining the countryside in which I now live, South Ayrshire, and my earliest initiation into land usage and management was a practical demonstration of the construction of drains. This was at the age of ten or twelve. My uncle took me out on the land and pointed out the right and the wrong way to drain, and the places that needed it and those that did not. Since I have had even more time to learn about land usages I have realised how wise he was in the interest
  788
  he took. I am only too pleased to welcome any movement, however small or great, that helps and encourages people to improve their land by drainage works.
  There are, however, one or two points about which I should like to inquire. I want to be reassured that this Bill does not in any way hinder or oppose any of the existing regulations for grants in aid of drainage works that are being carried out at the moment. I have in mind the present scheme by which there is a 50 per cent. grant to farmers who carry out land drainage on their farms. The other point I was going to raise has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell; it concerns what I call the repairing of old drainage works. As he has rightly said, there are areas where works were carried out sometimes up to one hundred years ago, but which, for one reason or another, have been allowed to fall into disrepair and now need to be renovated to make them effective. I hope that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to this point, provided, of course, that if these old drains are put in order they will in fact be effective.
  On some land adjoining my own and which actually belonged to our estates until about ten years ago, there is a bog. I remember that about twenty years ago there was a tremendous movement to get this bog drained, and I do not know how many thousands of pounds were spent on it. All was well until, unfortunately, the estates had to sell the farms to the occupiers. Then, for one reason or another, the drain was allowed to fall into disuse, and the bog is getting worse and worse every year. Everybody shakes his head over it; but, when these people are asked why nothing is done, the answer is, "We cannot get the money; we have not got the money." I hope this Bill will assist in encouraging occupiers to repair what was, done before, and I hope again that there will be sympathetic consideration of these cases by the Department of Agriculture.
  The only other small point I wish to raise is in regard to works which go through areas of afforestation. In the past there has been a tendency by the Department to draw rather a sharp line between purely agricultural land and afforestation land. If you drain forest land, of course you come under the forestry grants scheme. Where it is a

  789
  pure woodland there may be room for argument. Where you start from, say, the top of a sheep grazing on high ground, come through a shelter belt, and then down again, it is rather a different story. I hope that it will be possible for sympathetic consideration to be given to that matter. I have rather emphasised this point in view of the fact that such sympathetic consideration would encourage integration of forestry and farming into one unit, especially in the marginal areas.
  I notice in the Schedule that the Secretary of State is required to publish in the local Press notice of intention to carry out any work, I think for two weeks prior to the operation. Is this necessary where the improvement is to be carried out under the ownership of a single landlord? I agree that where there are many different owners and the improvement passes through different lands, then notice is needed; but if one landlord wishes to carry out work of this nature is it necessary to go through such a long procedure before getting assent? My Lords, I apologise for taking up your Lordships' time.
  3.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I just want to add my voice and plea to those of other noble Lords in regard to ditches which have become obsolete. I am an interested party. I have an area of land in regard to which at this moment I am suffering from the non-approval of a drainage scheme, purely on the ground that the ditches which were dug up to one hundred years ago have silted up to such an extent that now the water is flowing over the fields and not in the course of the ditch at all. When applying for a grant in regard to this land I was merely told, "Clean the ditches out first and then we will come back and look at them." I applied for a grant to dig what is no longer a ditch. I am quite prepared to pay £12 an acre to get my own land hack into cultivation, but I cannot afford to pay £25 an acre to do it.
  This situation arose from the fact that the tenant farmer gave up last year at the age of eighty-four. It may be legal or it may be many other things, but we cannot honestly expect any type of Scotsman ho calls himself a laird to go and tell his tenant to dig these ditches out. It is quite unreasonable to expect a man to
  790
  do so, and all the mud that is normally flung at us lairds would be justified if we ever behaved like that. The result is that there is an area of land, and all I can do now is abandon it. It seems to me that that is a snag over which the whole of this scheme can fall down.
  Then there is another point. I am not quite sure of the noble Lord's explanation, but I gather that if a tenant carries out an improvement he can then deduct the cost of that improvement from his rent. Is that not so? If it is not, I will not try to make the point. It is not a matter about which I am clear I shall have to read the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I wish earnestly to urge that the consideration which is shown frequently in England in cases of this kind should equally be shown in Scotland. I have said that I am an interested party in this particular case. Nevertheless, other noble Lords have raised the point, which I think is an important one.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they have given the Bill, and I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, sitting opposite, for the reception he gave to it. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, was considerably concerned as to the regrets that were felt in another place, and indeed elsewhere, that we had been unable to go ahead on the lines recommended in the Report of the Duncan Committee. Perhaps it is right that I should explain more fully to your Lordships what was involved. These major drainage problems in Scotland arise mainly in the narrow valleys of very fast-flowing rivers where the cost of large-scale drainage schemes would be quite disproportionate to the agricultural benefit which would be gained. If such schemes were to be executed and maintained it would be necessary to have some source of finance on which to draw in addition to the normal 50 per cent. Exchequer grant towards the cost of capital works and the contributions which could reasonably be levied on the interests which would benefit.
  The possibility of levying a general or special rate to bridge this financial gap was fully explored, but it was found impossible to devise any solution which

  791
  would be acceptable to the interests concerned. The difficulty in finding a solution on the lines of a rate is in some measure due to the character of our Scottish countryside and to topographical factors. Conditions in Scotland, your Lordships will realise, are very different from those prevailing in the low-lying areas in England, where extensive communities have a common interest in maintaining drainage systems and the levying of a drainage rate is a natural and effective way of raising the necessary local contribution. If I might give your Lordships an example I would take the valley of the River Spey. We estimated in 1955 that a comprehensive scheme of drainage works there would cost no less than £1,150,000. That would benefit about 11,500 acres of land of varying quality and the cost works out at somewhere in the region of £100 per acre. One has further to consider, over and above that cost, the very large cost of maintaining drainage works in the kind of circumstances that exist in the valley of the Spey.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can say what were the limitations? He has spoken of the valley of the Spey, but it is a very long valley.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it concerned the whole of the valley of the Spey. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, expressed the hope that these schemes would be properly maintained. I do not think he need have doubts about that. The Bill provides amply to meet the need for maintenance, and I can assure the noble Lord also that the cost of maintenance will be very carefully considered, both when the draft scheme is prepared and, further, when it is considered at a local inquiry, should one be held. The noble Lord also asked what would be the Exchequer contribution, Taking 10,000 acres a year, on an
  792
  estimated cost not exceeding £20 per acre it comes to about £200,000; and 50 per cent. on that would be £100,000. I can assure the noble Lord also that all the help and sympathy of the Department of Agriculture will be in favour of getting these schemes carried through, and I would thank him for what he said of the helpful nature of the Department of Agriculture. The noble Marquess, Lord Ailsa, asked me whether this Bill did anything to hinder the ordinary drainage of farm land. The Bill has nothing to do with that and in no way affects it. Grant for that comes under Section 16 of the Agriculture Act, 1937.
  So far as the repair of old drainage works is concerned, if they are flooded no doubt they will be capable of being put right under this Bill. The noble Lord also raised the question of whether the procedure was not a little heavy-handed, in that notice of intention had to be given in a certain way; but the noble Lord must realise that others may be affected, besides the owner of the particular area of land which is to benefit. There may be owners of land downstream who would be affected by the alterations to a piece of land, and therefore it is necessary that the widest possible notice should be given. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, raised the point of the existing grants which are given in relation to the draining of agricultural land, with which this Bill has no concern. He mentioned the question of reduction of rent. That really arises where land which has not been improved—land downstream, for instance, may have to be used to put up flood banks and therefore the area of a farmer's land might be reduced. Naturally in those circumstances he would expect to get a reduction in his rent. I hope I have dealt with the various questions asked and I would now ask your Lordships to approve a Second Reading of the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  3.46 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  Establishment and duty of Conservancy Board
  (6) In formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions under this Act, the Board shall have regard to the desirability—

  (a) of preserving natural beauty; and

  (b) of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest: and

  (c) of ensuring an easy passage at all times through the waters of the haven for ascending salmon and sea-trout.

  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to omit subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the Amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper. They are similar in intent to Amendments which I put down on the Committee stage of this Bill. I made the case then, and I can repeat it very briefly. It is simply that Clause 1 of this Bill, which is mainly a Bill for the development of Milford Haven, deals in sewn subsections with the functions of the Board. Subsection (6) provides that they are to have regard to amenity and to the importance of conserving fauna and flora. Many of us attach great importance to that duty. As the noble Lord knows, a great many representations have been made on this question of amenity, and my poor, simple little Amendment merely gave effect to the feeling that if the matter was of such importance to so many people, it was worthy of a clause by itself in the Bill. I therefore asked that, instead of being subsection (6) of Clause 1, the provision should become Clause 2 or 3.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brecon, did not think that the matter was worthy even of consideration. He rejected it in sixty-one words, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read fifty of them (eleven of them do not matter): they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 49), at col. 399. The noble Lord said:
  "This particular subsection comes in part of the Bill that deals with The duties of the Board, and we can see no reason why it should have a separate clause of its own."
  794
  I had already given a reason: it may have been a bad one but at least it was a reason. He continued:
  "In the whole of this part the greatest care has been given to the question of amenity. At the moment we require that this clause shall remain as it is in the Bill, and I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment."
  And that was all. I thought it was worth trying again, and so I have put the Amendment down for to-day. I hope that on further consideration the noble Lord will feel that, even if it is only a poor little thing, the Amendment is worth accepting, or at least reconsidering. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Silkin.)
  3.50 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, the reason I rise to refer to this mater is that I should think that probably before anybody else in this House was born I was interested in the development of Milford Haven. Now, after many years, what I tried to do, with various friends of mine, long before I was in either House of Parliament, looks like coming about. I have studied as sympathetically as I can the suggestion the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made, and I am wondering whether anybody, reading the provisions of subsection (6) would consider it more important to have them as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests—that is, as a separate clause—than as they are at the moment, because I gather there is no difference between subsection (6) of Clause 1 and his new clause. Word for word the two would do exactly the same thing. That is so, is it not?
  I think some people who read the words are a little fogged as to what they mean. There are the words "flora" and "fauna", and "geological or physiographical features ". They are particularly interesting words to me, because in my early life I was a mining engineer and had to go through a very severe course which concerned the meaning of the word "geological", and so on. I am wondering whether the ordinary individual understands what is meant. I have already come across one or two who have asked: "What does that really mean?" If I may, I should like to have a definition of what those two words mean. Perhaps the Minister who is going to speak on the subject will inform the

  795
  House, in order that the rest of the country may appreciate what is really meant. The words "flora" and "fauna" I think we understand. Most people are gardeners and know what those words mean, but I should very much like to have a definition of the other two expressions in a form that anybody can appreciate and understand.
  There is just one other matter—and I do not know whether I am in order in referring to it. At a former stage (I believe the Committee stage) of the Bill, there was raised the question of whether the land contiguous with the Haven played any part in the deliberations of those considering this Bill. The Minister seemed to think not. I have read the Bill very carefully, and I think it must: it is absolutely necessary that that land should come into the general picture of the administration of the Haven. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will, if he can, answer me on those two very simple questions.
  3.53 p.m.
  LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and perhaps in the course of what I have to say I may be able to raise a little the heart of the noble Lord. Lord Teviot. Before speaking on the Amendment I have to declare an interest in that I am a Director of Milford Docks Company and also a sand and gravel merchant in the Milford Haven area. I am, therefore, closely interested in the excellence of this Bill; and I hope in the course of a few weeks to be interested in its smooth working. I also have to apologise for being unable to be in my place on the Committee stage. I very much wanted to speak to the Amendment which the noble Lords opposite put forward, but I was in Milford Haven and did not get back until eleven o'clock in the evening.
  I am glad to see the difference between the Amendment now proposed and the Amendments moved then. I was not at all happy about a reference which was made to "fostering the cultural and social development of the population". It has seemed to me a very curious thing to ask a Board of this nature to do, and I ventured to look up and ascertain whether any comparable Board had comparable power. The nearest approach
  796
  was the case of the Port of London Authority, which had powers to make bylaws for preventing the use of obscene and abusive language. I do not know whether that relates to the cultural development which the noble Lords had in mind. However, the point is no longer relevant.
  The point that has arisen in our minds, in considering these Amendments in Committee, and to some extent now, is that this Bill is not meant to be a town and country planning measure. The inclusion of references to amenities is really an indication of the importance which is attached to that subject whenever and wherever industrial development is being considered. It is for that reason that I consider these references to amenity should not come in Clause 1, where they are now, which deals, according to its marginal sub-title, with "Establishment and duty of Conservancy Board ".but should come, as is suggested in the Amendment, in a separate clause which has the title, "Protection of amenities".The Bill is not a town and country planning measure, and therefore these words should not be included in the clause describing the duties of the Board. Town and country considerations for amenities are very important matters and they are therefore a suitable subject for a separate clause. I think that in saying that I have emphasised the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—not perhaps with the same emphasis he has given it; but I have agreed basically with him with a slightly new emphasis.
  From what was said in Committee, and also from what has been said elsewhere. it seems to me that some people would have liked to see this Bill drafted more in the form of a planning measure. But I cannot see that a planning measure was necessary. I think that the Bill has been correctly drafted: to be simply a conservancy authority Bill. The danger exists of a multiplication of planning authorities. I remember being told by a farmer in Cumberland a couple of years ago that if he wanted to put a stronger roof on his cowshed he had to get permission from six different authorities. That is not planning; that is making the situation chaotic, and we should be acting very foolishly if we allowed the development of Milford Haven to get bogged down in a multitude of different planning authorities.

  797
  I am speaking from commercial experience in that area, and I am quite satisfied as to the competence of the existing authorities. The Pembrokeshire County Council came in for some rather hard words on Committee stage, as I read Hansard. Reacting, for example, the report of the proceedings at the inquiry into the proposed iron-ore clump at Angle, on the other side of the Haven from Haverfordwest and the town of Milford, I was confirmed in the impression I have had all along: that the Pembrokeshire County Council, and particularly their planning officer, have a most reasoned and balanced attitude towards the development schemes projected in the county. They are not prepared to say, on the one hand, "We must have development and the amenities can look after themselves"; nor, on the other, "We must have amenities and the developments can go elsewhere." They are out to get, so far as they can, the best of both worlds; and surely in doing that they are doing precisely what they should do under the various Acts under which they work.
  Not only the County Council, but also other authorities—for example, the Haverfordwest Rural District Council, in their capacity as coast protection authority—are following a reasonable and balanced course of action. As a sand and gravel merchant, I have had close experience of a project tentatively mentioned in Committee—by the noble Lord, Lord Ogalore, I expect—to dredge gravel in Dale Road, in the north-west corner of the Haven. As soon as the proposal was mooted, those who made it were inundated with information about what went on in Dale Road in the way of marine life and marine biological research, which would not go on if what we had in mind was done. We negotiated with the parties whose duty it is to protect such matters, including the field societies, the Nature Conservancy and the University of Wales, and, of course, the Haverfordwest Rural District Council, as the coast protection authority, and we were able to come to satisfactory conclusions. The reason was that we did not, as a commercial interest, go all out to get something which obviously was going to be a nuisance in the district; and the field societies and others accepted the fact that it would be a good thing that we should be able to dig sand and gravel in the neighbourhood. The results of these consultations were satis
  798
  factory to all and I suspect that this sort of experience can be duplicated by any commercial interests in the area.
  Further, in respect of the large projects, some of which have been started and some of which are still under discussion, considerable trouble has been taken by the big companies concerned to ensure that their projects do the minimum possible harm to local amenities. This morning I was speaking to one gentleman, who was able to confirm that his company had taken the advice of Mr. Colwyn Fulkes, the landscape consultant, and he assured me that acceptance of some of the advice would be costly to them. Surely that is an illustration of the fact that industrialists nowadays are not prepared to desecrate the countryside, as our ancestors did a hundred years ago by the sort of development which tore the heart of people like Ruskin. Nowadays, industrialists recognise their responsibility towards the amenities of the countryside in which they are working.
  For all these reasons, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right in emphasising the importance of the amenity provisions of the Bill, but asking that they should not be regarded as part of the duty of the Board under Clause 1 and should be mentioned separately as a new clause. As I see it, the change which he is proposing will assist the Board, in that they will be able to point out to those who perhaps regard it as their duty to safeguard amenities that it is not in fact laid down by Parliament as part of their duty, but that the matter is the subject of a separate clause and phrased merely in this way: that the Board ought "to have regard to" the desirability of doing these things. May I say to my noble friend Lord Teviot that, while it may seem a bit vague to talk about natural beauty and flora and fauna, he will realise that the existing authorities—the Nature Conservancy and the field societies—are quite clear in their own minds about the meanings of these terms.
  4.6 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for putting this Amendment down again. I am sorry that I dealt so abruptly with the Amendment

  799
  on the previous occasion. But the fact that he has put it down again has enabled me to give further consideration to the matter. I realise that the purpose of the Amendment is to emphasise the amenity problem of this area. My noble friend Lord Teviot has raised the question of the flora and fauna, and the geological and physiographical features. … I am sorry, my Lords, for my momentary indisposition. … I am glad that my noble friend has not asked me to explain about the flora and fauna because he says that he knows all about them. The geological features, of course, relate to the rocks, and the physiographical features are those of the islands within the Haven and those features below the high-water line which must be preserved at all times. The Amendment as now moved requires that the part relating to amenities shall be given a clause of its own. I am glad to say that, after consideration, on behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, and also our regret at his temporary indisposition. I hope that he will take a rest and feel better. If he wants any "tips" about what to do, I think I can help him, because I felt the same some months ago.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—

  AFTER CLAUSE 1
  Insert the following new clause:
  Protection of amenities
  ("2. In formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions under this Act, the Board shall have regard to the desirability—

  (a) of preserving natural beauty;

  (b) of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest; and

  (c) of ensuring an easy passage at all times through the waters of the haven for ascending salmon and sea-trout.")—(Lord Silkin.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
  LORD BRECON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Brecon.)
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in speeding this Bill on its way, I should merely' like to explain for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, and others that we on this side do not object to the Bill at all—we entirely approve of it—but we wanted to make it a better Bill. We all agree with the Government's motive, but we were whipping them on to make their motive have a greater impact on the Bill than they had intended. I understand that in spite of the fact that some of our Amendments were not accepted on the Committee stage they have had a good deal of effect in Pembrokeshire, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigmyle, has said, the industrialists in that area and the local authorities have taken to heart what we have said. The noble Lord has introduced himself to us today in the rather new light of a sand and gravel merchant, and I have no doubt that he looks at the development of the Haven rather from that point of view. We on this side of the House, while we are prepared in every way to sympathise with those who want to bring development into this part of Pembrokeshire, which is suffering badly from unemployment, wanted to make sure that nothing which could be avoided should be done to spoil the natural beauty of the countryside. That was our whole object. I feel certain that the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House has had the desired result; in other words, it has brought home to those who propose to develop the Haven, to the Conservancy Board and to the local authorities, that they must not do anything which is avoidable to desecrate this beautiful part of our country.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BURNS COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the international importance that is being given in many countries to the celebration of the bi-centenary of the birth of Robert Burns which falls on the 25th January, 1959, the question of issuing one or more commemorative postage stamps will now be favourably considered.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I put to your Lordships the case I want to put, there is some information which has come to my notice in the last day or two to which I should like to give prominence. In questions put by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, with regard to pictorial and other stamps, and in the answers given, much stress has been laid on the fact that the Post Office must see that the Queen's head is in a prominent position on, if not completely dominating, every stamp that is issued. In that way, and in that way alone, we declare the country of origin of the stamp and show that it is a British stamp.
  Within the last day or two I have received some information about stamps that have been issued in different parts of the Commonwealth, and it has been proved to me that certain parts of the Commonwealth have not felt themselves bound to adhere to what seemed to me, from the answers given to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, an absolute rule. For example, the Royal Cipher has been used in Malta and in other British Crown Colonies, where the Queen's head was thought to be inconsistent with the design oil the stamp. I am, of course, talking about pictorial stamps, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has referred on a number of occasions. Canada and Australia, I understand, have issued small stamps commemorating great men. Any stamp could carry the inscription "United Kingdom Post Office and Revenue" if the Queen's head were not there. I am not arguing for any cutting of the use of the Queen's head on stamps: I am, I hope, sufficiently loyal to wish to see that practice carried into effect in the usual run of stamps. But I do put forward the fact that these variations have taken place in other parts of the
  802
  Commonwealth, where I am sure they were not motivated by any disloyalty to Her Majesty or any desire to remove Her Majesty's picture from the stamps.
  To come now to the Question I have put down, it may be looked upon as one of not much intrinsic value, but to me it is a matter of considerable symbolic value, and that is the atmosphere in which I put forward my case. I have been moved to put this Question down because of the intensity of feeling I have found in opposition to the attitude of the Postmaster General, who has summarily refused the request for a commemorative stamp or stamps on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns next January. I claim to speak for the majority of thinking Scots of adult age in Scotland, throughout our Commonwealth and, indeed, throughout the world. It is the claim of those who are associated with the request that it has been given inadequate consideration, and that the reasons put forward by past Postmasters General and the present Postmaster General for their refusal are also inadequate.
  It is claimed by the Postmaster General that to honour Robert Burns in the manner proposed would create a precedent and justify other claims for prominent personalities to be commemorated in like manner. Scotland rejects this excuse, and points to the issue of the Boy Scout Jubilee stamps last year, which were linked with the name of the Scouts' founder, Baden Powell, and with the centenary of his birth. I must not be taken as objecting to that issue, but it is recalled that no such distinction has been given to the Boys' Brigade, equally deserving of honour, which was founded in Glasgow in 1883 and is now widespread. I claim that Robert Burns is much more than a famous personality. He is an institution, predominantly Scottish in origin and. spirit, around which a great movement has grown, especially since 1885 when the Burns Federation was formed. Branches of the Federation exist not only in Scotland but in many towns across Canada, from Ontario to British Columbia, and in the United States, from New York to San Francisco; also in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria; in New Zealand, Calcutta and Karachi, and in Norway and Denmark. In Scotland there is hardly a town or

  803
  village where there is not a link with the poet, and South of the Border branches exist at intervals from Berwick to Chelmsford and London on the east, and from Carlisle to Plymouth on the west.
  The Burns Federation comprises not only Burns clubs, but also affiliated Caledonian societies, St. Andrew's societies and Scottish cultural bodies throughout the world, and many masonic lodges have Burns contacts. Some of the individual units of the Federation are themselves federated bodies, and the Royal Clan Order of Scottish Clans in the United States has 15,500 members and covers an estimated 20,000 families of Scots or of Scots descent. The Federated Clubs of South Africa have also a large total membership.
  While Burns is the inspiration of this great Federation, it has wider activities—educational, literary and otherwise. Its benevolent activities include the provision of homes for old people and the Jean Armour Burns Memorial Homes at Mauchline, which are soon to be increased in number from ten to twenty, show the quality of the adherents of the organisation, who find their inspiration in the words and works of this great humanitarian figure, whose kindly social philosophy has evoked praise and emulation from great reformers since his day.
  The appeal of Burns is world-wide in its scope. He sprang from the soil of Scotland, but he has made a unique place for himself as the greatest exponent of world brotherhood. In his address at the opening of the Burns Exhibition in Glasgow in 1896, the late Earl of Rosebery, the greatest orator of his day, spoke of Burns as "the universal friend", and that, in truth, is what he is recognised as being more and more as the years pass. His passionate regard for the dignity of the human personality and his hatred of injustice have placed him in the forefront of the world's democrats. He was no respecter of persons, except for real worth, and he did not allow wealth or social position to protect those whom he had occasion to criticise. His poem A Man's a Man for a' that comes most readily to mind in this connection with its attack upon a worthless lord.
  But there is no mere class bias in his attitude. He would condemn a worthless
  804
  poor person just as severely. He had high praise for noble Lords who were worthy of it, and I am sure it must be a matter of pride to the present First Lord of the Admiralty that when Burns visited Lord Daer, the son of the then Earl of Selkirk, he was able to write of him in very complimentary terms. I think the poet would pass the same verdict upon the noble Earl we know to-day. James, Earl of Glencairn, who was a friend of Burns, was another he found worthy of praise. In a lament which he wrote on the occasion of the Earl's death, he used the heartfelt words which many of your Lordships will know
  "The bridegroom may forget the bride
  Was made his wedded wife yestreen;
  The monarch may forget the crown
  That on his head an hour has been;
  The mother may forget the child
  That smiles sae sweetly on her knee;
  But I'll remember thee, Glencairn,
  And a' that thou hast done for me!"
  That, I think, is clear proof that there is no class bias about Robert Burns.
  Robert Burns, it has been said, was born in poverty and died in poverty, but enriched the world. I warmly endorse those words. It is on record that at the age of fifteen years he was bent with toil through working so hard on his father's farm. Inevitably, this experience of hard living warmed his sympathy for the poor, and his protest on their behalf has come ringing down the years. In Man was made to Mourn he gives powerful expression to his feelings:
  "See yonder poor, o'er-labour'd wight,
  So abject, mean, and vile,
  Who begs a brother of the earth
  To give him leave to toil;
  And see his lordly fellow-worm
  The poor petition spurn,
  Unmindful, tho' a weeping wife
  And helpless offspring mourn."
  "If I'm design'd yon lordling's slave—
  By Nature's law design'd—
  Why was an independent wish
  E'er planted in my mind?
  If not, why am I subject to
  His cruelty, or scorn?
  Or why has man the will and pow'r
  To make his fellow mourn?"
  We have ended that state of affairs. Burns did not protest in vain. I know how the trade union movement years ago, was inspired by what he wrote. The poet's social philosophy was a kindly one. He was brought up humbly in a God-fearing home. His father and mother were exceptionally well-doing people. The picture of their home which is given by the poet in The Cottar's

  805
  Saturday Night is a tender and moving one. I dare not extend my quotations unduly, but I hope this debate will cause the poems and songs to be taken down from the bookshelves of those who are entrusted with the decision on this plea I am making. I believe that the poem I have just mentioned and the Epistle to a Young Friend would make rewarding reading to anyone. The latter poem was written by Burns to young Andrew Aiken, a son of the Robert Aiken to whom The Cottar's Saturday Night was dedicated, and it is one of the most sincere efforts the poet ever made. The great sympathetic heart of the poet extended to the lower animals, and the animal welfare societies for which this country is renowned have been greatly encouraged in their efforts by his warm-hearted writings.
  The songs for which he is responsible have made a great contribution, and because of his genius in this respect Scotland has a wealth of song literature which is unsurpassed. Many of these are adaptations of old vulgar ditties collected by the poet from unsavoury sources. He used his talent upon them, melted out the dross, and made them worthy to be sung by the Heavenly Choir itself. The poet's showing up of hypocrisy and insincerity in public life, and even in the Church, it his own day, earned him much opposition, and he had many detractors. He was no worse than the average of his contemporaries, but he himself furnished material for criticism of his own conduct by his self-confessed follies. His regret for these lapses was real, and it should be remembered that at the time when he was most heavily assailed by criticism for his alleged excessive drinking he was working very long hours as an exciseman and at the same time pouring out the songs that have largely contributed to his fame. There simply was not time for him to be as bad as he has been painted.
  I have had my life enriched by what I have received from him, and I am grateful to him as a Scotsman, as a citizen, as a trade unionist, as a politician and as a Christian, for the kindly outlook upon my fellow-men which he has fostered in me. I do not take his life as an example to follow—he warned against that—but I hail him as a very great man and in all humility, realising my own need for mercy, I am content to say in the words which conclude the epitaph at the end of
  806
  Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:
  "No further seek his merits to disclose,
  Or draw his frailties from their dread abode,
  (There they alike in trembling hope repose)
  The bosom of his Father and his God."
  Robert Burns's death at the early age of thirty-seven years was a tragedy. What he might have given us if he had lived to a maturer age can only be a matter of speculation and keen regret that he was not given the chance. But what he has given us is a wonderful heritage, and his name and fame are firm and secure for all time. He is entitled to be honoured by the country he loved so dearly, and it is with such patriotic feelings in mind that I make bold to claim that Scotland, as a partner in this United Kingdom, is entitled to have the refusal by the Postmaster General reversed. It is an affront to Scotland that her wishes in this regard have been treated with such contempt. The idea of issuing special stamps for Scotland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland is; not acceptable to Scotland, and should be dropped in favour of the issue for which I am contending.
  It is obvious there is no policy regarding the issue of commemorative stamps, unless it is a policy of stubborn refusal., otherwise we should not have had the spectacle of an issue for the Boy Scouts' half-century and none for the world Y.M.C.A. centenary which was celebrated in 1955. Do not let us be put to shame by the Soviet Union, whose Burns bicentenary stamps are now on sale in Britain. Perhaps an appeal in the name of America may be more acceptable to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government.
  I wish I could take everyone here to that poor thatched dwelling at Alloway, near Ayr, where Burns was born over 199 years ago. There can be seen many of his original manuscripts and other things he used and handled in his lifetime. Let us, in imagination, join the 95,008 pilgrims from every part of the world who visited the cottage last year, and read, as they were able to do, the tribute written there by Robert Ingersoll from the United States, a tribute that can be seen there by anyone:
  "Tho Scotland boasts a thousand names
  Of patriot, king and peer,
  The noblest, grandest of them all
  Was loved and cradled here.

  807
  Here lived the gentle peasant prince, The loving Cottar's King,
  Compared with whom the greatest lord Is but a titled thing.
  "'Tis but a cot roofed in with straw,
  A hovel made of clay;
  One door shuts out the snow and storm One window greets the day.
  And yet I stand within this room And hold all thrones in scorn,
  For here beneath this lowly thatch Love's sweetest bard was born.
  "Within, this hallowed hut I feel Like one who clasps a shrine,
  When the glad lips at last have touched The something deemed Divine,
  And here the world thro' all the years, As long as day returns,
  The tribute of its love and tears Will pay to Robert Burns."
  I ask that Robert Burns be given recognition by his country in the way that we are asking for in this Question.
  4.33 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think it might be well if I started my reply at the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers began his speech, with reference to the dominance of the Queen's Head on our stamps. I was not quite clear why he brought up that matter at that stage; in the normal way I should be pleased to debate that with him, but it hardly seems to me to appertain to the Question he has on the Order Paper?
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I say a word in explanation? It seemed to me necessary to say a word on that point. I had not included it in what I had prepared to say to the House, but I felt, in view of the firm adherence to that policy there was with regard to previous Questions, that it was desirable to mention it.
  LORD CHESHAM: I naturally accept what the noble Lord says; and I shall say no more about it, except that, of course, he must remember that the stamp policy of other countries, whether inside or outside the Commonwealth, is not a matter for us.
  To-day I feel rather at a disadvantage, because I am fully aware of the weight and importance of this matter, particularly in Scotland, as the noble Lord has been at great Pains to point out to us. Perhaps it may be said that as I am not a Scot myself it is difficult for me to appreciate that. I should like to emphasise that that is not so, and whatever I may say after this, I certainly thoroughly
  808
  respect the depth of feeling and sincerity which the noble Lord showed in his speech. Before I run any further risk, I think I should say this. On a recent occasion, when I was trying to be sympathetic and polite when opposing something, I was misunderstood; and the noble Lord who had moved the Second Reading of that particular Bill was under the impression that I was agreeing with him. The fact that I say I can understand the depth of sincerity in the very moving speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, must not be taken to indicate that I am agreeing with it in advance. I hope, nevertheless, that I shall remain polite, even if I have to be negative from the point of view of what the noble Lord wants.
  The first point I want to emphasise—indeed I want to make it abundantly clear—is that my right honourable friend does not presume in any way to pronounce on the importance or otherwise of the poet Burns. The Burns Federation used the word "unique". My right honourable friend would not dream of querying the use of that word. He would not, if he were here to-day, I feel, query anything the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, said in his long and moving panegyric. I would take slight exception to the use of the words "summarily dismissed this request". I do not think for a moment the action taken was summary; I think the matter was well considered and carefully considered. I stress that what I am about to say on the general position is a matter of firmly based policy and is not affected by whether the request is on behalf of Burns or any other private individual.
  My Lords, it might be convenient if I state once more what that policy is. It is to have a basic issue of stamps for each reign, commonly remaining unchanged throughout the reign, and supplemented from time to time by special stamps to mark outstanding events in the national life and royal and notable postal anniversaries. Special stamps are not issued to commemorate people; nor, apart from the royal and postal anniversaries, to mark past events. If one looks at all the special stamps issued in the last twenty-five years or so, I think it will be quite clear that this policy has been maintained. The reason why, as a matter of policy, we avoid commemorating

  809
  anniversaries of great men is mainly because, in a country with a history like ours, the number of people with a claim to be commemorated is very large and even if we had frequent issues, the Post Office would be in a very invidious position and would undoubtedly have to reject many strongly supported claims. It is fairly easy to run off at short notice a list of about one hundred people—and no doubt there will be more—worthy of consideration of such commemoration, even leaving out the question of events.
  I know that it has been argued—the noble Lord argued it to-day—that a precedent was created, that the policy was not maintained by the issue of the Scouts stamp last year. It has been maintained—as the noble Lord maintained to-day—that it was issued to mark the anniversary of the birth of the first Lord Baden-Powell. I regret to say, however, that that is not true. I admit that last year was the anniversary of Lord Baden-Powell, but the stamp was issued to mark the Jubilee Jamboree of the World Scout Movement. Had that Jamboree, which was assessed as an outstanding event in the national life, not been held, the stamp would not have been issued. I was a little surprised, shall I say, to hear the noble Lord say that the forthcoming stamps for Scotland were unpopular. Naturally, if he says so I must accept that, but so far as I am aware that is the first indication that it is so. At the time they were announced, their issue, I had thought, was hailed with some approbation.
  Another argument has been put forward, though not to-day, that a change of policy to mark centenaries and bicentenaries would not cause much bother because there are not many of them. But that is not quite true either, because, according to my reckoning, in 1959 there are at least thirteen centenaries and six bi-centenaries of great men who might well, I think, furnish a strong claim to similar commemoration. I should like to repeat what I said earlier: I make no attempt to compare these men with Burns or Burns with them; I give these figures merely to show how complicated it would be, and in what difficult waters it would be possible to get, if there were a change of policy.
  The noble Lord was good enough to pass me over a small envelope full of Russian stamps with which I was already
  810
  familiar. But I have to query whether they were issued as Burns bi-centenary stamps. So far as I know, the stamp was issued in 1956, which I do not think indicates that it can really have been a bi-centenary stamp. Then again, so far as I can make out, it was one of a series which they issued that year and which included eight other names of men whom they, no doubt, considered to be of world-wide standing. I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time, and I think I have now said enough for your Lordships to appreciate that it is not possible to issue the, stamp for which the noble Lord has asked, and that to do so would mean a fundamental departure from the well-founded stamp policy we have in this country. This departure my right honourable friend the Postmaster-General is not prepared to make.
  4.43 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I intervene in this debate for a few moments because this has been a subject with which I have been associated in your Lordships' House for the last four or five years. The first thing I have to say is that I desire to support as strongly as I can the plea put forward in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in reply, said that the acceptance of the noble Lord's proposal would be a departure from the fundamental policy which has been in operation in this country for some time. I do not think that necessarily that is an objection. If good reason can be put forward for a change of policy, then I think it ought to be considered with a view to its acceptance.
  The second argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham—I think it was the main argument—was stated also by the Assistant Postmaster General, Mr. Thompson, in another place on February 6 of last year when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 564, col. 414]:
  "One of the complications of doing what the honourable and learned gentleman suggests"—
  he was referring to Mr. Hector Hughes who had put down a Question on this subject—
  "is that we have so many great men to pay tribute to that it would be difficult to choose one against another."

  811
  I think there must be some confusion in the thoughts of Her Majesty's Government as to how many centenaries it would be proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, or anyone else, such as myself, to nominate for the honour of commemoration. I do not think there is that great number of persons. If you rule out all persons who might be said to be of a controversial nature, I do not think that there are so many to whom you would need to pay this tribute.
  I do not necessarily say that because something is done in other countries it ought to be done in this country. Therefore, when I cite what has been done in other countries I merely make my point that there are not so many of these gentlemen as is suggested by the noble noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who said that a few years ago there were twenty-five or fifteen centenaries, and a few years before that some twenty centenaries.
  Let us see, for instance, what the Belgian Congo does. In 1928 they published a set of stamps to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Stanley's exploration to the Congo—Sir Henry Morton Stanley, G.C.B., who was an Anglo-American and who had his name linked with Livingstone in the opening up of the African Continent. I think he was a most worthy person to commemorate in this fashion. Then we come to Belgium, and we find that Florence Nightingale was honoured on a Belgian stamp. I should have thought that she was eminently a woman for such distinction, and that she might be commemorated on a British stamp as well. Then, in France, Pasteur, who gave so much to the world, was commemorated. Next we come to Hungary. In 1948 we find that Hungary honoured and commemorated in this way Robert Fulton, George Stephenson, Thomas Edison, Louis Bleriot, Roald Amundson, Byron, Hugo, Poe, Twain and Shakespeare. Italy commemorated Marconi, and only last month Spain commemorated Goya by a special stamp.
  Apart from the specific demand that we have made to-day, all we ask is that Her Majesty's Government should review their general policy in this matter and should consider such a change of policy. It can be done without any expense; any expense would be recouped by the revenue produced. We suggest that the
  812
  Government should in this case follow the very good example that has been pursued in other countries. By the names that I have indicated I suggest the kind of individuals who should be commemorated. In the long run they would not amount to the number which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, suggested. If we change our policy in that respect, and if, further, the time comes when we in this country introduce small low-value pictorial stamps, then, indeed, we shall abandon the idea that a stamp is merely a label to pay for the postage and we shall go forward into more imaginative spheres so far as our postal stamps are concerned.

  SPEED LIMITS ON TRUNK ROADS
  4.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN VISCOUNT GOSCHEN rose to urge upon Her Majesty's Government the unwisdom of seeking to apply special speed limits on trunk roads other than the normal 30 m.p.h. limit through built-up areas; to ask whether Her Majesty's Government are in a position to give any information as to the results of the recently imposed 40 m.p.h. limit on the above-mentioned type of road: and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I realise that I am delving into a very controversial subject. but fortunately it is not in any way, I think, a controversial subject so far as Party politics are concerned. It is a national problem, and one which I believe must be approached with common sense, as well as from technical and other angles. It is essentially a matter of common sense mixed with the safety and speed of vehicles and so forth. I must remind the House that if these problems had been taken up years ago by successive Governments, there would have been no need for me to introduce this Motion to-day.
  I am not going to speak of the normal 30 m.p.h. limit in London and other cities, towns and villages, because I believe it is agreed by all that that works extremely well and has led to a reduction in casualties. I propose to speak chiefly on the principle of the matter and not on the particular merits of each trunk road. It would, of course, be impossible for

  813
  me to do that, first because I do not know them, and secondly because we should be here all night. The example which I will take is the Great West Road, the one which I know best and use most, and the tributaries of that road which go off at the end of it. Before I go on to deal with the matter with which I am concerned—the 40 m.p.h. limit—I would say this. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, when making new highways, whether they be above buildings or similar to the new Birmingham motor road, will make absolutely certain that there will be no roundabouts or cross-roads, and that special arrangements will be provided for pedestrians to cross from one side to the other; for it really is time that we had in this country roads on which every form of vehicle can go without being slowed up every few minutes by various limits.
  I am in no way convinced that the 40 m.p.h. limit on these trunk roads will increase the flow of traffic. I understand that one of the theories the police hold is that it will; and I understand that they would like traffic to go along all in one block, so that they can get rid of it more quickly. I cannot understand that theory, particularly when we have on our roads vehicles of such very different categories. We may have a donkey or horse cart; then one of the mutual friends of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Lucas of Chilworth—the abnormal load"; then heavy vehicles, and various types of motor car. I cannot see how all those vehicles can go along in one block unless they go at a very slow speed.
  Since the 40 m.p.h. limit has been brought in as a trial, I have noticed, as I live down beyond the Great West Road, that the average speed of the traffic has dropped very considerably. I should like to know 'whether there is any record of the speed at which the traffic used to move before this new limit was introduced. On these roads one now sees a great deal more of what one noticed only slightly before—perhaps three heavy vehicles moving at the same speed, about 35 or 36 m.p.h. and all having a rather good race to get up to their 40 m.p.h. This means that no other car can pass them without breaking the law, for in order to pass a car or lorry doing 35 or 36 m.p.h. one has to go at over 40 m.p.h. Ono may then be able to maintain a speed of 40 m.p.h. until one comes to the next
  814
  group of heavy vehicles. I. should very much like to go out one day with a police car. Then the crew could point out to me where I was wrong, or I could point out to them where they are wrong; because I really do not understand this matter. I wonder very much what would happen if, during Ascot Week a speed limit of, say, 40 m.p.h. were put on every road leading out of Ascot. How would people fare then and how would the Berkshire police contend with that issue? I honestly do not believe that the 40 m.p.h. limit increases the flow of traffic.
  With your Lordships' permission I should like to refer to the Report on the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in the London Traffic Area, published by the Stationery Office in 1956. In the "Reservations on Differential Speed Limits" I should like particularly to read one paragraph on page 42:
  "Roads now free from restriction. The number and severity of accidents would tend to be reduced but, because pedestrians and cyclists would be fewer than on roads with a 30 m.p.h. limit, the combined effect would be much less than in paragraph (a)"—
  which deals with the 30 m.p.h. limit.
  "Traffic flow generally would be slowed, and the advantage of an even flow of traffic would not be obtained while certain classes of vehicle are restricted to lower speeds. Overtaking would be more difficult and dangerous. The restriction would be unpopular with drivers and voluntary observance could not be expected. At night we think that the limit would generally be disregarded."
  On roads returning to London the problem is slightly different, because one is entering into the narrow straits and it is not a question of getting traffic right into London and then getting it moving again: we come down to the 30 m.p.h. limit, which is not quite so important. But at the London end of these trunk roads having dual carriageways, even on days when there is heavy traffic, such as holidays, Saturdays and Sundays, it is not as a rule a question of doing 40 m.p.h. on the return journey, so that that particular speed limit would not be necessary. There are other types of trunk roads, as we all know, which do not have dual tracks but which are wide. Some have three tracks. I will take as examples two roads. The first is the road which leads from the end of the Colnbrook by-pass to Slough. A 40 m.p.h. limit has been imposed there. I maintain that that is quite unnecessary. The

  815
  road is wide, and not in any way dangerous. At times the traffic becomes very heavy and one cannot go at much more than just about 40 m.p.h., so I cannot see why there is any need for a 40 m.p.h. limit there. The other example is the road from the end of the Great West Road to Staines. This is one which affects the homeward bound passengers and not the outward bound passengers. There are many people who say that they would rather drive an additional fifty miles to avoid going through Staines. But it is going to be bad for those who do use that road if a 40 m.p.h. limit is imposed—I am not certain whether it has yet been imposed; but I believe that it is intended—because there are appalling traffic jams in Staines. If this 40 m.p.h. limit is applied on this road, which is again a wide road, and almost straight, I do not see that the traffic will clear at all until it disperses among the streets of London.
  I must say that I think I should have added to my Motion the words "except in special cases". I met one such case the other day—I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows about it. It is near St. Albans, where a limit was put on some time ago, and I am certain there are a few places where a limit must be imposed. But taking the question as a whole I do not see that special limits are in any way necessary. This speed limit, with its effect of slowing up traffic, may unnecessarily delay commerce and industry and the business of the country. We must remember that not all motor traffic on the roads consists of people who are driving for pleasure—in fact they are only a small proportion. Again, there are many people in this country to-day who say that it is no pleasure to drive. So from that point of view I think we want to get the traffic away as quickly as possible.
  I should like to leave for a minute the word "safety", which of course is always in one's mind and which is one of the chief factors. Most drivers to whom I have spoken—and they are drivers in every particular range, and from different sections of the public—intensely dislike these 40 m.p.h. limits. In fact, I could not really tell your Lordships how they were described to me by the majority of motorists. The various
  816
  signs are apt (and in this connection the motoring organisations agree with me) to confuse drivers, especially when some of them are not lit. Whether it is by mistake or by a "back-hander" I do not know, but when you come to the de-restriction signs, both on the Great West Road and on the road leading to London Airport, you find that they are not lit. I do not know whether or not it is through a mistake, but in some cases these 40 m.p.h. limit signs are not lit. I understand, however, that they should be.
  Obviously, confusion is caused by the fact that there are too many signs on the roads nowadays. I should like to mention particularly the small signs beside the road. They are made of wood, and they spell out a sentence; and either one cannot see them, because one happens not to be on the same side of the road, or, if one is on the same side of the road, one is rather apt to "bet" on what the last word is going to be—and that may easily cause an accident through a driver running into the back of a vehicle in front. There are far too many signs. I have not been down the road myself, but I am told that the new road which goes past Gatwick Airfield is particularly bad in that respect.
  Then, my Lords, it will be a very difficult thing to enforce this new limit. I think the police agree that the 30 m.p.h. limits are not really enforced and that it is impossible to enforce them. If that is so, the 40 m.p.h. limits will be even more difficult to enforce. And what about the position at night? This question has been brought up before. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has brought it up and perhaps he will speak about it later. But I consider that this 40 m.p.h. limit on big roads really tempts and provokes people to break the law; and a law such as that surely cannot be very good.
  Safety, as I have said, is the chief factor. Accidents are not always caused by speed. I am not going to be one of those who say that accidents are never caused by speed, because obviously that is not true; but they are not always caused by speed. There are many accidents in London with the 30 m.p.h. limit; and I repeat, accidents are not always caused by speed. It comes down to the fact that accidents are caused, from the motorist's point of view, by just purely bad driving. To my mind,

  817
  there are several types of drivers. There is one we all know—the hooligan, who will invariably drive too fast, whether there is a regulation or whether there is not. Whether he is in a fast car or whether he is in not such a fast car, he will always drive like a hooligan; but those drivers are a very small percentage of the population. Then there are drivers who drive fast within the regulations but who have experience and know the capabilities of their motor cars and of themselves.
  Then we come down to the majority of drivers—those who keep within the rules, or nearly so, but who commonly go at between 55 and 65 m.p.h. or something like that. Some drive well and some drive badly. Then we come down to a category which I consider to be nearly the worst of the lot, and that is the driver of the very old car which one probably sees only on Saturdays or Sundays: the car is ancient; the people inside it are nearly always ancient, and they are extremely dangerous. They have every right to be on the road if their car is in good working order, but they have not the right to stay in the middle of the road or on the right-hand track of a dual carriageway, which they are rather prone to do.
  In regard to accidents from other causes, principally to children crossing the roads, much has been done by lectures and television to educate school children, and the figures show that although the number of vehicles on the road has gone up considerably, the ratio of casualties to children has not increased. The word "safety" can often be misleading, because a motorist can have an accident, even whilst travelling slowly, either through pure and simple bad driving or bad luck, or because he is under the influence of alcohol; but I think that the majority of accidents are caused by bad driving. Many are due to pedestrians themselves, and though much has been done to educate children and parents, they do not seem to learn very fast. Only last night, at the first traffic lights in the Great West Road, when the lights were green and I was doing 40 m.p.h., a man walked across the road about 35–40 yards on the far side of the lights. That is but one simple case of what the motorist has to put up with. But the results of bad driving still remain. This is due to lack of knowledge of the rules of the road or to
  818
  lack of understanding of the motorist's own capabilities and those of his car, or simply to the old fault of "cutting in''. I have seen that done since the 40 m.p.h. limit has been introduced, with one car doing 40 m.p.h. and another going at 41 m.p.h. and coming in on the left. I am not at all certain that the accident rate will fall a great deal as a result of the innovation of these limits.
  The Institute of Advanced Motorists have issued a pamphlet on this question which reprints a message to them from Mr. Watkinson, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who sends them his best wishes, saying that what the Institute stand for and what they are doing is of the greatest use. That is about all, I think, that is being done to help motorists. There are no Government schools for training motorists after their original testing. An enormous amount is spent on posters of all kinds, and I think that if schools to train motorists were given more money by the Government the standard of driving would go up. To my mind, the motorist's life is full of nothing but "don'ts." He is told "Don't do this" and "Don't do that". Most people look upon him with horror, and he is unwanted. If motorists were given more encouragement and fewer "don'ts", I am certain that the standard of driving would improve and that we should not see so many accidents.
  My next point is one that has not been discussed—that is, the psychology of driving. Some people drive for business and others for pleasure; but for whatever reason they drive they should be in a quiet (I was going to say "happy", but that is possibly the wrong word) state of mind. If a motorist is always being held up by limits which he considers to be completely unnecessary, he is not likely to remain in that quiet state of mind; and when he becomes irritated he drives badly and probably breaks the laws, even if he does not have an accident. It is rather like riding a horse. If the rider becomes irritated, he rides extremely poorly; and the horse knows it and reacts accordingly. Of course, I do not mean to suggest that a car has an intelligence like a horse, but there is no doubt that a motorist will not drive well if he is in a bad temper.
  The Government have stated that this limitation has been imposed for a trial

  819
  period. I hope that it is only a trial period, and not a period of waiting for the inevitable. I hope that they will try out all the means they have at their disposal and not rest only on the idea of a 40 m.p.h. limit. I think that they should have another go at the laning of traffic, with the appropriate words written in large letters on the roadway at frequent intervals. This cannot be done as it is in America, because of the differences in the volume of their traffic compared with ours—for example, they have roads on which all vehicles drive at 40 m.p.h. All their vehicles are capable of doing the same speed and must do 40 m.p.h., whether they want to or not. Obviously, this kind of system cannot apply in this country because of our roads, but I think that on some trunk roads we could try more laning of traffic.
  I believe that the police should be allowed, not to instruct but to advise motorists, instead of standing by and waiting for someone to break the law. They can patrol these roads, and if they see people obviously refusing to give way, they can advise them that that is the wrong thing to do. I asked a question—not in this House but of one of the motoring organisations—about the matter of putting traffic lights further back from the actual cross-roads. I was told that it was impossible, because a slow-moving vehicle—again, possibly a horse and cart, or any electrically propelled vehicle—would not have time to get across the distance between the lights before they changed. I am not certain whether the idea has been considered before, but I should like the Government to try out the idea of putting a yellow warning light some way back from the actual traffic lights, rather like they do on the railways. I see no reason why that should not work, and it would give the motorist more time to think and to pull up. I imagine that it would only be necessary on these really main roads.
  I hope that the Government will try everything and will not just impose a 40 m.p.h. limit, because, as I have tried to explain. I consider it to be a bad innovation—in fact, it is a step back towards the age of having a man with a red flag walking in front. As to the second half of my Motion, if the noble Lord who is to reply says that everything is satisfactory, I shall have to ask him to
  820
  whom it is satisfactory. I should also be grateful to the noble Lord if he could give us details about the twenty-five or thirty sites from which the investigations mentioned by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in a debate in another place on March 24 will be made. My Lords, I fear that I have already taken up too much of your Lordships' time. I now beg to move for Papers.
  5.22 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I shall not take up much of your Lordships' time. I was interested when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper, although I understood it to be concerned with differential speed limits and the advisability of having them or not, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, will forgive me if I suggest that he has gone a good deal further than that this afternoon. As to differential speed limits, all your Lordships who have been abroad and driven cars in France will have experienced them. The only thing I have noticed about their operation is that, for the most part, they are completely disregarded. I should like to know from the Ministry of Transport—I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will be able to tell us—what is the real policy of the Ministry. What does 40 m.p.h. represent, as against 30 m.p.h.? One cannot always tell when one is in a 30 m.p.h. speed limit, but the general surroundings do give a certain indication—there are houses, and we are told to look for street lamps and the like—and I think that that limit has been accepted as being a reasonable one. But now we are to have this 40 m.p.h. limit. What does it mean? Does it mean that 40 m.p.h. is safer than any other speed? Does it mean that the road on which a 40 m.p.h. speed limit is in operation is any safer than that with a 30 m.p.h. limit?
  It seems to me crazy, when we study the problem of traffic as a whole, that we should spend millions of pounds making new roads, only to cancel out the good done. Only the other day the noble Lord opened the construction of the London—Birmingham motor way. Suppose that that motor way is completed in nineteen months, as I think it is due to be, it is possible that after another nineteen months somebody will say "Let us have a 40 m.p.h. speed limit over this stretch; it will only be a short

  821
  stretch and it will not matter much". What is the good of spending an enormous amount of money on roads such as, for example, Western Avenue or the Great West Road, and promptly proceeding to nullify very largely the advantage of the means of access to and from London by imposing special limits upon them? Surely, the Ministry of Transport should try to avoid putting a limit on important arterial roads.
  One has not been able to see a lot of the working of the 40 m.p.h. limit, but I have noticed a few roads upon which it is intended to place that limit. One such road that I know well—it may not be known to many of your Lordships—is a road running from Greenford to the iron bridge at Southall. It is a 50-ft. wide road, and I do not think it has a bad accident record. Recently 40 m.p.h. limit repeater signs appeared on the lamp posts, whereas previously it had been an unrestricted road. That happened one morning, but the next morning somebody—I do not know whether it was the Ministry of Transport or not—went along with a lot of brown paper and covered up the 40 m.p.h. limit signs. It is a road that I use often, and ever since then I have been watching for the disintegration of the brown paper and the re-emergence of the 40 m.p.h. limit signs. I do not know whether that road is intended to be restricted or de-restricted. But, in any case, it is absurd to have a 40 m.p.h. or even a 30 m.p.h. limit on it: it has never been restricted. As I say, I do not think it has a bad accident record and there are hardly any houses near it once you are clear of Greenford itself.
  Take another case, that of the Western Avenue. There we have Northolt Aerodrome, which your Lordships know well. There is a twin-track road that goes through, with only one opening of any importance between the Hillingdon roundabout and the Northolt roundabout, and that is at the entrance to Northolt Aerodrome itself. That is an obvious road intersection and nobody can miss it; it comes in on only one side and does not go across to the other. The other day I noticed in the newspaper that somebody had suggested that a limit should be placed on this twin-track road that goes through open country for the whole of its course. The Minister, instead of treading on the suggestion, as one would
  822
  imagine he would, because there is no possible reason for putting a 40 m.p.h. limit on that road—there is not one house along it, and nowhere can a child run across—has referred it to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. What on earth can be the advantage of doing that? Surely it is one of those cases where the Minister, with all the experience of his Department behind him, could make up his own mind without having to consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, who have far more important matters to which to turn their attention in the central area of London itself—I mean matters besides parking meters, which seems to be one of their principal activities at the moment.
  Can we be told how the various stretches of road that have been restricted to 40 m.p.h. have been selected? If one knew that, one would be in a much better position to avoid making rather absurd criticisms of the Minister and his Department. We should all be together with hint. But it is quite impossible to judge how those 40 m.p.h. sections of road have been selected.
  There is one point upon which I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister. The repeater signs which have been put up in various restricted areas are really useful. There are a few in the 30 m.p.h. areas, and a few in the 40 m.p.h. areas. But they are not going up fast enough. If the erection of these repeater signs could be pressed on with, I believe they would do a good deal of good. As we all know, it is easily possible to find oneself in a restricted stretch of road without in the least knowing that it is restricted. As one who has motored through the length and breadth of the country, I have noticed that there are many areas in the Midlands and in the North where the local authorities have not been sufficiently diligent in seeing to the erection of these signs.
  I have said as much as I wish to say, but I want to know what is the policy of the Minister with regard to the erection of 40 m.p.h. signs. How have the restricted 40 m.p.h. areas been selected? Is it an experiment, as we have been told, and if so how long will the experiment continue before the Minister expects to be able to tell us the result? I urge upon the Government to keep both the 40 m.p.h.

  823
  and 30 m.p.h. restricted areas off the new main arterial roads. Keep those roads as free as you can. It is possible that if the Minister is able to give us a satisfactory reply to the various points I have ventured to raise, we shall be behind him in his effort. But let it be a common-sense effort, and not one promoted by such an organisation as the Pedestrians' Association or something like that.
  5.34 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I think your Lordships owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Goschen for having raised this Motion to-day, and I should like to support his quest for further information from the Government. My approach to the question is that, whatever may be the result of this experiment, it is intensifying the already harsh lot of the private motorist. He is being made the central subject of a further Government road experiment. The private motorist may be responsible individually for various misdeeds, but collectively he is a good citizen, doing his best to obey the laws. He feels something like this: that if he goes too fast he is told he is dangerous; if he goes too slow he is told he is holding up the traffic; if he stops he is usually told to go on, and if he goes on he is usually ordered to stop. He is taxed for roads, but the money does not go on the roads; when he is given roads they are often too rough and too obstructed to go fast, and when the roads are smooth and straight he is restricted. I think the private motorist deserves a higher degree of consideration than Government Departments usually give him.
  On this particular subject, on March 26 the Minister Without Portfolio said that this experiment had two aims. First, he said that it was a restriction on safety grounds; and then, in his answer to supplementary questions, we found there was a second purpose, which was to speed the flow of traffic. Both those objectives are admirable, no doubt, but I think we are entitled to know which is paramount—which is the primary purpose of this experiment—safety, or speeding the flow. If it is safety, then before this experiment is converted into anything permanent there should be published figures in relation to the particular sections of road on
  824
  which the experiment is taking place which will convince, not officialdom, but the public, that accidents are being avoided, that injury is being reduced, and that life is being saved. If the Government can publish that in full, I am sure they will have the support of all the community, including the motoring public. But until they can show such figures I submit that it is quite illogical to build fast, straight roads which are not intended to have any speed limit, and then put a limit upon them.
  On the second aim, that of speeding the flow, I find it somewhat difficult—and perhaps the Minister will throw some light on this point—to see how the 40 m.p.h. limit will speed traffic throughout the whole day, because there is always a variable load of traffic according to the particular road and the hour of the day. For instance, on the Great West Road it might be said that when there is much traffic a 40 m.p.h. limit will succeed in its purpose of speeding the traffic. But at lunch time to-day I came up from London Airport along the Great West Road, and I can assure your Lordships that keeping to a 40 m.p.h. limit in fact prevented one from getting to your Lordships' House with that speed which it was possible to do with complete safety. Again, speeding the flow of traffic is an admirable objective, but I submit to your Lordships that before this experiment is converted into anything permanent the public have a right to hear something more than just a Government declaration that the experiment is considered successful—that, if I may say so, the pedestrian in White hall knows what is good for the motorist better than the motorist himself. We want chapter-and-verse proof that the experiment in the secondary aim of speeding the traffic has justified itself. One thought occurs to my mind. Speeding private motorists in and out of London means more and more in, and more and more out. I was reading yesterday that Sir Brian Robertson, the Chairman of the Transport Commission, called for fewer and fewer in, and fewer and fewer out. I should like to have an assurance that the Government know in which vehicle they are riding—what I would call the "Mancroft" or the "Robertson" model.
  This experiment has an important public relations aspect. It will be for the police in due course to enforce a 40 m.p.h. limit on roads which may be clear

  825
  and take 60 m.p.h. with complete safety. I believe there is more bad blood made between the citizens of this country and the police through traffic work than any other single cause. What we want to build up is mutual confidence between the motoring public and the police, and not a feeling of mutual hostility, or at any rate on the one side a feeling that the aim of the police is to get at the motorist when he breaks the law, even though his offence is really a technical one. The citizen motorist must be convinced by figures, by information, that this experiment is a success. Otherwise, I submit to the Government that it would be wiser to drop it at the end of the initial experimental period.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, in the Report on the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in the London traffic area various views are expressed, very diverse views, on the increase or decrease of speed limits down to the 20 m.p.h. limit that is mentioned by the Pedestrians' Association. I should like to support the plea of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, against the extension of the 40 m.p.h. limit areas. However, I should like also to support a higher limit of 45 m.p.h. for a great number of areas at the moment limited to 30 m.p.h. I think it is almost indisputable that speed limits are unenforceable unless they are constantly supervised by policemen who are visible to the motorist. Motorists will then slow down; but if they do not see a policeman or a police car very few take a great deal of notice of the limits—at any rate, few of the faster drivers, who are the people that matter in this case. They are: the people who will take little heed. The effectiveness of a speed limit depends primarily and almost wholly on the willing co-operation of drivers to obey that limit. Therefore, those limits must command the respect of drivers. Motorists must be "sold" the desire to keep to those limits, and they can be "sold" that desire only if those limits are sensible speed limits and relate to the density of the traffic and the housing.
  The motoring organisations say that the 30 m.p.h. limit in the outskirts and on fast roads quickly becomes the minimum speed and not the maximum speed at which motorists in fact drive. These unjustifiable speed limits soon bring a tendency by most drivers to dis
  826
  regard them altogether, and this, of course, brings the whole system into disrepute. I believe that this 40 m.p.h. limit, if it is instituted, is not fast enough on arterial roads like the Great West Road to be considered justifiable, and if those roads are going to be restricted at all the limit should be at least 45 m.p.h.; otherwise, the motorists will use their own discretion. I believe that the utmost care and restraint (and this has been fully stressed in these reports) must be used in the selection of areas, and there should certainly be no extension of the present areas but a reduction of them, if anything.
  It is most necessary to avoid being led by local pressures, because many of the local councils consider that their piece of roadway is particularly dangerous, and from the national point of view this adds up to thousands of restricted miles for the long-distance motorist. May I give two examples? There is a road at Marton, in Yorkshire, where for miles there is an unbroken wall on one side and an unbroken hedge on the other; there are no houses. The limit ends only just before a rather dangerous crossroads, where you are allowed to go at any speed you wish. There is another road between Acklam and Thornaby, and the only possible human beings concerned—there are no houses—are the 10,000 or 12,000 who lie at peace and, one hopes, in safety, in the cemetery. The speed limits are not designed for the slow driver; they are designed for the driver who would go too fast. Therefore whatever limit is imposed must be fast enough to be acceptable to him as well as be safe for the other road users.
  The county councils in their report say that 45 m.p.h. would command the respect of the motoring public. Therefore, again, if there must be a second speed limit, let it be 45 m.p.h. and not 40 m.p.h. Furthermore, a higher limit where it is at present 30 m.p.h. would reduce overtaking, which at the moment takes place a great deal on the outskirts of towns—people who are not prepared to go at 30 m.p.h. overtake and cause accidents. I think 45 m.p.h. is not excessive, because modern cars are much steadier. They have good brakes, and being fast cars people are more used to driving them at speed and do not consider 45 m.p.h. to be too fast for a great many of the roads at present restricted to 30 m.p.h. I feel that this restriction

  827
  should be controlled on a more national plan, and should not be allowed to be extended by local authorities who, from sectional interests, might restrict too much roadway. It is far better to remove the dangers of road conditions than to impose new limits. One of the big dangers on the roads on the outskirts of towns, I feel—and I think many of your Lordships will agree—is parked cars, which compel drivers to pull out to get past them, and then if other people are coming up behind them there may be an accident. I think that kind of thing causes quite a lot of accidents.
  The Pedestrians' Association have considerable worries over the speeds of motor vehicles and about the possibility of a 40 m.p.h. limit. I think there is little they need worry about, because at the moment the 30 m.p.h. limits are, to a great extent, not obeyed. It is more important for the Pedestrians' Association to start making plans to keep pedestrians off the roads by the provision of crossings acceptable to pedestrians, with no steps, so that perambulators, and so on, can be wheeled over or under the roads. It is to the mutual advantage of the pedestrians and the motorists that they should be kept separate. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee unanimously stressed the desire for complete separation of various classes of road users.
  Furthermore those means should be physical means and not legal compulsion. I believe that the new Cromwell Road has a very effective fence down the middle, and this stops a great amount of jaywalking. Some of your Lordships know Newcastle. I would draw attention to Northumberland Street which is like driving down a market; people pay no attention to traffic and wander across throughout the whole length, and consequently the number of accidents is very large. What is very important, I think, is that no further development should take place on town approaches. At the moment, in spite of all the legislation against ribbon development a great number of houses are built along the main roads outside the towns. I feel that in a few years' time roads within twenty or ten miles of any large town will be restricted. This is going to have an appalling effect on those who work in the centre of those towns. I feel that more stringent
  828
  legislation should be introduced to stop any further "crawling-out" of houses into the countryside. Council estates are normally set well away from the main roads, which is excellent planning.
  There exists a rather odd idea in this Report that restriction to 30 or 40 m.p.h. would allow the maximum volume of traffic to go along a given road. This may or may not be correct in a peak period, but as the peak period lasts only about four hours a day, I cannot believe that during the remaining twenty hours this restriction to an even flow will in fact exist. To speed travel into the towns without actually increasing the speed of vehicles, the British Transport Commission have suggested a much greater priority to the main routes as against the intersecting routes. I think I am right in saying that at Slough there is a large number of traffic lights which have been put up in an attempt to phase the lights, so that one cannot go at more than a certain speed, and if one does one is stopped by the lights. This is only another means of frustrating the motorist, to make him lose his patience, as he certainly will do, however deplorable that may be; and it only disrupts the even flow of traffic. I feel, too, that roundabouts and lights on the main roads should to a great extent be reduced and that the sideways should be phased-in on the more modern system.
  There is only one worry I have in regard to the 45 m.p.h. speed limit, wherever it may be, but particularly on the outskirts of towns—I must apologise to your Lordships for keeping you so long, but this is my last point. A large number of accidents occur on a certain type of road, which happens to be a T-junction. No less than 42½ per cent. of accidents involving two cars are caused by a car turning to the right. I wonder whether much consideration has been given to changing the Highway Code, or to some form of alteration of the system, so that these accidents caused by cars turning to the right may be reduced.
  5.55 p.m.
  LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, in rising to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Goschen I think I may be accused by some of riding my pet hobby-horse. Be that as it may, I can only say that he is a very good horse—though he has one

  829
  great objection; namely, to being reined in when it is totally unnecessary and unreasonable. Before I deal specifically with the matter in the Motion—that is, the 40 m.p.h. limit—I should like to make a few remarks about speed limits generally. There is a large body of opinion to-day which Molds that speed, per se, is dangerous. This is quite untrue, as has been proved by figures given by the motoring organisations, which show that only a small percentage of accidents can be put down to speed alone. Naturally, if there is an accident a higher speed will make it more severe. On the other hand, I think one must realise that accidents are more due to careless driving than to fast driving. One can get over that problem only by having a more critical review of our driving tests. I will come to that matter in a moment.
  One constantly hears people say that there is a craze for speed to-day, and that drivers are rushing along madly seeing how fast they can get from one place to another. I have a strong suspicion that most of the people who say that are non-drivers. If speed is undesirable, why is it that we are spending such vast sums of money in speeding up our railways and our airlines? One has to remember that the pleasure motorist is in a small minority to-day. Most people drive to get from one point to another for business or other reasons; and the less time they spend in actual transit the better, both economically and otherwise. That being the case, I hold that the speed limits should be cut down to an absolute minimum. I should like to quote again the paragraph which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, quoted from the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Sub-Committee, which says:
  A speed limit should never be imposed unless there is clear justification for it. The effectiveness of a speed limit depends primarily on the willing co-operation of drivers. If a speed limit is imposed without justification drivers tend to disregard it, and this brings the whole system of speed limits into disrepute."
  I can hardly agree more strongly with any words.
  With regard to the 30 m.p.h. limit, I think most of us would agree that in the centre of a town it is probably necessary, although, as has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, it is just as possible to do silly things at under 30 m.p.h. as it is at over that
  830
  speed. However, I think we all agree that probably a limit in towns is desirable. But the point is that these 30 m.p.h. limits are not confined to built-up areas. A "built-up "area is defined as that which has lamp posts at certain intervals. If ever there was a piece of legislation which approached nearer to the point of inanity, I should like to know what it was. Why on earth should a piece of road which previously was uncontrolled, and along which it was perfectly safe to drive at 60 m.p.h., suddenly become unsafe because lamp posts have appeared along the side of it? I can think of many examples. I think, in particular, of one stretch of road, going south from Oxford, along which there stretches, I think for about two miles, a row of lamp posts with no houses in sight, and perfectly open country. It is a wide road—I should think a four-lane road; but there are lamp posts there, and so the 30 m.p.h. limit applies. Of course, many boroughs which have rather a bee in their bonnets (if I may put it that way) about this question of speed in relation to safety, have erected these lamp posts purely for that purpose.
  I believe that the whole attitude that the road is primarily for the pedestrian must be revised very severely. I am not saying for a moment that a pedestrian has no place on the road, or that his safety should be disregarded; and nobody could be more anxious than I am to preserve road safety and to reduce fatalities. But one has to realise that to-day the road is primarily for the motorist, and that when the pedestrian goes on the road he must do his part to ensure the safety of the traffic. Many accidents are caused by people stepping off the pavement irresponsibly, without looking in one direction or the other, and thereby causing a motorist to swerve and possibly crash into somebody else.
  Let us turn now to the actual stretches on which a 40 m.p.h. limit has been introduced. On the whole, the motoring organisations were not in favour of a differential speed limit, but they felt that on stretches in the London area where a 30 m.p.h. limit was unjustifiable a 40 m.p.h. limit would help to speed the traffic. What have we found? We have found that on some thirty miles of road which previously had a 30 m.p.h. limit the Minister has introduced a 40 m.p.h. limit, but that on more than twice that

  831
  mileage a 40 m.p.h. limit has been introduced on roads which previously were decontrolled. What is the point of that? Will it increase safety? Is it justifiable in any sense of the word? Another question I should like to raise is: Should local authorities be the deciding bodies as to whether a 40 m.p.h. limit should be introduced? My answer to that is definitely "No". What would be thought of a railway system which had a different type of signalling and a different ratio of speeds over a certain stretch of its line, simply because it had crossed the county border? To-day our trunk roads have to be looked on in much the same light as the railways as a means of fast transport. In fact, so far as commercial traffic is concerned, we all know that the roads are rapidly taking the place of the railways.
  LORD MATHERS: Shame!
  LORD SOMERS: My Lords, one point I would stress is that the trunk roads in and out of London, such as the Great West Road (perhaps the Great North Road is rather a sore point, as we all know its shortcomings) and other similar trunk roads, should not be subject to these limits. Where the roads are clear of the central built-up area they should be free of restriction. The good motorist is not going to drive faster than is safe. Of course one will always have the hooligan who is going to disregard any kind of regulations whatsoever. Here I should like to say a word about our present driving tests. They do nothing to eliminate the hooligan, because naturally the hooligan is on his best behaviour when he is taking his driving test. It is the psychological side that needs to be gone into much more, and I believe that a much more severe test—something in the nature of that given by the Institute of Advanced Motorists—should be considered, and that a motorist who wishes to obtain a licence should drive with an experienced member of some motoring organisation for a period of, shall we say, not less than one month, at any rate, over varying conditions of road before he is allowed to have his licence at all.
  We are told that these limits are experimental. I should be very glad if the noble Lord who is to reply can give us some indication of when the experiment is to end, and also an assurance that when
  832
  that time comes the limits will be removed until they have been further discussed in Parliament. Personally, I do not think very much will be discovered from them. If the accident rate has decreased slightly, there will be no proof whatever that it is due to the imposition of a 40 m.p.h. limit: it might have done so in any case. I believe that this idea that speed is the main factor in accidents must be exploded, and that careful driving with speed should be the maxim of the motorist.
  6.6 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I would say that most, if not all, the points that could possibly be raised on this Motion have been dealt with to-day. With our somewhat elastic Standing Orders, the debate has ranged far and wide beyond the terms of the Motion. There are, however, one or two points which perhaps I might keep the House for a few moments to emphasise. I have read very carefully the evidence placed before the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and I am certainly not impressed with the various reasons advanced for the introduction of a differential speed limit. We have debated this subject this afternoon without information as to the success or otherwise of the 40 m.p.h. limit trials which have been taking place recently on certain sections of trunk road, and I suggest that it would have been more helpful (I do not say this in a derogatory way) if the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government had spoken immediately after the noble Viscount who moved the Motion.
  I cannot help feeling that if differential speed limits are introduced in a large way they will have the effect of confusing motorists and perhaps producing a dangerous situation. The experience of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit tends to show that the nominal maximum speed limit becomes the minimum speed limit, which under certain traffic conditions may be too high. The object of this exercise of a 40 m.p.h. limit is to maintain uniform speed, but I believe it is true to say that experience in America shows that if all vehicles are travelling at the same speed on any particular stretch of road a kind of mesmeric effect is produced on drivers, often with fatal results; and if a hold-up or accident occurs, numbers of cars pile up one upon another. Unless Her Majesty's Government have been able to obtain conclusive

  833
  data during the recent trials proving the differential speed limit to be a success, I suggest that we should do well to retain the 30 m.p.h. limit on the present basis; and certainly I cannot help feeling that the trials have not yet gone on long enough.
  I suggest that roads should be either restricted to 30 m.p.h. or entirely derestricted, leaving the appropriate speed to the discretion of the driver himself. I fully appreciate that the object behind a higher speed limit is to allow speeds greater than 30 m.p.h. on roads where conditions are suitable, but I cannot help feeling that because of the pressure from local authorities few of the existing 30 m.p.h. limits would be raised; rather would a differential limit be imposed on roads which are at present derestricted—indeed, as we know, this has already happened in quite a number of cases. I hope that where a speed limit of 40 miles an hour has been imposed, and there is a substantial improvement to that road, the speed limit will be reviewed. I am sure we should all be most interested to hear from the Minister the results of trials which have already taken place.
  6.10 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty as I have not prepared a speech for this debate, but in view of the fact that this debate has widened itself beyond the terms of the Motion I feel it only right that there should be at least one speech from this side of the House. I personally believe that the noble Viscount who put this Motion on the Order Paper would have given a greater service to this House and to the country if it had been put down in. broader terms, so as to encourage more people to attend the House and to listen to the debate and to make contributions. I am thinking particularly of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who holds very strong views on this subject. Apart from the fact that the Motion appeared to relate to a purely technical matter, there was a reason why he might have found it difficult to attend; but if the Motion had been in wider terms I think he would have done his best to come.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and it was entirely owing to
  834
  his indisposition that he did not speak; and for no other reason.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I still think that, if it had been a wider debate, it might have been possible for him to come.
  On this question of speed limit there are quite a number of problems. I think we can all sympathise with the desire for people to move from A to B as fast as possible, but we must remember that the roads belong to the nation. Many different types of people drive cars. There are the young, and not so young, capable drivers who can drive fast cars. There are elderly people; there are infirm people who are using the roads; there are cyclists. We have many lorries; we have many coaches; and we must also remember the use of the roads by the pedestrians. When we start considering speed limits I think we have to consider all these people.
  I myself would suggest that there is a greater case for more control of speed limits than for decontrol. I had an experience yesterday in driving on the A.5 road to Northampton: it was a hair-raising experience. There was a form of control, and that was exercised by the heavy vehicles. The cars were diving in and out in a most dangerous manner. I should have thought that, if there had been a speed limit on that road of 45 or 50 m.p.h., there would be a much more even flow of traffic, and one could have driven in a great deal more safety and comfort. I am not very happy about the 40 m.p.h. limit: I think it is too close to the 30 m.p.h. limit. When one has been driving for a long distance one starts to feel that 30 m.p.h. is crawling. There is very little difference between 30 and 40 m.p.h. I should have preferred to see those roads which demand a 40 m.p.h. limit given a 30 m.p.h. limit. But I believe that on many of our roads in this country a 50 m.p.h. limit should be instituted. That would permit traffic to move much more smoothly and with a great deal more safety.
  I should like to make only two suggestions, since this debate has extended itself rather widely. As your Lordships know, one of the pleasant occupations of local authorities is to dig holes in roads, and this practice causes considerable danger and inconvenience. I should like to see a rule that, where road works are

  835
  being carried out on a road which is normally uncontrolled, for some distance on either side of the road works a 30 m.p.h. speed limit should come into effect. I experienced a case only the other day when driving at a reasonably fast speed. I suddenly came across some little lights in the road. I thought it was positively dangerous. The other point I should like to make is this. if we are to have decontrolled roads, parking should be forbidden on such roads. There are to-day plenty of lay-bys, and I think that people should be forced to use them. If parked cars were taken off the road it would prevent a great deal of danger. I have spoken very briefly, and perhaps not quite correctly. As I say, I regret that this debate has not been in the presence of a fuller House, so that there could have been more support from this side.
  6.16 p.m.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the Motion of my noble friend Lord Goschen refers to "special" speed limits. The 40 m.p.h. limit, which we have been principally discussing this afternoon, is, as your Lordships now realise, not so much a "special" speed limit as an experimental speed limit. It is an experiment, and, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Teynham has pointed out, a new experiment. I hope it is in the sense of an experiment that your Lordships will view the whole question this evening, because that is how I propose to regard it.
  There will certainly have to be modifications to many of the proposals which are now being tried out. We do not suggest for one moment that these experiments are final and not subject to change. That is the point of an experiment. Your Lordships will ask, "What is the object of the exercise? What is the object of the experiment?" The answer is perfectly simple. We are frequently told, in nearly all debates such as this, up and down the country, that the accident rate upon our roads is nothing short of a national scandal. We are also told that unless something is done about the quantity and flow of traffic upon the roads of this country, particularly those near the big cities, traffic will soon grind to a standstill. The object of this experiment,
  836
  therefore (and here my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye explained my remarks perfectly correctly) is to reduce the number of accidents that are due to speeding and overtaking; and, secondly. to try to get a more even flow of traffic on the busier main roads. I regard those two things as complementary. I think it is perfectly logical that if there is an uneven, spasmodic flow of traffic it will increase the incidence of accidents. My Lords, on that point the statistics bear me out.
  The London area is the obvious place to start this experiment. Indeed, in starting the experiment in the London area my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is only falling into line with the wishes which your Lordships have frequently expressed. We were discussing this very topic on the Road Traffic Act. 1956. if this London experiment proves successful, as I hope it will, and if my right honourable friend receives Parliamentary sanction which he will seek in that case. I can assure my noble friend Lord Somers that the Minister proposes to apply the new speed limit to places outside London where, as in the London area, some speed limit is warranted but 30 m.p.h. is unrealistic. As we all know there are lengths of road leading into certain towns, before the 30 m.p.h. area is likely to be reached, which are suitable for a 40 m.p.h. limit. This is only an application of what is called the "fading" principle of speed limits, which has been widely and successfully practised in America.
  This is a controversial subject, but unfortunately all traffic experiments are of necessity controversial, and Her Majesty's Government prefer the risk of controversy, into which we have inevitably run on this matter, rather than to stand still and do nothing. Your Lordships will remember the controversy there was during the debates on the Road Traffic Bill about the proposal to give the police power to tow away vehicles that were causing obstruction. We were told that we were encroaching on the liberty of the subject" and that this" was an unpardonable trespass". Nevertheless, after much controversy this became the law and we hear nothing about it nowadays. I regret that. I wish we heard more about it.
  EARL HOWE: What about Harley Street?
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten the case reported in the papers of the Harley Street surgeon who complained that his professional work had been seriously impeded and possibly the lives of patients endangered by the fact that the police towed away his car, which had been left outside his consulting rooms?
  LORD MANCROFT: I remember that case very well. I am sorry that the noble Lord interrupted me before I had concluded what I was about to say. We have heard nothing to-day of the type of objection that was raised during the passing of the Bill, and 300 vehicles are towed away a week—I think it is satisfactory that that should be so. I much regret the case of the doctor, but that was not the type of case which I had in mind when I started my sentence. That controversy ranged high and wide during the discussions in Parliament. The noble Lord, whose memory goes back farther than mine, will remember the controversy when the 30 m.p.h. limit was first moved in the 1934 Bill, which was in charge of the late Lord Hore-Belisha. That has contributed to the reduction of accidents: the statistics prove that. I am prepared to admit that there are probably logical objections to every scheme put forward to reduce accidents and try to speed the flow of traffic.
  I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind for a moment the reason why these regulations have been put before Parliament. In November, 1954, the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation asked the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to review the 30 m.p.h. built-up-area speed limit as applied to roads of traffic importance in the London traffic area, with special reference to whether the present law on the speed limit met modern conditions—faster cars, a different flow of traffic and wider roads. My right honourable friend announced in Parliament on May 9, 1956, that he had accepted most of the recommendations in the Report, including that relating to the 40 m.p.h. speed limit. What is more, the desirability of such an experiment is clearly implied in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. That Act also shows that Parliament envisaged the possibility of 40 m.p.h. becoming a second substan
  838
  tive speed limit and not a special speed limit, as may be implied by the wording of my noble friend's Motion.
  What is the correct figure? I think that my noble friends Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Gisborough are right when they say that the correct speed limit is the one that can be enforced because motorists regard it as reasonable and see the need for sticking to it. If a large majority of careful drivers—and a large number of drivers, surprisingly enough, are very careful—stick to a speed limit on any stretch of road, then that limit is probably the correct one. In order to be able to answer this debate as best I could, I have driven over the entire range of roads in the London area which are included in this experiment and I have been surprised to find how often, even in the early stages of the experiment and before the plans are complete, the 40 m.p.h. limit turns out in normal conditions and at normal times of the day to be the right, or roughly the right, speed. The difference between 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. is often greater than is mathematically apparent. As the Highway Code tells us, at 30 m.p.h. a motorist can brake to a standstill in 45 feet at 40 m.p.h., he needs 80 feet.
  I think that the Committee's conclusions are also worth looking at. In considering the case for a differential speed limit, the Committee took evidence from various interested organisations. Naturally there was a great deal of opposition and controversy, but the majority of the Committee concluded that the weight of evidence was distinctly in favour of a differential speed limit, and I am certain that my right honourable friend was right to accept that advice. While recognising that each case should be considered on its merits, the Committee thought that on main roads the 40 m.p.h., speed limit could be applied both in some built-up areas, which are usually subject to the 30 m.p.h. limit, and also in some partially developed areas where many roads were previously de-restricted but where high speeds had obviously been an important factor in the accident rate. That is the point I should like your Lordships to remember, and it is the governing factor. On most main roads leading into London, there exist one or more fringe areas where these conditions apply before the truly built-up area is reached.

  839
  We have discussed this afternoon whether the correct limit should be 30, 40, 45 or 50 m.p.h. The British Transport Commission were in favour of 40 m.p.h. as a uniform speed limit on the main traffic routes in the London traffic area. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, wants 50 m.p.h.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did not mean 50 m.p.h. in the London area. I suggested 50 m.p.h. on some of the trunk roads which have not the modern three-line traffic, and 40 m.p.h. for inner London.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord will not endear himself to those noble Lords who think that the confusion between 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. is puzzling enough. The police were divided between 40 m.p.h. and 45 m.p.h. Some of the police were on the side of my noble friend, Lord Gisborough—not, I hope, for the first time in his life. On balance, the Committee favoured 40 m.p.h. as being in practice equivalent to an enforceable limit of 45 m.p.h.
  The Committee gave careful consideration to all interests—pedestrians, cyclists, motoring organisations and so on. Most of the views that were put forward to the Committee have been voiced in the debate this afternoon. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, may I emphasise the care and consideration that was given to the data that was provided, to the statistics that were examined and the views that were heard, so that your Lordships should be quite convinced that the experiment which is now in operation was not just a whim, thought up by my right honourable friend and myself in our baths? This has been given the most expert consideration before it was launched. It was examined by experts who had all the data available to them, particularly the accident rates, before they suggested that the experiment should be carried out.
  There have been one or two remarks about the 40 m.p.h. signs. Special signs have been prepared and I think that they indicate clearly where the 40 m.p.h. limit can be expected. As I have said, in the last few days I have driven over most of the roads on which the experiment is being carried out and I think that the signs are very clear. My noble friend Lord Goschen complained about the con
  840
  fusion of signs in certain areas. I agree that in certain areas there is a prolificity and confusion of other signs, about which we have heard much, and I sympathise with these complaints, but I noted that my noble friend wanted a warning yellow light before approaching crossing lights. I think that rather defeats the argument he was originally advancing. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that there has been some delay in getting all the signs up and that not all roads are fully signed, or yet satisfactorily illuminated. In general, signs are required to be lit by their own sign lamps, unless satisfactory illumination can be achieved by lighting from near-by street lamps or by the use of reflectors. I hope that these signs will be completed very soon.
  All your Lordships have asked, quite naturally, what deductions we draw from this experiment. It is far too early to assess the effects of the experiment. It has only recently been implemented, and I should not like to suggest that any conclusions of importance can be drawn from it yet. The police tell me that the new speed limit is being fairly well observed. Here I cordially agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye about the need for relations between the police and motorists to be as good as they can be; nothing is more likely to cause exacerbation than the frequent disobedience of a speed limit which the motorist believes is a silly one. That is why we want to make certain that this is the right figure.
  Careful tests are being carried out. Accident statistics for all the roads before and after the imposition of the new speed limit will also be carefully studied. I think it will be necessary to allow at least six months to elapse before any reliable results begin to emerge; and as my noble friend Lord Selkirk told your Lordships when he and I were responsible in your Lordships' House for the Road Traffic Act, 1956, it will be more like two years before a final decision can be made. In the course of those two years, as I have indicated, modifications to the scheme will most certainly have been made. We shall have to study carefully the flow of traffic and the technical and complicated figures which show whether anything has or has not been achieved in the desired direction. We shall also have to study the reaction of the motorist to see how

  841
  faithfully and sensibly motorists are or are not obeying the 40 m.p.h. limit.
  So I cannot hold out any hope—and I see no reason to do so—of an early decision as to whether this scheme is working. All I can say is—and I ask the House to agree with me—that it is perfectly right for the Government to try the scheme. Time after time we are asked why we do not do something about accidents, speeding, better roads and so on, and whenever the Government suggest something as an experiment, there are about nine people who find ten different reasons for trying eleven different experiments. They may all be right; but let us get on with this one and see whether it works. As an experiment, it will require modification. I hope that it will work, and my own personal view is that it will. I think it is here to stay, and I say, "A good job, too!"
  EARL HOWE: Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord a question, which I did ask in my speech; and if he cannot answer now. possibly he will send me a note. Is it the policy of the Ministry of Transport, so far as possible, to keep restricted areas off the main arterial roads?
  LORD MANCROFT: I did not answer that question on purpose, because I was not certain whether the noble Earl was referring to trunk roads or new motorways.
  EARL HOWE: There is the proposal I mentioned for the Western Avenue, near Northolt. I want to know whether the speed limits can be kept off the main arterial roads, so far as possible.
  LORD MANCROFT: I can give my noble friend the assurance that my right honourable friend would like to keep as many roads as possible as free from as many restrictions as possible, commensurate with safety and an even flow.
  6.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering my Motion, although I cannot say that I altogether agree with what he has said. I agree that it is of value for us all to know that something is being tried out, but whether it is a good thing to try out only one method of reducing accidents and increasing the flow of traffic, I am not sure. I should have thought it was worth while trying every
  842
  one. The noble Lord appeared to be rather critical of my suggestion of yellow lights, but there is a great deal of difference between a warning light and a traffic light. I appreciate that he has gone as far as he can at the moment, but I would ask him to speak to his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport about trying out the other methods to see whether they might: not work as well. In the hope that he will do that, and that whatever is done will eventually decrease the number of accidents, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ALL HALLOWS THE GREAT CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.] ALL HALLOWS THE LESS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bills was withdrawn: the Orders made on February 6 and March 5 last discharged, and Bills referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  CLERGY ORPHAN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
  AGRICULTURAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES