Sitting of 5 November 1958

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Education Branch
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air if he has yet completed his review of the future rôle of the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force, with particular regard to the promotion prospects of squadron leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): A detailed scheme has now been worked out and we are in touch with other Departments affected by our proposals. My right hon. Friend realises that there is anxiety about the promotion difficulties which could arise in the absence of special action, and he will let my hon. Friend know as soon as he is able to make a comprehensive statement.
    Mr. Johnson: May I ask my hon. Friend if he recalls that it is now three years since I was told that these matters were being considered? Can he now give an undertaking to put an end to this delay by making a statement, at any rate before the Christmas Recess? In so doing, will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to paragraph 189 of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Recruiting?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend will do his utmost to make an early decision on this matter, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that this matter affects other Departments as well as our own.

    Forward Scatter Stations
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air how many high power tropospheric forward scatter stations are to be set up in the United Kingdom; and what information as to the effects of radiation from these stations had been given to the appropriate local authorities.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation radar stations being installed on the East Coast can be used to give warning against rockets; and what steps his Department has taken to protect the population against the effects of radioactivity from these stations.
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the concern aroused by the Government's intention to build five high-powered tropospheric forward scatter stations as a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence requirement in this country, what consultation he has had with the United States Government to ascertain what area of no-man's-land would be required around each station; to what extent the radio frequency radiation would be harmful; and what estimate has been made of the necessary evacuations required in the operative zones.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Plans for constructing a small number of stations of this type are still being examined. They are for radio communications and not radar warning. The plans are being developed in full consultation with the appropriate N.A.T.O. authorities. Local interests will be consulted wherever this is required by the agreed planning procedure. The stations will be so designed and located that no radiation hazards will arise to the general public nor will any houses have to be evacuated.
    Mr. de Freitas: Whilst I certainly accept that there is very little possibility of any danger, may I ask whether it is a fact that the Air Ministry, with unnecessary secrecy, has not taken the local

    917
    authorities into its confidence and that this unnecessary secrecy has caused unnecessary anxiety? Can the hon. Gentleman give the House the scientific basis for saying that there is no radiation hazard?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Local authorities have been taken into consultation on this matter. As regards the scientific basis for my statement, the conclusion has been arrived at after mature consideration and consultation with the Medical Research Council, which is satisfied that radiation at the relevant wavelength has a thermal effect only and that there is no biological effect. There is, of course, no nuclear radiation whatsoever.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether these stations can be used to give warning of rocket attacks; if not, are not they in danger of being out of date in a very short time?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There is some misunderstanding on this point. These stations are purely for communication purposes—forward scatter stations for communication purposes. There are two types, ionospheric forward scatter and tropospheric forward scatter, but no radar comes into it at all.
    Mir. Mason: Whilst realising that this new technique may be an absolute necessity for the extension of our defence requirements, may I say that the hon. Gentleman must make it absolutely clear that there will be no danger whatsoever from the radiation emanating from the stations? Secondly, has any thought been given to the fact that this type of technique could be used for breaking up conversations between oncoming aircraft, or even upsetting the missile mechanisms that may be used?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I hope my statement has set anxiety about the dangers at rest. The hon. Gentleman referred to its military application. I have no doubt that in due course there will be a civil application of this advanced form of communication, but it will not he a question for my Department to answer. On the question of interference, there is, of course, careful co-ordination of frequency planning by the appropriate authority to make sure that there is no interference with normal communications and safety measures for aircraft.

    R.A.F. Station, Akrotiri (Damaged Aircraft)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air how many aircraft have been damaged by time-bombs at the Royal Air Force station, Akrotiri, during the last twelve months; and the value of the aircraft written off and the cost of repairs.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Five aircraft, valued at about £470,000, were written off after a fire in November, 1957. A Canberra damaged last month was flying again within a week and the cost of repairs is expected to be small.
    Mr. de Freitas: I recognise the difficulties facing troops on service in Cyprus, but is not it very alarming that security should be so had that operational aircraft on operational airfields can be subject to these attacks? What is being done to improve security?
    Mr. Ward: The Royal Air Force patrols at vulnerable points have been strengthened, and Cypriots have been replaced by British personnel as necessary. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that a very large number of aircraft have been staging through Cyprus in recent weeks, and I think great credit is due to the security authorities for having prevented more incidents.

    Transport Requirements
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air what proposals he has for ordering new aircraft for the transport of heavy equipment for the Services.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Air what decision he has made about the re-equipment of Transport Command with strategic freighter aircraft.
    Mr. Ward: Future Transport Command requirements for freighters are still being studied.
    Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that, when the time comes for placing orders for new aircraft for this purpose, the priorities will be settled so as to place orders for British aircraft if possible, but that, if it is impossible to get British aircraft to meet the requirements, aircraft will be bought which will be able to have British aero engines fitted to them?
    Mr. Ward: In our examination and study of our future transport requirements, and particularly in our study of future strategic freighter requirements, it was perfectly natural, and I think right, that we should have made a study of the capabilities of every aircraft available in every country, but this does not mean that we have taken any decision to order anything but British.

    Trooping Flights, Iraq
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now able to secure the right to fly British troops over Iraq; and what alternative arrangements he is making.
    Mr. Ward: Trooping flights have already been resumed over Iraq.
    Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, if there is any danger about being able to fly over Iraq in future, he will keep in mind that close co-ordination with the French in Africa is of vital importance?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. Of course, there are various other routes which can be used—the northern route over Turkey and Iran, and the southern route over Africa and Aden. Although it is much more convenient, it is not really indispensable.

    Vulcan Aircraft (Accident)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the loss, over Detroit, of the Vulcan aircraft which was flying from Lincoln to Lincoln, Nebraska.
    Mr. Ward: The accident occurred on the afternoon of 24th October as the Vulcan, which was on a training flight from R.A.F. Waddington to the U.S.A.F. base at Lincoln in Nebraska, was approaching Detroit. The captain of the aircraft in an emergency distress signal said that a complete electrical failure had occurred, and that the aircraft was descending. The captain then asked for a heading to the nearest airfield. A few minutes later the aircraft crashed in the outskirts of Detroit. Two people on the ground received bums but their condition is now reported not to be serious. I greatly regret that the crew of five and the crew chief flying in the aircraft lost their lives.
    920
    A Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry began its investigations in the United States two days after the accident. The Board is receiving every assistance from the United States Air Force, and the civil authorities.
    The House will I know wish to join with me in expressing sympathy with the bereaved.
    Mr. de Freitas: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I join with the Secretary of State in his expression of sympathy? Can he assure the House that this was a real, true training flight, and not a stunt in any way, in flying from Lincoln to Lincoln, Nebraska, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, if there is any fear that this was anything other than a true training flight, great harm and anxiety can be caused?
    Mr. Ward: I can readily give the assurance. This was one of the training flights which we call "Western Ranger", which take place quite frequently; but, of course, the aircraft was carrying a letter of greetings from the Mayor of Lincoln to the Mayor of Lincoln, Nebraska, and perhaps it was that which gave rise to the doubts.

    N.A.39 Aircraft
    Mr. Masonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department has now fully considered the potentialities of the N.A.39 aircraft; and if, with a few modifications, it will prove acceptable to the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Ward: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) on 30th June.
    Mr. Mason: Having in mind the fact that the discussions are still proceeding on the operational requirements of the 339, and that, even if agreed upon, it would take between seven and ten years to produce it, would not it be advisable to accept the N.A.39 with slight modifications at present, while keeping the 339 in mind?
    Mr. Ward: It really is not possible to simplify the issue quite as much as that. There are so many factors to be considered—the tasks we foresee, the various ways in which they can be met, and the length of life of the Canberra,

    921
    which has still got quite a lot of useful life in it. The important thing is to get the right answer, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are giving the matter very careful study.
    Mr. Mason: Would the life of the Canberra be at least seven years?
    Mr. Ward: I should not like to be specific on that, but certainly the later marks of the Canberra have got several years of useful life.

    Chief of the Air Staff (Statement)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the statement by the Chief of the Air Staff on the subject of Formosa made in Sheffield on 8th September represents Government policy.
    Mr. Ward: The Chief of the Air Staff made no statement about policy towards Formosa.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that, according to the Daily Telegraph of 9th September, the Air Chief Marshal is reported as saying:
    "We are confident that we could destroy Russia tomorrow."
    Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the pronoun "we" does not include the Secretary of State for Air? Does not he think it proper that Sir Dermot should be advised that his job is to defend us against our enemies, and not to try to create more of them?
    Mr. Ward: That supplementary question seems to be a little wide of the original Question, which dealt with policy towards Formosa. In any case, the Chief of the Air Staff certainly said no more about the power of the West than has been said on many occasions by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

    Perranporth Airfield
    Sir R. Conantasked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements are contemplated, when Perranporth Airfield is offered for sale, to ensure that it will continue to be available for gliding and private flying.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The gliding and flying club which uses the airfield at present does so under temporary arrangements. If it, or any other flying or gliding club, is interested in buying the airfield we
    922
    shall naturally be ready to consider its offer with other tenders. Otherwise, it will be for the club to negotiate new arrangements with the new owners.
    Sir R. Conant: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the very strong feeling that exists everywhere that gliding clubs and private flying should have every possible encouragement, and that where clubs of this sort are closed down, it is very difficult indeed to start them up again?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend is very mindful of those sentiments.
    Mr. Beswick: Has the Minister consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to see if something can be inserted in the contract of sale to ensure that there are facilities for private and glider flying in that part of the country?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is another question, which may be put down on the Order Paper. There are a number of other airfields in that part of the country, and this Question particularly concerns Perranporth airfield.
    Mr. G. Wilson: Will my hon. Friend agree that there are two tenders which have been put in, and that both would protect the existence of the flying clubs?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is not normal public practice to reveal how many tenders are put in until after the closing date, and it would be quite wrong to make a true and accurate answer to that question.

    Night Flying, Strubby Aerodrome
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will take action to stop night flying from the Strubby Aerodrome, in response to the petition signed by 98 villagers from Maltby-le-Marsh, most of whom are agricultural workers, and who feel doubly the loss of sleep owing to night flying during the harvest season when their work is unusually heavy.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Night flying is an essential part of the training undertaken at Strubby and I am afraid we cannot agree that it should stop. So far as possible, flying is completed before midnight with the object of limiting disturbance, but it may sometimes be necessary to go on later, particularly if the programme has been held up by bad weather.
    Mr. Osborne: My constituents are well aware that some night-flying must take place, but will my hon. Friend look into the position to ensure that night flying is kept to the minimum?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is done, and will continue to be done. I would point out that of all the nights in September and October, night flying took place after midnight on only five. Naturally, we try to keep down the disturbance to an absolute minimum.

    School Accommodation, North Cotes
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the growing number of men stationed at North Cotes, Lincolnshire, who have children of school age, and the already inadequate school accommodation in the village school, if he will make available the now disused school on the Royal Air Force camp for the joint use of all children in the district.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I am afraid there is no accommodation that could be made immediately available. There is no children's school at the station and the buildings which formerly housed the Armament and Bombing School are now used for other purposes.
    Mr. Osborne: A lot of young married officers are going to this station and most of them have young children. In view of that, and because the present village school is totally inadequate to provide accommodation, could one of the buildings not at present being used be made available to the local education authority, both for village children and the children on the station? Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend is aware of the increasing problem of finding educational accommodation for the very large population moving to this station. We shall certainly see whether anything can be achieved in co-operation with the local education authority.

    Aircraft Control
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Air what action he is taking to improve the present control system in order to reduce the risks of collision between military and civil aircraft.
    Mr. Ward: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has already announced far reaching plans to provide continuous radar surveillance of all aircraft using the airways over this country. Meanwhile, in conjunction with the civil authorities, arrangements are being made for the increasing use of R.A.F. radar to reinforce existing measures of control in areas where this is of most value.
    Mr. Lipton: I welcome the intention expressed by the right hon. Gentleman to do something about this. Is he aware that the air lanes are more crowded than ever with the addition of high-speed jets? Is he quite satisfied that enough has been done, or will be done, to set up a foolproof control system which will apply to British and American Service aircraft in this country as well as to civil aircraft?
    Mr. Ward: This is a joint problem, and we are well aware of its importance and urgency. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation towards a joint solution, and we shall give my right hon. Friend all the help he requires.
    Mr. Lipton: When?
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the Minister say whether the Government accept the principle of unified civil and military control?
    Mr. Ward: The control of the civil airways is a matter for the civil authorities but where special arrangements can be supplemented by existing R.A.F. radar, we are certain that they should be.
    Mr. Beswick: Does the Minister understand that it is not a question of supplementation but of joint control? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the resolution passed at Delhi a week ago calling for positive and unified control of both civil and military aircraft?
    Mr. Ward: The question of joint control is one which we have very much in mind. I am sorry if I misunderstood the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas).

    Incident, Sculthorpe
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give information to the House about the incident of the berserk American airman at the atom

    925
    base; and whether he has been given a full report by the United States authorities.
    Mr. Ward: I am informed that at about midday last Thursday a U.S.A.F. sergeant, armed with a pistol, locked himself in a building on the base at Sculthorpe and threatened to commit suicide. Precautions were taken by the U.S.A.F. to protect personnel and property. Every effort was made to persuade the sergeant to surrender. He did so after some eight hours and was immediately admitted to hospital. No one was injured and there was no damage to property.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sad and tragic incident demonstrates the accuracy of the point made by the Opposition about grounding planes carrying hydrogen bombs over this country? Could not this incident have occurred in an aircraft during a flight, which would make it a matter of concern to the British people? Is not he aware that the other day the Mayor of Los Angeles made a greater fuss with his Government over an incident less likely to cause damage to the public than this incident in East Anglia?
    Mr. Ward: On more than one occasion in the past I have made it clear to the House that it is impossible for one individual to set off a nuclear explosion either in the air or on the ground. Regarding the storage of these weapons on the ground, it would be impossible for a single individual to set off an explosion, even assuming that he could get into the building, which I think would be impossible.

  SHIPPING

    Oil Discharges
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give consideration to the provision of air patrols around the British coast to detect ships which pump out their bilges too near the shore.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): In the course of their normal flying duties Service aircraft already keep a look-out for discharges of oil at sea. The expense of providing special air patrols for this purpose would not be justified.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that one of the difficulties of the present situation is that of detection and that the presence of even one or two spotting aircraft would have a psychological effect in greater proportion than the cost involved?
    Mr. Neave: My hon. Friend is right. He will know that arrangements for spotting by Service aircraft have been in existence for a number of years and we believe that to be a valuable deterrent.

  ROADS

    Lighting
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if his attention has been drawn to the investigations carried out by the Road Research Laboratory on roads before and after lighting had been provided, indicating a reduction in personal injury accidents at night of nearly 30 per cent.; and if he will consider arranging for the continuous lighting of motor ways and the possibility of such lighting being installed experimentally on the Preston By-Pass.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I am having carefully studied the investigations carried out by the Road Research Laboratory on the accident rate at night, before and after the lighting of roads. These investigations related, however, to lighting in or near built-up areas on all-purpose roads carrying mixed traffic, including pedestrians and cyclists, and conditions on the motorways will be very different. I am not at present satisfied that continuous lighting on motorways is required, but the lighting requirements for motorways in this country are being studied jointly with the Road Research Laboratory, and experience on the Preston By-Pass, which initially will not be lighted, should provide useful data.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that motor cars may reach very great speeds on this new road, which would create quite unusual conditions even in an age of speed? Will he indicate that he will not hesitate to try this experiment which may well prove a means of saving life?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that all hon. Members who are motorists would also agree that for a motorist to pass suddenly from a brilliantly lighted area into a dark road at a high speed is very dangerous. We must look carefully into this matter.
    Mr. Moyle: Will the Minister indicate what progress he has made in consultation with local authorities on this all-important question of uniform street lighting?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper, and I will endeavour to give him a complete answer.

    Parking Meters
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the experience gained in the experimental meter scheme for car parking is sufficient to enable him to state whether he proposes to extend this scheme to other parts of London.
    Mr. Watkinson: Under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, the initiative in proposing parking meter schemes rests with local authorities. A proposal for a further scheme on the north side of Oxford Street has been put forward by the St. Marylebone Borough Council. I expect to receive very shortly the report and advice of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on this scheme.
    I have no doubt that, in its consideration of this case, the Advisory Committee will have taken the working of the present Westminster scheme into account. As soon as I have studied its report, the objections lodged and the report of the Inspector who conducted the public inquiry, I will make a further statement.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the fact that the first scheme was experimental, as is agreed all round, should I be correct in assuming that it is for the Ministry, with its own technical advice, to say that the experiment has been good or not worth while, on the whole, and that it will agree to or encourage the setting up of further schemes of this sort? Is the Ministry going to take responsibility in this matter before long, and tell local authorities that they should proceed with
    928
    further schemes, or will it discourage them from doing so?
    Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is pressing a willing Minister. The difficulty that I am in is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I must not appear to prejudge these schemes, particularly where an independent inspector has held an independent inquiry. I have already been in some little trouble for the support which—I think rightly—I have given to these parking meter schemes. Therefore, all I think I should say is that I would certainly welcome any application by any London borough or other body which wants to go forward with additional schemes.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not the Minister agree that the success of the Westminster scheme depends upon its extension to neighbouring areas? It is working in Westminster, but the streets in the neighbouring boroughs are cluttered up to a worse extent than ever. The sooner the scheme is extended the better.
    Mr. Watkinson: It is fair to say that the Westminster scheme has been a success. I have said that I would welcome its extension, and I hope soon to make a further statement in regard to the St. Marylebone scheme, which will border the Westminster one.

    Cromwell Road Extension
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the Cromwell Road extension will be completed.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): With the exception of the proposed flyover at Hammersmith, which is a late addition to the London County Council's part of the scheme, work should be completed by next autumn.
    Mr. Lipton: Does not the Minister agree that there has been a scandalous delay over the past three years in completing this four-mile stretch of road, compared with the fifty miles of the London-Yorkshire highway completed in eighteen months, and will he see that London road improvements are carried out with much greater expedition in future?
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir; there has been no scandalous delay here. The work is up to schedule. There has been a very complicated job in rehousing about 2,500 people and building a new school and in dealing with all the complications involved in a big road improvement in London. The work is up to schedule. Many people are grateful for what is there now and will be glad to see its completion.

    Upton Court Road-Bath Road, Slough
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will authorise the installation of traffic signals at the corner of Upton Court Road and Bath Road, Slough.
    Mr. Nugent: We are considering alternative proposals for an improved layout of this junction and have not yet decided what is the best scheme to adopt.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people and the Council of Slough have co-operated with the Ministry in safety experiments in the town, and that this is still a dangerous spot? Ten days ago, eight people were injured here. While we appreciate what the Ministry is proposing for the widening of the highway in this area, may I ask whether the Minister would agree that the very widening of it is likely to make the installation of traffic lights more necessary?
    Mr. Nugent: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is some difference of opinion between our divisional road engineer and the Slough local authority as to what is the right solution there. That is why there has been some delay in settling the matter, but I am hopeful that we shall be able to reach agreement very shortly. We both want the same result, and I shall be very glad to see this road improvement carried out.

    Tyne Tunnel
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give an assurance that the decisions already taken with regard to the Tyne tunnel will proceed, in view of the concern which has arisen locally as a result of the recent publication of an unofficial report on the project.
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when work on the Tyne Tunnel will commence.
    Mr. Watkinson: Until I have completed, with the Tyne Tunnel Joint Committee, consideration of all the aspects of this scheme, I shall not be in a position to make a statement.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Tynemouth Corporation has sold sites for industrial expansion on the basis of the present siting of the tunnel? Will he also bear in mind that it would not be convenient for me to go to prison at the present time, as an illustrious citizen of North Shields had to do many years ago, in order to protect the interests of the mouth of the Tyne against Newcastle?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly bear those things in mind.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Since the Minister has now decided that this is a very desirable project, does not he think that it would be a good thing to make an early start, and thus make possible the absorption of some of the ever-growing number of unemployed in that area under this Government?
    Mr. Watkinson: The factual answer is that we are entirely in the hands of the Tyne Tunnel Joint Committee, the members of which are the representatives of local opinion. They are, I believe, coming to see my Ministry, and, as I have said, I am not in a position to make a further statement until they have been.
    Mr. Short: In view of the new report from the University, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the suggestion I made when we debated this on the Adjournment a few months ago, when I pointed out that the solution to the communications problem on the Tyne was a tunnel and a bridge? Would he now consider the building of a bridge over the Tyne at St. Anthony's, Newcastle?
    Mr. Watkinson: We had better do one thing at a time.

    A.5 Trunk Road, Warwickshire
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what proposals now exist for improving the A.5 trunk road from the Royal Red Gate to Wilnecote in the county of Warwick; and when work is likely to begin.
    Mr. Nugent: We hope next year to start constructional work on the first of a series of schemes for the comprehensive improvement of this length of trunk road.
    Mr. Moss: Is the scheme for a roundabout at Grendon to be treated as a matter of urgency? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although there has been some improvement in the accident rate, a number of accidents are still occurring on this stretch of road?
    Mr. Nugent: The first of the schemes, which I hope will be started next year, is intended to be that at Grendon. I hope that that will meet the hon. Member's point.

    Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner Scheme
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress of the Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner Scheme.
    Mr. Nugent: I am informed by the London County Council that work on diverting the King's Scholar's Pond Relief Sewer at Hyde Park Corner has already begun, and the task of diverting the many underground pipes and conduits there is expected to start in the next few weeks.
    Captain Pilkington: As traffic congestion is getting worse and worse, is it possible to start on the main part of the scheme, near Marble Arch-Hyde Park Corner?
    Mr. Nugent: Fairly lengthy preparatory work is necessary before starting on the main scheme, which is now progressing. As the House already knows, the intention of the London County Council is to have work started on the ground there in the autumn of next year.

    East Lancashire Road
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many signs indicating the mileage between Liverpool and Manchester there are at present on the East Lancashire road.
    Mr. Nugent: I am informed that there are none.
    Captain Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend acquiesce in this? Surely it is
    932
    very bad not to have mileages shown on a long road such as this. Is he doing anything to encourage mileage marks to be put on roads in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Nugent: We have already sent out a direction giving advice on this matter of placing mileage signs on roads. We have had some further discussion on the matter among our divisional road engineers, and we should certainly wish to encourage this marking.

    Chiswick Flyover
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress of the construction of the Chiswick flyover; and what steps he will take to speed up the work.
    Mr. Watkinson: Progress with the Chiswick flyover is on schedule and work should be completed, as planned, by the end of August, 1959. The complexity of the work and the need to keep traffic moving while it is in progress make it impracticable to finish sooner, but the completion of the surface roundabout next spring should be of great benefit to traffic.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement will give satisfaction to a number of people this summer who have not seen very much activity on the by-pass?

    Trunk Road Improvement Scheme, Newcastle-under-Lyme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, in view of the unemployment in Newcastle-under-Lyme, he will now consider adding the trunk road improvement scheme from London Road to Milehouse Lane to the current roads programme.
    Mr. Nugent: When the scheme is fully prepared we will consider when work can be authorised.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Aircraft Accidents (Rescue Arrangements)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps are taken by his Department to initiate rescue arrangements in the

    933
    event of aircraft accidents outside but within a reasonable distance of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Neave: When an air traffic control centre becomes aware of an aircraft seriously overdue or in distress over the sea, it immediately notifies the R.A.F. Rescue Co-ordination Centre in whose area the aircraft is. The responsibility for initiating search and rescue action then rests with this centre.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a K.L.M. aircraft crashed into the Atlantic off the Irish coast in the middle of August, there was a delay of something like ten hours between the last message put out by the aircraft and the time that the rescue plane took off? That was not entirely due to the fault at Gander. Can he say whether that matter has been investigated?
    Mr. Neave: The false radio report from Gander caused a considerable delay. As soon as the error was recognised, the search and rescue facilities went into action. My hon. Friend will recognise that the area in which the accident occurred is the formal responsibility of the Irish Republic, but we have an agreement with them to provide search and rescue facilities to supplement their limited facilities. My Department is examining the present arrangements, which have been internationally agreed, to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in initiating rescue operations.

    Jet Aircraft, London Airport (Noise Level)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will state the noise level tests that aircraft must pass before they are allowed to land at London Airport; and whether the Boeing 707 aircraft has now completely passed those tests.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will reconsider the permission given to Pan American World Airways to operate a Boeing 707 aircraft from London Airport, in view of its effect in noise and vibration on the residents of nearby areas.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under what conditions he has agreed to the operation
    934
    of the Comet IV and the Boeing 707 aircraft from London Airport; what principle has guided him in granting this permission; and what standards of noise level he has adopted when making his decisions.
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the Boeing 707 has yet completely passed noise level tests at London Airport.
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) what conditions he has laid down which must be complied with by the Boeing 707 aircraft before it is allowed to land;
    (2) how noise from aircraft is measured when assessing the noise made by aircraft using London Airport; what yardstick is used in deciding whether or not an aircraft has passed noise tests; and what degree of noise is considered excessive.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have given permission to Pan-American World Airways to operate the Boeing 707 and to British Overseas Airways Corporation to operate the Comet IV on scheduled services into London Airport under conditions which are designed to cause no more noise disturbance than the heavy piston-engined aircraft currently in use when passing over the main built-up areas in the neighbourhood.
    The agreed procedures for these aircraft require that the aircraft should on take-off achieve a height of not less than 1,000 feet over the nearest built-up area along the flight path, and use reduced power; and that on landing they should maintain a glide path of not less than three degrees. These conditions are based on the results of tests carried out over many months under different auspices, first in Seattle, then in New York and finally in London.
    Further tests will be carried out when the regular operations begin, and continuing approval of the present procedures will depend upon their results.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that many residents around London Airport are complaining about the excessive noise from this aircraft? Can he make representations to Pan-American World Airways regarding the great volumes of smoke which come from this aircraft

    935
    when it takes off? The smoke is causing concern to local residents.
    Mr. Watkinson: I am well aware of local feeling, and we are trying to keep as closely in touch with it as we can. As to the question of smoke, that is covered by the last sentence in my original reply. I said that
    "continuing approval of the present procedures will depend upon their results."
    But this air world does not stand still. At London Airport we want the best and most modern aircraft if we are to remain the centre of this world air carrying trade. Therefore, we have to strike a very difficult balance between what is right in the interests of aviation and what is right in the interests of those who live around the airport. I am saying only that at the moment I hope that we have struck the right balance. We must carefully check it when these aircraft begin their scheduled services.
    Mr. R. Harris: Are the standards laid down by the Minister able to be used in almost every sort of weather, or only when the weather is fine? Are the local residents Ito be told that it is very much regretted that the Boeing, when taking off, must fly at less than 1,000 feet over the houses in question because of low cloud—a condition which may exist on many days in the year?
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. We have put up a fence over which the aircraft must fly, regardless of weather conditions, for the protection of the inhabitants.
    Mr. Brockway: I appreciate the need for development in aircraft, but will the Minister look very carefully at this matter? Is he aware that I have many letters from my constituents in Colnbrook and Langley, complaining that children have been terrified by this noise, so that when any aeroplane comes over now they run to their mothers; that old people have been trembling for minutes after one of these aircraft has passed, and that the houses shake, and some old houses are in danger of crumbling? Will the Minister consider very seriously these complaints which are made by the residents around London Airport?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir. I am most seriously considering the matter, and I am sure that the House does not think that my Ministry is not taking it seriously; it
    936
    is. But we must have a little more practical experience of these rules. I shall be only too glad to take careful note of anything which hon. Members concerned, or any other persons concerned, care to put to me once the aircraft is on scheduled service.
    Mr. Beswick: I understand the difficulties facing the Minister and I, personally, appreciate the effort that he has put in to try to meet the problem, but is he aware that, despite all that he has done, the noise level in the area has increased? Is he also aware that the machine that he has tested—the Boeing 707—is only the domestic version, and that the inter-continental version which is coming along next year has J.75 engines, which are more powerful and more noisy? Does he think that we can get any satisfaction in this matter until we can got some internationally-agreed standard for the operation of these aircraft?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to say that my present approval is purely for the aircraft that have been presented. It provides no blanket coverage for future aircraft. As for international agreement, at least we are in agreement with the New York Port Authority, and are applying somewhat similar rules. I hope that we shall continue to work closely with that authority. If we could get an international agreement on standards nobody would be more pleased than my Ministry, but it is going to be a very difficult thing to do.
    Mr. Skeffington: Does the Minister realise that, while we all wish to promote the success of our civil aircraft industry, there is an obligation to the people who live near airports, many of whom, in this particular case, were there before the airport? Is he aware that his statement that the noise allowed is no greater than that of heavy piston-engined aircraft would certainly be challenged in regard both to the Boeing and the Comet?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is, perhaps, something that we must wait and see when the services start. I think that it is fair also to say that the aircraft operating companies feel that both the New York Port Authority and ourselves, at London Airport, have imposed very swingeing restrictions on them which may limit their commercial operations. I

    937
    do not want the House to feel that we have not gone a long way in imposing restrictions on aircraft.

    TU.104 Aircraft (Noise Level)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further information he has received from the Soviet authorities about the reduction of the noise level of the TU.104 aircraft.
    Mr. Neave: I understand that the Soviet authorities have so far been unable to reduce the noise of the TU.104 by means of a sound suppressor. They have, however, recently provided information on techniques of operation which they claim will reduce the noise to that of existing piston-engined aircraft. The effectiveness of these techniques is now under consideration.
    Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister, on his part, be prepared to accept for the TU.104 the noise level that he has just enunciated for the Boeing aircraft, and the Comet?
    Mr. Neave: Though we do not feel that the TU.104 will be able to meet conditions exactly comparable with those met by the Boeing 707 and the Comet IV, we are very anxious to see the service to Moscow started as soon as possible. The Russians are well aware of our policy, and we are at present examining the techniques they propose.

    Croydon Airport
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recent representations he has had about the closing of Croydon Airport; what reply he has given; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have received recent representations on this subject from the Royal Aero Club, the Croydon Airport Users' Association, and a number of companies and private individuals. I have told them that I see no reason to alter the decision, announced in the White Paper of 1953, to close Croydon after the opening of Gatwick. I have, however, made renewed efforts to offer alternative accommodation to the users.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that his handling of the matter has given
    938
    rise to serious anxiety among many responsible people? Is he also aware that the offer with regard to Biggin Hill can be seen only as derisory in view of the shortness of the term of tenancy laid down? May I ask the Minister whether there are any control problems at all connected with Gatwick which could not apply equally to Biggin Hill?
    Mr. Watkinson: First, with regard to Biggin Hill, we have been able to offer a considerable extension of time which I understand may be satisfactory to some users. At Gatwick, we have made a change in the policy and have offered to develop there a base for executive and private flying which, again, I hope may be helpful to users. The decision about Croydon was taken in 1953 and I see no reason to alter it.
    Mr. Gough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I can say, on behalf of quite a large number of users, that this "considerable extension" at Biggin Hill is not accept-able in the slightest? At the outside, it is only an extension to seven years. Is my my right hon. Friend aware that the whole interests of private flying are wrapped up in this decision? Will he give an assurance that nothing will be done which will be detrimental to the interests of private flying?
    Mr. Watkinson: No one is keener than I am to encourage private flying. That is why we have recently set up a Committee under my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend brought a deputation to see me and I endeavoured to explain the great difficulties which we face. I hope that he will accept that I did make an offer to that deputation to try to make alternative accommodation available.
    Mr. Beswick: In view of the unsatisfactory character of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Aircraft Control
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent both civil and military aircraft operating within the London control zone are under the direct observation and control of a unified control.
    Mr. Neave: When the London control zone procedures are in force, by night and below certain weather minima by day, all aircraft flying in the zone come under the observation and control of a joint Civil/Military Air Traffic Centre, except for those using designated low level free lanes leading to aerodromes within the zone boundary.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that there can be no satisfaction in this matter until, at all times, both civil and military aircraft in these areas come under one person's control? Can he say whether we are moving towards that state of affairs, or is he having any obstruction from his friends at the Air Ministry?
    Mr. Neave: I certainly have had no obstruction at all in this matter. We are moving towards unified control, and are engaging in extensive reorganisation of air traffic control facilities, the object of which will be to increase the capacity of the system so as to enable full control to be used on a greater number of occasions, and to give positive control to all aircraft in controlled air space.

  TRANSPORT

    Vehicle Tests
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the scheme for the testing of motor vehicles will come into operation.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement on the progress of the scheme for vehicle testing.
    Mr. Watkinson: In the practical working out of the scheme certain possible legal objections were brought to my notice that could have prevented the smooth working of the scheme. Some small changes have therefore had to be made in the proposals contained in the White Paper to overcome these difficulties, and details are set out in a statement which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    This inevitably meant some delay, but I expect to be ready to invite applications for appointment as authorised examiners and designated councils later this month. Inspection of the premises and equipment
    940
    of the large number of applicants expected to respond to this invitation is likely to take about four months. During this period Regulations will be made. I propose to allow reasonable time thereafter before making it an offence for any vehicle to be on the roads without a test certificate. I hope, therefore, to start progressively, from about the middle of next year, to make it obligatory for vehicles over ten years old to have a test certificate.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that this is yet one further delay in the inception of this scheme? It was only in July that he said that he hoped to put the scheme into operation by about the end of the year, but it will now be over three years since the Bill was passed before the scheme—which, when in operation, will save 500 lives a year, and thousands of accidents—comes into effect, owing to the unnecessary delay by the Ministry in not pressing this matter very much more quickly.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that there has been any unnecessary delay, although I regret the delay that has occurred as much as the right hon. Gentleman. The delay occurred due to our most complicated highway laws. It was found that there were several loopholes, which could well serve to negative the whole scheme, and I thought it right to get those out of the way before we went ahead.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that very long and detailed discussions had to take place with interested parties in connection with the very many and complicated problems arising under the Construction and Use Regulations, and that these must be put right before the new Regulations can become effective?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree. This is a very complicated operation. I agree that it should save lives, but it will certainly not do so if it does not work. Therefore, in order to try to make it a satisfactory and sensible scheme, some delay is quite justified.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that a delay of three years was necessary?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept that there has been a three years' delay.
    Following is the statement:
    One of the legal difficulties referred to above affects the proposal, contained in the White Paper (Cmnd. 430), that where on inspection a vehicle is refused a test certificate no fee should be payable for a re-test provided the vehicle is taken to an authorised examiner for the necessary repairs to be carried out, or submitted for re-test after repairs have otherwise been carried out, within a period of 14 days of the initial inspection. Though such an arrangement is not specifically provided for in the Act, I was anxious to mitigate as far as possible the cost to the motorist; but since the publication of the general outline in the White Paper further legal consideration has been given to my proposal, on which the arrangement was based, that only those items found to be faulty would he re-tested. I am advised that it could be claimed to be ultra vires the Act, the terms of which require that a complete test of the vehicle must be carried out in order that a test certificate can be issued. I much regret, therefore, that I am obliged to withdraw the proposal for a free re-test, but I am glad to say that to meet the difficulty the motor trade have agreed to carry out full re-tests of all items, under the same conditions as those which applied to the proposed free re-test of rejected items only, for half the full fee; they have also agreed that (a) when a vehicle remains with the authorised examiner who undertook the test for any necessary repairs to be carried out in the course of the test, only one fee will be payable and (b) when, should all three items need repair or adjustment, the vehicle is taken away and returned, within 14 days of the date of the notice of rejection, to any authorised examiner for the repairs to be carried out, no further fee will be payable.
    I was advised also that it could be claimed that since the existing statutory requirements governing the standards and conditions of lighting equipment on vehicles applied only when the vehicles were used at night, it was not possible to make a Regulation under the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which provided for the refusal of a test certificate of the lighting equipment if a vehicle was found on inspection not to comply with those requirements. It was clearly the intention of the House when the Bill was considered that lighting equipment should be dealt with in the same way as other parts of a vehicle the condition of which might lead to accidents; and I propose, therefore, to include in the Construction and Use Regulations a provision which will require, subject to appropriate exceptions, the lighting equipment on motor vehicles to be at all times in such a condition as to comply with the existing statutory requirements.

    Inland Waterways (Bowes Report)
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is now in a position to state the Government's policy on the recommendations of the Bowes Report.
    Mr. Watkinson: The Report, which deals with many complicated questions,
    942
    is being considered, and I hope to make a statement before long.

    Driving Tests
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) how many men and women, respectively, in the United Kingdom have applied for driving tests in the last three years; and what have been the proportions, shown by sexes, of successes and failures;
    (2) how many men and women, respectively, have applied for driving tests in the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the last three years; and what have been the proportions, shown by sexes, of successes and failures.
    Mr. Nugent: We do not keep records showing separately the numbers of applications which men and women make, nor of the tests which they pass. For the three years ended August, 1958, the total number of applications for tests in Great Britain was 3,117,735, and the proportion of all tests passed was 55 per cent.
    No separate figures are available for the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, but the total number of applications made during the same period in the Northern Division of the West Midland Traffic Area, which includes Newcastle-under-Lyme, was 282,744 and the proportion of all tests passed was 58 per cent.
    Mr. Swingler: It is a pity that the Minister cannot produce the figures. Is he aware that some of my constituents are complaining and alleging a sex bias, curiously enough against women, in the conducting of these tests, and now, apparently, the Ministry is not armed with the information to be able to refute that allegation? Will he, therefore, make some inquiries in order to try to satisfy them that there is really fair and equal treatment?
    Mr. Nugent: I can assure the House that there is no bias as between the sexes in conducting these tests. A great deal of additional expense would be required to keep separate records. I have read the letter from the hon. Gentleman's constituent, and I quite understand her feelings in the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure her that she was quite fairly treated.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that many experienced schools of motoring will say that lady drivers, although often very irritating, are, on the whole, more careful—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes—more careful drivers than men, and, therefore, should be correspondingly more welcomed on the roads?
    Mr. Usborne: Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what percentage of those who pass succeed in passing on the first test? Is he aware that there is a feeling among people that they are generally failed on the first occasion in order to give the instructors an opportunity of teaching them again? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us that he is quite satisfied that the standards required in passing the test are more or less equal all over the country, without any variation?
    Mr. Nugent: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "Yes". As far as humanly possible, our system of continually checking individual testers does ensure that there is uniformity over the country. As regards the first part of the supplementary question, I have not the precise figure, but my recollection is that it is something like half. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of an automatic failing. We should be only too delighted if they could all pass the first time. Unfortunately, they cannot.

    Passenger Service, Newhaven-Dieppe
    Colonel Beamishasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the dissatisfaction of the objectors to the recent proposal by the Transport Commission to close down the passenger service between Newhaven and Dieppe from 4th November, 1958, to 19th March, 1959, arising from the failure of the South Eastern Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee and the Central Transport Consultative Committee to answer pertinent questions, and the way in which suggestions for improving the service were ignored, he will refuse to agree the recommendation for closure until these questions and suggestions have been fully considered.
    Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. The Central Transport Consultative Committee made a thorough review of the case before
    944
    confirming the conclusions of the South Eastern Area Transport Users Consultative Committee, and I can find no adequate grounds for disagreeing with them.
    Colonel Beamish: Am I right in assuming an error on the part of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when he told me that no recommendation had been made to my right hon. Friend? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was illogical and unfair to look at the Newhaven-Dieppe passenger service in isolation from other cross-channel services? Is he aware that that view is widely held? Is he also aware that no attempt was made to present any evidence to show that this line was running at an annual loss? How can he fail to agree, therefore, that the objectors have a right to feel dissatisfied?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that anyone has a right to feel dissatisfied, but I should tell my hon. and gallant Friend that the Committee has upon it representatives who are expert in shipping matters. I understand that they came to a unanimous conclusion, and that gives me no locus at all to intervene.
    Colonel Beamish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall do my best to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  RAILWAYS

    Timetables (Changes)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that the change of trains from winter to summer services and vice versa should take place on the same date as the change to summer and winter time.
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. This is a matter of management for the British Transport Commission. The Commission informs me that the present dates for the changeover in the timetables correspond as nearly as possible with the beginning and end of the main seasonal holiday movements. To alter these dates to coincide with the change of time would mean running summer services when there was no summer traffic to fill them.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the Minister agree that the changing of timetables at a regular date would go some way to make good the inaccuracies which exist in local timetables at the present time?
    Mr. Nugent: I think that the answer to that supplementary question would really come more aptly in answer to the next Question, but I would agree broadly with the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that, on change from winter to summer services or vice versa on the railways, timetables may be printed so that the public may know in advance which of the trains they have previously been able to travel by are taken off.
    Mr. Nugent: As this is a matter of management, a direction would be out of place, and it is for the British Transport Commission to deal with. The Commission tells me that it aims to publish the summer and winter timetables at least six weeks before they come into force, but preparing them is a complex operation, and last-minute changes may cause delays.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that the local timetables between Reading and London are never available until at least three weeks after the change has taken place, and that there are very considerable changes at both winter and summer?
    Mr. Nugent: As the House is aware, I am not responsible, nor is my right hon. Friend, for compiling these timetables. I shall be glad to convey to the Transport Commission the hon. Gentleman's comments. I know that the Commission is trying to speed up the preparation of the timetables, but it is a complex and difficult business; the Commission does the best it can.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: What is the good of publishing any timetables at all when no effort is made to make the trains run to any set time? is my hon. Friend aware of one typical instance, namely, the last train from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), the 6.20 from Macclesfield due to arrive
    946
    at 10.30, which never arrives until well after 12 o'clock, when there are no taxis and no porters?
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the frequent unpunctuality of trains, he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to revise its railway schedules.
    Mr. Watkinson: Unpunctuality is due to many variable causes. The problem is a matter of management for the British Transport Commission, but I know that where train timings become unrealistic owing, for example, to major engineering works under the modernisation plan, the schedules are reviewed, and in this winter's timetables a number of expresses have, in fact, been re-timed. If my hon. Friend has in mind other trains which ought to be re-timed in this way, I am quite willing to bring them to the attention of the Chairman of the Commission.
    Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have many such examples? Is he also aware of the very large numbers of complaints there are under this heading? Does not he think that it is time that British Railways took that same pride in punctuality to which we were used before the war, under private enterprise?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree that punctuality is the essence of a modern railway system. Why I gave the Answer I did is that, for example, in the electrification of the London—Manchester line, there are very extensive engineering works. Therefore, what I offered to do—if hon. Members feel that, due to these works, re-timing ought to take place, and will let me know—was to call attention to it.
    Mr. J. Harrison: In general, has the Minister any evidence regarding the improvement in the punctuality of these trains over the past five or six years? Is not it on record that there has been a substantial improvement in punctuality?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that it depends on the trains. The modern diesel trains keep very good times, but I am afraid that some of the older steam trains are not so good.

OFFICIAL REPORT
Mr. Bowles: Last night, Mr. Speaker, when the Home Secretary was winding up the debate, he said, towards the end of his speech:
"I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the companies, 512 of them, which evidently are to be either taken over, messed about or in some way interferred with by the Socialist Party …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November; Vol. 594, c. 904.]
I asked you then, Mr. Speaker, whether it was in order for the right hon. Gentleman to use the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tory propaganda. You said that perhaps I could "arrange to table a Question". I wonder whether you have anything to say about that, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: It is the usual practice for Ministers, in answering Questions, to say that they will seek permission to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a matter which forms part of the Answer, Rich as a table of figures or a list of names of people who are to form a Departmental inquiry. That has been the practice of the House and it is for the convenience of the House, but it is not our custom to print in the OFFICIAL REPORT either undelivered speeches or parts of speeches.
I may say that when the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) asked me last night about this I said that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman—that is to say, the Leader of the House—might arrange to have a Question put down which would bring this practice within the Parliamentary practice on Questions. I put it in that tentative way because I could not at the moment see how such a question would come within the right hon. Gentleman's Departmental responsibility. I am, however, very slow to underrate the ingenuity of right hon. and hon. Members in framing Questions and I prefer to see the text of the Question before I give a definite answer.
The right hon. Gentleman has neither sought permission nor intends to seek permission to circulate the matter in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Bowles: May I ask whether it would be in order to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to put down a list of directorships and shareholdings of hon. Members on the other side?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I immediately accept your Ruling in every respect, which is exactly what I would have expected you to say; but I am sorry that so lighthearted a remark, made just before the end of the debate, should have been taken so seriously.
Mr. Shinwell: If it is thought inadvisable to publish this list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Mr. Speaker, could you suggest to the Leader of the House that the Government might issue a White Paper on the subject?
Mr. Bowles: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for assisting the Opposition in preventing the Government from using official publications for Tory Party propaganda?
Mr. Mitchison: Is not the House left in some difficulty? If this remark was a joke, were the remarks about 100 per cent. advances to building societies and 100 per cent. advances to local authorities other jokes, or were they some part of the serious section of the speech made by the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: First, to deal with the real question of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. In the way he framed his question last night, he asks whether the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT should be used for party propaganda. I have known a lot of party propaganda to creep into our OFFICIAL REPORT from time to time, but I would say that the OFFICIAL REPORT is, in general, a record of what is said, with the one exception of the Parliamentary Question to which I have alluded.
In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I feel rather diffident about advising him. I think it was Sydney Smith who said something about Scotsmen and a sense of humour, and I feel, sometimes, a little difficulty in distinguishing what is meant jocosely and what is not. I think that the hon. and learned Member must form his own opinion on these matters.
Colonel Beamish: Further to that, was not my right hon. Friend, at any rate, showing his usual impartiality and generosity in seeking to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT what is, in fact, Socialist propaganda?
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware—I hope the House is—that most of us on this side regarded the speech of the Leader of the House as so poor that any duplication of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT would be appalling?
Mr. Speaker: That is nothing to do with me.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Advertising Industry
  Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st November, I shall draw attention to the state of the advertising industry in this country, and move a Resolution.
  Local Authority House-building and Slum Clearance
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st November, I shall call attention to the continuous fall in the building of dwellings to let by local authorities and the slow progress of slum clearance, and move a Resolution.

  Industrial Development, Northern Ireland
  Mrs. McLaughlin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 21st November, I shall
  950
  call attention to the need for further development of industry in Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE RESERVES
  Bill to extend until the end of June, nineteen hundred and sixty-four, the liability for service in the reserve of the persons specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of the Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Act, 1954; and to amend the law accordingly, presented by Mr. Soames; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Sandys, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Allan; read the First time to he read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS
  Bill to extend the period during which advances may be made to the National Research Development Corporation out of the Consolidated Fund and to increase the limit on such advances, presented by Sir D. Eccles; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Molson, Mr. Aubrey Jones, and Mr. J. Rodgers; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GHANA (GIFT OF SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  3.41 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Speaker's Chair to the Parliament of Ghana, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  The Motion is in the happy tradition established by other gifts made by the House of Commons to other Legislatures within the Commonwealth. Hon. Members will remember that in recent years we have presented Speakers' Chairs to the Parliaments of Ceylon and New Zealand and a Mace to the Parliament of Australia. It is right and proper that the House of Commons, in which we sit surrounded by gifts from other parts of the Commonwealth—gifts which are tributes of affection and fellowship—should from time to time convey its own feelings of affection and its good wishes to these other legislatures.
  I should like to mention the story of this gift. It will be remembered that on 21st February last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in making a statement about the independence of Ghana, said that he had no doubt that it would be the wish of the House to make a gift to the Parliament of Ghana. This proposal was generally approved and endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. When I visited Ghana during the independence ceremonies, I ascertained that the most acceptable gift would be a Speaker's Chair.
  On 6th June, 1957, the Leader of the Opposition asked me to make a statement about the proposed gift. I informed the House that Her Majesty's Government had authorised me to propose to Mr. Speaker that he should, on behalf of the House, offer to the Parliament of Ghana the gift of a Chair for their Speaker. The Chair itself was completed before Parliament broke up for the Summer Recess and was on exhibition in the
  952
  House late in July. I am sure that Members who saw the Chair admired its dignified design, which, the House will be glad to know, was approved by the Speaker and representatives of the Ghana Parliament. I am sure that we have all considered it a worthy specimen of British craftsmanship.
  The purpose of this gift is to mark Ghana's attainment of full independence within the Commonwealth in March, 1957. It is also a token of good will of the House of Commons and the people of the United Kingdom towards the Parliament and people of Ghana and it will bring with it our best wishes for Ghana's happiness and prosperity.
  The Motion proposes that the presentation be made on behalf of the House of Commons. If, as I hope, the Committee accepts the Motion, the Committee will pledge itself to honour the necessary estimate, which will, I think, with the expenses of presentation, be in the neighbourhood of £1,250. The actual arrangements for presenting the gift will be made by Mr. Speaker. I believe that he contemplates that, following the usual practice, the Chair might be presented by a small Parliamentary delegation which would visit Ghana at the appropriate time by mutual agreement.
  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I warmly support the Motion. Those of us who have been privileged to visit the Commonwealth countries, and, in particular, the Colonies which have been emerging towards independence, have been deeply impressed by the way in which our Parliamentary institutions, transplanted to other countries and continents, have taken such deep roots.
  It is a joy to go to these Legislative Assemblies and see that the Chamber itself and the procedure of their Houses are all modelled upon this Mother of Parliaments in Westminster. It may well be—I think it will—that one of the great contributions of our race to the Commonwealth and to the world will be the establishment and nurturing of Parliamentary institutions in those countries.
  I was privileged to accompany the Leader of the House on the historic day on which 'Ghana attained its independence. We warmly welcomed her decision, for it is the decision of Ghana

  953
  and her people, to stay within the Commonwealth. We warmly welcome their continued association with the Commonwealth.
  I support the arrangements which the Lord Privy Seal has indicated, by which the House of Commons will present a Speaker's Chair to the Parliament of Ghana. In presenting the Chair, we shall send with it our very best wishes to the Parliament and people of Ghana for their future success and well-being.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short and simple Bill. It may not on that account be uncontroversial, but I hope that we shall, as far as possible, look at the issues raised by the Bill from as factual and objective a viewpoint as possible. At least, that will be my object in commending the Bill to the House.
  I need hardly remind hon. Members that Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which we are inviting Parliament to repeal, restricts the number of cars that may be used by, or on behalf of, a candidate to take electors to or from the poll at a Parliamentary Election. The limit is one car for every 1,500 electors in a county constituency and one for every 2,500 electors in a borough constituency; and all cars so used must be registered with the returning officer and carry a placard indicating that they are so registered. A contravention of these provisions is an illegal practice.
  May I also remind the House briefly of the history of this provision. The Representation of the People Act, 1949, was, of course, a consolidating Measure and the provisions of Section 88 were first introduced as Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1948. The Act of 1948 was a comprehensive Measure of electoral law amendment which was based largely, though not, of course, entirely, on the recommendations of the 1944 Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform, and also on the recommendations of a Committtee on Electoral Law Reform, under the chairmanship of Sir Cecil Carr. This Committee's membership included the chief agents of the main political parties.
  The question of restriction on the use of cars by candidates for conveying voters to the poll was considered both by the Speaker's Conference and the Carr Committee. The Speaker's Conference rejected the idea of such restrictions by 15

  955
  votes to 14. The Carr Committee had this to say about the proposal:
  "We realise that restrictions would have to deal not only with candidates and their agents but also with individuals and perhaps with groups unconnected with the organisations of the chief parties. We are at one in thinking it neither proper nor practicable that anyone who uses his car in order to record his vote should be debarred from taking with him to the polling station his neighbours or the members of his family. Not all of us feel able to support a system of limitation which cannot easily be protected from evasion. In any case, some of us are not convinced that any restriction on the gratuitous use of conveyances is either needed or desirable, particularly in these days, when the motor car has become so common a mode of transport."
  That comes from paragraph 41 of the Final Report of the Committee on Electoral Law Reform in 1947, Cmd. 7286, and that, I think, the House would regard as a pretty definite opinion.
  The Government of the day, when introducing their Representation of the People Bill in 1948, had, therefore, before them the evidence of both the Speaker's Conference and the Carr Committee that the parties as a whole were not agreed that there should be this sort of restriction on the use of cars by candidates, and the 1948 Bill, as introduced and read a Second time, did not, in fact, include any such restriction.
  During the Committee stage of the Bill, however, some Labour back benchers, including the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), put down an Amendment which would have had the effect of completely prohibiting the use of cars by candidates for taking voters to the poll and requiring returning officers to establish a pool of cars which could be used for transporting voters in case of what was described as "casual illness."
  The Home Secretary of the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), indicated that he could not accept the Amendment as it stood, but that between the Committee and Report stage he would see whether it was possible to do something which would very strictly limit the number of cars which could be used at an Election. In pursuance of this undertaking the right hon. Gentleman introduced, on Report, a Clause which, with certain subsequent minor Amendments, became what is now Section 88 of the 1949 Act.
  956
  The Clause was strongly objected to at the time by the Conservative Opposition, and powerful speeches against it were made by a Liberal and an Independent Member, the then Member for Cumberland, North and the then Member for Grantham, but the Government of the day ruthlessly used their substantial majority in the House to carry the Clause through all subsequent stages.
  Nobody can deny that the Labour Government of the day were fully within their parliamentary rights in making this late alteration to the Bill which they had introduced and, if they so desired, to use their majority to carry it through. But we thought at the time, and we still think, that it was a matter for a little regret that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made this unilateral alteration in the Election law; and we cannot deny, and I do not think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish us to deny, that we regard this Section 88 as being misconceived in principle and unsatisfactory in practice.
  It may be asked why we did not take the opportunity to repeal this provision soon after the Government's formation. This was due to the following considerations—apart from our preoccupation with more urgent problems. When we were returned to power, in 1951, these restrictions had been in force for only about two and a half years even though this somewhat agitated period had included two General Elections, and having regard to the general undesirability of frequent changes in the electoral law we thought that we ought to give these restrictions, totally wrong though we consider them to be, a run.
  The restrictions having now been in force for nine years and three General Elections as well as numerous by-elections—and, in passing, the House will remember that they are not in force in local government elections at all, which take place just as much in country districts as they do in borough areas—there has now been ample time and opportunity to test how they have worked or not worked in practice, and we are confirmed in the following views.
  First, that the restrictions are quite out of accord with present social conditions; secondly, that they are unnecessary to secure fair play between the parties; thirdly, that they cause inconvenience to

  957
  candidates of all parties and to the electorate; fourthly, and perhaps as important as any other, that they bring the law into contempt.
  We had hoped that Her Majesty's Opposition might have come to a similar view in the light of their experience of the restrictions. At any rate, unlike our predecessors we did not want to alter the law without first consulting the Opposition—[An HON. MEMBER: "Insulting the Opposition."] No, consulting. That may follow, but it follows consultation in any case. And before the end of the last Session of Parliament, indeed, in the summer, consultations took place, some months ago, with the Leader of the Opposition and with his hon. Friends.
  These consultations indicated that we should not be able to carry the Opposition with us. We were made clear about that. My colleagues and I regret this very much, hut, after further consideration, we feel that this must not deter us from asking Parliament to remove what we consider to be an excrescence on the electoral law.
  In further developing the Government's case against Section 88 1 will mention two self-evident propositions. The first is that it is in the interests of democracy that it should be made as easy as possible for people to record their votes; and the second is that, I think to most of us, at any rate, and to the general opinion of the public, the motor car nowadays is a common means of transport.
  It follows that there must be very sound justification indeed for restricting the use of cars to take electors to the polling station. We must remember that much of the electorate consists of busy housewives, old people, people who are indisposed on polling day but whose indisposition may not be serious enough or did not occur early enough to qualify them for a postal vote, and particularly people in country areas who may have to walk long distances in bad weather in the absence of transport. Those of us who have for many years represented country districts know precisely how badly this restriction works in the country areas.
  In the light of these considerations I submit that the only possible justification for the restrictions in Section 88 would be that the ownership and facilities for
  958
  the use of cars is confined so exclusively to one political party or one social class that the use of cars must be restricted. notwithstanding the hardship it may impose on many voters, in the overriding interests of fair play between the parties If motor cars are restricted to one social class—which I do not accept—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: They are in an Election.
  Mr. Butler: —are we to understand that the party opposite confines its members to one section of the population? I do not believe that to be true, and if it is true it indicates that that party is not making the progress with the belief in Socialism as widely among the people as it would wish.
  Reduced to precise terms the alleged justification for Section 88 is the assumption that a motor car is a Conservative privilege. This, I submit, is complete nonsense. It was not true in 1948, when there were just under 2 million cars on the road. Since then, the number of cars has increased to nearly 4½ million, and it is common knowledge that the number is increasing week by week.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: If that is so, and we do not dispute it, is it not a good reason for having fewer cars to convey people rather than more cars if there are now more cars about?
  Mr. Butler: I think it likely that the great growth of motor cars makes the operation of these restrictions even les well observed than they are at present.
  Here, it is worth recalling another point about the restrictions introduced in 1948. The right hon. Member for South Shields explained that they were based on provisions contained in the Representation of the People Bill, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 1929–31. The scale proposed in that Bill for 1931 was one car per 1,000 of the electorate in counties and one car per 2,000 in boroughs at a time when there were only 1 million cars on the road. In 1948, we find that the Labour Party was, as usual, going backwards, because the scale then proposed was one car in 1,500 in the counties and one car in 2,500 in the boroughs. If we were going along at that rate we would be going absolutely backwards in all our social progress and social arrangements.

  959
  Therefore, it seems to me that we should face the situation. Can anyone maintain that in modern times this large and increasing car ownership of which we know is confined to one party and one social class? In any case, were the l3¼million people who voted Conservative at the last Election all members of the privileged classes? If so, we have never had it so good. Even if we assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that Conservative voters are more likely to own cars than Labour voters I would still say that Section 88 was misconceived.
  If they examine Subsection (3, a) as literally arranged hon. Members will see that the Section does not stop a person using a motor car to take to the poll himself or members of the same household; and subsection (6, b) says that a member of the same household includes a visitor spending the night before or after the day of the poll in the same dwelling-house, and a person employed by a member of the household at the dwelling-house, unless so employed exclusively for the purposes of that member's trade, profession or business.
  This means that the restrictions in Section 88 do not prevent the rich man, if there be any left, in his castle if there be any left, using his car or fleet of cars to take to the poll himself, his wife, all the adult members of his family, his resident domestic staff, if any, and, if he should have a house party staying with him a few days, all the members of that party who have votes at polling stations within a day's car drive. The people whom the restrictions in the Section affect are not, in fact, the so-called rich. They are not the car owners, wealthy or otherwise, and their families or their retainers, if any, but the people who have no cars and who want to go to the poll. They are the voluntary workers of all parties who want to organise cars to take to the poll voters who do not possess cars.
  There must be some among the 12,400,000 people who voted labour at the last Election who can produce a supply of cars for that purpose. There certainly are in my area. I have seen them at the county council elections. These cars can be easily produced. But the Section tells these people that the number of cars they can use must be kept within strict limits.
  960
  I have seen suggestions in the Press, including a second leader in The Times of 30th October, that the Labour Party's difficulty is not that it has not enough cars, but that its organisation is not so good that they can take as much advantage of this position as can the Conservatives. It is not for me to express an opinion on whether or not this is a correct view. I will only say that if that is the case, or the excuse, the remedy lies with the party organisers. Let them improve their organisation and not look to Parliament to continue to give statutory sanction to what amounts to a restrictive practice in modern times. From any point of view, these restrictions are ill-conceived, silly and, I think, anti-democratic.
  It is, therefore, not surprising that the evidence from the public Press of the working of Section 88 indicates that these restrictions have been ignored by both main parties. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] I cannot myself give actual instances. I can only give reports which have come to us from all parts of the country that these restrictions have led to recriminations and suspicions between the candidates or agents. We may make a great deal of fuss of this in public and on the Floor of the House, but some hon. Members opposite have told me in private how difficult it is to make these restrictions work. I have also obtained some information about proceedings for contravention of the Section, and it is possible for the public to see some indication of its nature because supporters of this or that party have to be brought up and have to appear.
  During the nine years in which Section 88 or the corresponding Section of the 1948 Act has been in force there have been proceedings against 24 persons in all and 20 have been convicted. It would appear from our information, judging from the identity of these people, that the greater number of those are members of the Labour Party supporting Labour candidates, namely 21; and three were Conservatives. Of the 20 persons finally convicted, 18 would appear to have been Labour and two Conservative. The Liberals will be glad to hear that they had a clean bill of health and no proceedings or convictions are recorded against them. These figures may be regarded as too small for any very firm conclusions to be drawn from

  961
  them, but they do at least suggest what I have ventured to state in general terms—that the party opposite is finding it more difficult than any other party to live with the restrictions which itself invented, and we may be doing what is really in its best interest by repealing the Section.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I understand that the Home Secretary is in complete charge of the police.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate the advice that I am receiving from the Attorney-General and I correct myself.
  The Home Secretary is in charge of the London police, and he has great influence on other areas, judging by the influence that is brought to bear when appointments of chief constables are made. Therefore, I would say to the Attorney-General that I am not very far wrong. I understand that the Home Secretary has great influence with the police. Will the right hon. Gentleman then ask the police to acquiesce in the workers on Election day taking the same action as students take on their rag day? If it is correct for students to take that action we shall see, as has been done in the past, that not many cars are moved on certain days if this "Misrepresentation of the People Bill" is passed by the House.
  Mr. Butler: First, the hon. Member must get the constitutional position right. He is right in saying that I am the authority responsible for the Metropolitan Police, but he must not exaggerate the position of the Home Secretary, in this or any other Government, vis-à-vis the police in the areas of other authorities in the country. If the hon. Member is using a threat, and there is to be some abuse of law and order in the provinces or in any part of England, I can only say that I must leave him to the mercy of the authorities of law and order. I do not think I, as Home Secretary, could accept any such statement as he makes or could accept responsibility for any such statement.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I should think that the whole House knows me sufficiently well now to understand that I was not
  962
  making a threat of disorder. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the hon. Member doing?"] I will say what I was doing. I know who is for the people and who is against the people. I am saying that if it is correct for the police and the Home Secretary to acquiesce in what the students do on rag day, then it will be correct for the working class to take certain action in regard to the cars being used against the people on Election day.
  Mr. Butler: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is the last person we in this House would expect to make a threat, nor do I expect him to carry it out, for his reputation is far too well known. I am disappointed in him imagining that the workers have not, many of them, got motor cars of their own. If there are any workers with cars who vote Labour, I should imagine they would use their own cars to take their friends without cars to the poll. The hon. Gentleman is living in the wrong age. If he goes to any council estate he will see cars there, for they are used widely throughout the population.
  Those are the arguments with which I recommend this simple Bill to the House. The present legislation has been causing the law to come under contempt. Frankly, I do not believe that it will aid either side in the next Election if we remove this restriction. I simply think that it will make it easier for people to come to the poll.
  Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: It is false to say that there is no advantage in this Bill. Two quite reputable Conservative papers, the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, have both come to the conclusion that it would be in the highest degree unwise to push this Bill through, because it would look like sharp practice. I put this argument to the right hon. Gentleman and he has made no effort to reply even to a serious argument. We do not expect him to be fair to us, but might he not take the advice of those on the other side of the House who are saying, "Take care, or you will look as though you are playing about with the Constitution".
  Mr. Butler: In his concluding words the hon. Gentleman has come precisely to the point. I read the article in the Daily Telegraph, and as far as I

  963
  remember its point was that the Government might be better advised not to deal with this matter now as our motives might be smeared by the party opposite.
  Mr. Crossman rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: That is not true.
  Mr. Butler: I did not happen to read the article in the Daily Mail that day although I usually read that paper daily. There was doubt, however, and there has been doubt expressed by some members of our party—I tell the House frankly—whether it was a good thing to take this action now. My own view is that your action depends entirely on what your motive is. Our motive is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We would have liked to carry through this reform of repealing Section 88 in the previous Session of Parliament by agreement with the Opposition, but we found, during the course of the summer, that agreement was impossible. We decided to think about the matter again and to postpone it until this Session. The merits of our action in this Session are just as good as if we had taken action in the previous Session.
  We have never been in doubt that this step would have to be taken. We are taking it now because we think it is in tune with modern conditions and that the Labour Party is out of date. That is why we are taking this action. I do not believe that in a single country district I know it will make any difference to the final result of the Election, which, in any case, we are going to win.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: The Leader of the House said a word about the exchanges between the parties. It is true that we were approached. It is also true, of course, as he said, that we made our opposition to this proposal crystal clear. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we took the opportunity to propose a number of other amendments which, if the Act were to be amended at all, could be made and which, if taken all together, would make this action, at any rate, not quite as unfair as it would be if done in isolation. We were told that our proposals would be considered, but we were not even informed by the Government
  964
  that they had been rejected—I suppose they were not even considered—and that this Bill was being put forward in isolation for this one matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that in these matters your action depends entirely on what your motive is. This is a Bill the intent of which is to alter the rules of the game to the advantage of one party. It is very typical of Conservatives in this matter, and this tendency of the Conservatives to act in this way was denounced—
  Sir Robert Grimston: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
  Hon. Members: Not yet.
  Sir R. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is introduced to benefit a party which has a majority. Surely the converse was the case when his party introduced legislation previously?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The purpose of our Bill, like the restrictions upon expenditure, which certainly benefited us as compared with the other party, was to keep equality between the parties, and it was, therefore, agreed on by both sides.
  Mr. Dudley Williams rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Dudley Williams rose—
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I have certain things to say which will annoy hon. Gentlemen still more.
  This tendency of the Conservatives to cheat in this way was denounced by no less a person than Lord Hailsham in a fairly recent speech. On 8th June he made a speech at Nottingham in which he criticised what he called the cardsharpers in the Conservative Party. He said:
  "The cardsharpers are so terrified of a Labour Government that they would have us alter the rules of the game in order to avoid a Labour Government. They go about…saying that since we have no chance of winning under the existing rules we must rid the rules in order to prevent our being beaten"
  He went on to say:
  "Now, the answer to the cardsharpers is that although politics is not a game, like life it must none the less be played honourably if we do not wish to bring public life into absolute contempt."

  965
  The same point was made by Lord Tenby, who was then Home Secretary, during the Bournemouth Conference of the Conservative Panty in 1955. The passage in his speech which I will quote was significant because he was, in fact, speaking in opposition to this very proposal now before us, which was being pressed upon him by the back benchers of the Conservative Party. He said:
  "It is—and I cannot emphasise this too strongly—of the greatest consequence to us as a country to ensure the continuance of general confidence and a respect for election law as something that is above party."
  Lord Tenby used that argument in this specific connection, resisting pressure for the very change which the Government are now making. In those days the Conservative leaders had sufficient sense of politcal principle to stand up to their rank and file on this matter. Since then, however, we have had a new Prime Minister, who attaches different relative values to party advantage, and to what Lord Tenby called
  "…a respect for election law as something that is above party."
  The Conservative arguments for this Bill have been sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman and no doubt we shall hear them a great deal during this debate. All speakers opposite will say that whatever else may be an example of cardsharping, this is not an example of it, that it will make no difference to the parties, that it is necessary to secure fair play, that the parties are equal in respect of cars, and that the Government's whole purpose is the disinterested aim to get voters to the poll without any regard to party advantage. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that he was doing this in our interest.
  This is all sanctimonious humbug. If the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite are disinterested, why was there so strong a demand at Blackpool to alter the provision of the law in this respect, a provision which was described in a leading article in The Times of 30th October as one
  "which has been rankling with Conservative constituency workers"?
  I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is too much for us—whatever his motives may be—to believe that what is rankling with Conservative constituency workers is a matter of no party advan-
  966
  tage to the Conservative Party or is, indeed, something which will help the Labour Party.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that cars are no longer a Conservative privilege. Certainly, there is today a greater distribution of cars, but what he did not add, and what is a Conservative privilege, is that it is a privilege to be able to use your car all day. There are far fewer members and supporters of the Labour Party who can use their cars in the daytime, and, in any case, they have not so many cars as the supporters of the party opposite.
  Had the Government really wanted to make it easier to get voters to the poll, there are other things which they could have done. One, which we would have looked at, would be to increase the number of cars permitted, without taking off the restrictions. Or. better still, and something which I think provides the only real solution in the matter, provide a pool of cars under the returning officers for the use of all the voters who cannot get to the polls.
  Here, there is another consideration It is that the use of cars to get voters to the poll is not the only issue. As was said in the leading article in The Times, the purpose of Section 88 was to stop the organised use of unregistered cars. If this Bill becomes law, it will be possible to use cars, not only for conveying voters to the polls, but for purposes of demonstration, and even for intimidation. Cars flying party colours which appear in enormous numbers in a constituency can have an effect on the run of an Election and the public mood. Even worse, is when 10, 12 or 20 cars all descend together on a village flying the Conservative Party colours. These things—
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: What is there to prevent that from happening now?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: When you are carrying your party colours the onus is on you to prove—
  Hon. MembersNo.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Surely the restrictive effect of the present Section 88 is 10 inhibit the carrying of persons to the poll. There is nothing in the present state of the law which restricts

  967
  anyone using motor cars for party propaganda and flaunting a particular advertisement for a particular candidate.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Certainly, since Section 88 has been part of the law, this practice of using cars for demonstrations and intimidation has been much less than before. I have no doubt that it will become very much greater again now that this Section is to be repealed.
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch): Why does not the right hon. Gentleman do his homework before he starts to make a speech?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The Conservatives claim that their intentions are fair and honourable in this matter, but if they really had the slightest concern for fairness they would not have produced this Bill dealing with this one Section in isolation. They would have combined it with other things to help to get the voters more easily to the polls; for instance, the provision of more polling stations, and mobile polling stations in greater numbers, particularly in country districts, as was recommended at the Speaker's Conference.
  Another matter is the use of cars for electoral purposes in respect of which initial allowance or Income Tax rebate has been granted. It is wrong that firms should be able to put numbers of cars at the disposal of the Conservative Party at the expense of the taxpayers. That certainly should not be allowed.
  We object to this Bill also on other grounds; because, for instance, it does not contain any provision—as it should if we are amending the main Act—to strengthen Section 63 dealing with Election expenses. The aim of this Section, and, indeed, the long-standing aim of our Election law has been to exclude the too great power of moneyed interests in an electoral struggle.
  Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your guidance at this early stage in the debate? This Bill is a very short and simple one, the terms of which are to repeal Section 88. Is it in order to talk about such matters as Election expenses, which are dealt with in Section 63 of the main Act?
  Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order during a Second Reading debate on a Bill to
  968
  say that one objects to the Bill because it does not contain certain provisions. The situation would be different in a Third Reading debate, but the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order, during a Second Reading debate, in saying what he has said.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The aim of this provision regarding Election expenses in our Election law has for a very long time been to exclude the over great influence of moneyed interests in an electoral struggle and to ensure that Election expenses should be made public and be limited. I think that we should now consider whether the definition of Election expenses in the main Act is wide enough, and whether, in the light of very disturbing features in our political life, we should not consider a wider definition of the meaning of Election expenses and include it in this Bill.
  One example of these disturbing developments is the continued refusal of the Conservative Party to publish its accounts, as the Labour Party does. The public has a right to know the sort of means used to try to influence their views. This is particularly needed in view of the immense expenditure being embarked upon by the Conservative Party in the form of advertisements in many papers and a huge poster campaign. The whole purpose of that is, of course, an electoral purpose. If the law is left as it is, as it will be left by this Bill, all these expenses which are for an electoral purpose escape all restriction on election expenditure.
  It is not only a question of the money that passes through the Conservative Party accounts, though that is shrouded from the public view. There is also the vast expenditure by commercial concerns in the interest of the Conservative Party, with which we should deal. Here again, the whole purpose is electoral. People would not waste their shareholders' money were they not trying to influence the way people vote at a General Election. This is an electoral expense in this sense—
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that there has always been a distinction between the position of a local political party or association, designed permanently to organise the opinion of

  969
  the country on behalf of that party, and the specific organisation of a candidate and his agent at a General Election?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am now calling in question whether this distinction has any longer any real relevance. It has been broken down by the kind of developments we have seen since about 1948.
  The most notorious of these expenditures was that of Messrs. Tate and Lyle with "Mr. Cube". This was an abuse of their relationship with their customers which forced propaganda into everyone's home. In two years they spent £240,000. Even worse in some ways—and typical of the new methods of electioneering and political work—was that the management of this campaign secured the insertion of stories and news items which filled 15,000 column inches in 400 newspapers. This was not paid for. This was daily news that we were reading, but it had been put in the newspapers by the management of the Tate and Lyle campaign. We shall see "Mr. Tube" and many others all using this vast expenditure for electoral purposes and this same devious and roundabout method of influencing public opinion.
  It is all the more necessary that we should think about Strengthening Section 63 because the clear intention of this Section has been called in question by the Troonoh Mines case of 1952. It seems that under this decision it may be legal for general political propaganda to be made by outside interests, even during an Election campaign and however party-political, so long as the names of candidates are not mentioned.
  If that is so, the law should not be left in this state. It is really shocking that the opportunity of this Bill has not been taken to amend the law in this respect. It is, of course, greatly to the advantage of the Conservatives that it should be in this bad state; but it really is shocking that the opportunity presented by the Bill has not been taken to reinstate the clear intention of Parliament when passing Section 63 of the main Act.
  Another reason why we oppose the Bill is that it has missed the opportunity to strengthen and widen the Election Law in a matter which goes to the very root of our democratic system. That is the use
  970
  of the State publicity machine for party political advantage. It is all the more necessary to deal with this now, in the light of the Bill before us, because of the increasing and alarming tendency of this Government to ignore the strict distinction between the State and the party in power. Unless this is prevented, it will undermine our whole Election law. This thing may even go on during an Election campaign. It is much more fundamental and urgent than this one matter of cars, which the Government have decided to put into the Bill, and it should have been dealt with in the Bill.
  There are many examples of increasing Government laxity in this vital matter. One is the dragging in of civil servants into political controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a Written Answer on 23rd October, said that there had been in a period of three months,
  "…13 appearances by civil servants on B.B.C. television and 15 on I.T.V. Of the I.T.V. appearances, seven were by officers of the Treasury on economic matters."
  The debates of the last two days have shown that judgment of statistics and economic trends are the very essence of politics today. They are political issues, and with the best will in the world we cannot keep above the party struggle, as civil servants ought to, when we are discussing the interpretation of statistics and economic trends. It is very unfair to civil servants that this should be done. It is against our whole party political tradition.
  The second example was provided by the speech of Lord Poole at the Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool, where he said:
  "I would like to pay tribute to the really tremendous work that Dr. Hill and his small organisation are doing. We certainly could not do our job in Central Office at all if it were not supplemented by what Dr. Hill and his organisation do and I would, therefore, like to pay a real tribute to him for his work in the last two years."
  That is a really extraordinarily alarming thing. Lord Poole certainly knows what is going on. What he is telling us is this, that the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is not overburdened with public duties, is giving so much help to the Central Office of the other side that without that help it could not function, according to Lord Poole. He says that the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is, after all, drawing a public salary, is supplementing the work of the Central Office. That must

  971
  mean doing the same sort of work and that must be doing party political work.
  Worst of all is the reference of Lord Poole to the Chancellor of the Duchy's organisation. This must be his Department, his civil servants. It must mean that the Chancellor of the Duchy is using his Department to supplement the work of the Central Office of the Conservative Party. That is really outrageous. It is a flagrant abuse of the established principles of British public life and it ought to be stopped at once. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to tell us tonight that it has been or will be stopped.
  The most serious reason for looking at the possibility of putting further provisions in the Bill to deal with this matter is that there is evidence now that the facilities of Government Departments are being used for party political purposes. That is a very grave charge. I have gone very carefully into the evidence and I gave notice to the two Ministers concerned—the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Health—that I would be raising this matter.
  Hon. Members: Where are they?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The evidence is this. There is an organisation called the Rented Homes Campaign, with an address at 9, Cavendish Square, W.1. It says in its aims and objects that it has
  "No connection whatever with any political party …"
  and that it is:
  "an independent body wholly supported by voluntary contributions".
  However, let us consider the aims and objects a little more closely. The Chairman of the Council of the Rented Homes Campaign is Lord Dynevor, one-time Conservative Member of this House, P.P.S. to the Prime Minister, 1927–29, and now Chairman of the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association.
  The Times, of 19th September, described the composition of the leadership of this Rented Homes Campaign. It stated:
  "The Campaign Council includes … leading members of the Association of Land and Property Owners, the Property Owners' Association and other landlords' organisations as well as estate agents, surveyors and lawyers."
  972
  It has published a pamphlet called "A Nation of Council Tenantry". The first sentence of the pamphlet reads:
  "The object of this booklet is to discuss and attack one particular feature of the Labour Party's enunciated housing policy."
  There can be no doubt that this pamphlet is a party political pamphlet. It says so in the first sentence. Its purpose is to attack the Labour Party. It is aligned with the Conservatives and against the Labour Party on a major political issue of the day. It says so. This pamphlet has been distributed with the direct aid of Government official facilities. I have here, first, the envelope sent out in the normal course by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I have here, also, the envelope in which the pamphlet is set out.
  Both of these have stick-on official labels; both these labels have an identical address, identical type and are produced by the same addressograph with the identical code reference HLG K.19. HLG means Housing and Local Government. They have identical Stationery Office imprints on the bottom—"(Lablest) Code 21". There is one single, significant and damning difference between these two. The envelope in which the pamphlet was sent out had one inch cut off the top. The cutting off of bits of incriminating documents has become habitual with this Government. In this case one inch was cut off of the top.
  Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): In view of the grave constitutional importance of this disclosure, ought we not to have the Prime Minister present?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I hope, as I shall say later, that the Prime Minister will take this mater into urgent and immediate consideration.
  In this case one inch was cut off the top and it was quite clear what was cut off. The words "On Her Majesty's Service" were cut off. There was a deliberate attempt to conceal the official origin of this label.
  I have identical evidence from the Ministry of Health—the same official envelope which was sent out with a normal enclosure and a second one, containing this party political pamphlet.

  973
  Again, both are exactly the same, except that this time the code on both is H.SPO. 278. "H" stands for Ministry of Health and "SPO" for Special Press Officer, Mailing List. This evidence shows that actual labels provided by the Government Stationery Office must have been used for party political purposes. The Government addressograph was used and, worse still, official mailing lists have been used for openly party political publication. There may be some innocent explanation of this. If there is an innocent explanation, it should be given at once.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)rose—
  Mr. William Ross: We want the Prime Minister, not the office boy.
  Mr. Bevins: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give advance notice to my right hon. Friend of his intention to raise this matter this afternoon. Naturally, my right hon. Friend has made such inquiry as has been possible during the course of the day so far. Speaking for my right hon. Friend, I want to tell the House quite categorically that there is no evidence at all that this communication was issued from or by any person in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I entirely agree, on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that a label, which some time or other must have been in the Ministry, has been used in the case of this communication, but that in itself is no evidence that it issued from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
  If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let me see the envelopes, my right hon. Friend will make the fullest investigation into the allegations which have been made. The communication to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was received, as I understand, by a London County Council staff association. I have made inquiries of the Rented Houses Campaign Council and I am most emphatically assured that no communication of any sort was sent to that organisation.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I was not alleging that these documents had been sent out by the Ministry. I was saying something
  974
  quite different. I was saying that the facilities, the labels addressed by the addressograph and, therefore, the mailing list, had been put at the disposal of somebody else who sent out this document. I have the address to which the document was sent. It is absolutely clear, and the document is inside the envelope with all the accompanying literature. It certainly was sent to this organisation with a Government label provided by the Government—and it is a Stationery Office label at that. This is not merely a case of the use of the addressograph. The addressograph and Stationery Office labels have been used, and exactly the same thing applies to the Ministry of Health.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has made the most serious allegations. From the information which has been given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, it appears that this letter was never sent by the organisation referred to. As the letter may be a complete forgery, with an attempt being made to blacken the reputation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, may I suggest that it should at once be handed over to the Minister so that there may be an investigation?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I did not think that the defence of forgery would be produced as early as all this.
  There may be an explanation, and if there is, it certainly needs to be found. This cannot be passed off as a slip-up. There is too much coincidence. Two Departments are concerned and Die methods used are similar and the publication, on stationery provided by the Department, was sent out in both cases on the same day—the postmark is 17th September.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: To the same address?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: No, to different addresses.
  This cannot be put off on to officials. Ministers are responsible for what happens in their Departments and the decision to make Government facilities

  975
  for mailing available to any organisation whatever—let alone a party political organisation—is very grave and can be taken only at high level.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
  Mr. Gordon Walker: In the interests of the two Ministers concerned, to whom I gave notice, and in the interests of the decencies of public life, the Prime Minister should have an immediate, public and independent inquiry. When such an inquiry is set up, I will hand over the evidence to it.
  If we are properly to consider what ought to be in the Bill, we have to look at another aspect of the use of political funds for electoral purposes. We have to consider whether the law should have been strengthened in this Bill in respect of the use by political parties, either during an Election campaign, or even over a wider period, of the paid services of commercial advertising agents.
  Whether this practice should be carried out during Election campaigns or not, it is a new development and we should certainly consider whether the electoral law should not be strengthened in this respect. It is generally agreed that there are great dangers which, again, could undermine the purposes and the intent of our electoral law. The Economist said, on 25th October:
  "Real dangers are present and both politicians and advertisers need to be warned periodically to watch their step."
  The only politicians who need to be warned are Conservatives, especially the Prime Minister, and the advertisers who need to be warned are Colman, Prentis and Varley. I understand that the Conservative Party has been one of its commercial accounts since 1948. Colman, Prentis and Varley has deliberately entered politics and allowed itself to be used as a major force designed to shape public opinion. It must face the consequences of its own acts, and I hope that the name of Colman, Prentis and Varley will become known in every constituency. People have the right to know what subtle and shrouded devices are being used to try to mould their opinions.
  One object which the firm has set itself is to put over the Prime Minister
  976
  and it has turned him into a varnished man.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Is it not incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman at some stage in his speech to show that what he is complaining of can be safeguarded by an Amendment to the Bill? Mr. Speaker has ruled that very wide topics may be considered, provided that they show a substantial omission from the terms of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has now spoken on the aspect without explaining, after having revealed this information, in what way he could introduce an Amendment to safeguard against this kind of thing. He is now about to embark on another topic doing the same thing.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There can be no question of Amendments until we get to the Committee stage.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Further to that point of order. You were not in your place, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when Mr. Speaker ruled at the beginning of the debate, in reply to an invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that it was incumbent on any right hon. or hon. Gentleman, in addressing the House—
  Mr. Ross: Take your hands out of your pockets.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke:—to relate what he said to the contents of the Bill, or to show that there were certain omissions from the Bill which could be covered by subsequent Amendments. What the right hon. Gentleman has so far revealed is not related to either of those things, nor does what he is about to say relate to them.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: On a point of order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I answer one point of order at a time, we shall get on better. The right hon. Gentleman is showing reasons why he does not want the Bill to be given a Second Reading and why he thinks that it should not have been introduced. He is entitled to do that on Second Reading.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Is not this Bill entitled Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill? Is it not in order for

  977
  my right hon. Friend to say what he has said about this Amendment and to urge that other Amendments should have been introduced? Did not Mr. Speaker rule that it was common on Second Reading to go wide of what was in the Bill and to urge what ought to have been in it? Is the noble Lord in order, having got this smart Bill before the House, now to wish to gag the Opposition?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for supporting my Ruling.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  Before the noble Lord interrupted me, I was saying that Colman, Prentis and Varley has set itself to "put over" the Prime Minister and to "sell" him like the other branded goods it handles. The Prime Minister finds himself in rather curious company amongst the other accounts of Colman, Prentis and Varley. He finds himself rubbing shoulders with Chocolate Penguins, Lyons Ready-Mixes, Munchmallows, Payne's Poppets and Amplex.
  What I find particularly disturbing about this development is that the employment of a commercial advertising firm to "sell" the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party and to "sell" political ideas as if they were packaged goods is bringing about in this country the worst sort of Americanisation of our public life. This process of Americanisation seems to have been carried to completion by the Conservatives. Lord Poole, in the speech at the Blackpool Conference, from which I quoted earlier, said:
  "When our Vice-Chairman, Mr. Donald Kaberry, went to the United States to get first-hand experience of the propaganda methods used during the Presidential Election of 1955, we found that really we had, when it came to applying their methods, very little advantage that we could derive from what we learned."
  This is from the horse's mouth. The Conservatives set out to discover and copy American methods and then gloried in the fact that they carried these methods to perfection. That is the measure of what Colman Prentis & Varley has done to us.
  I am quite sure that these tricks and devices will be self-defeating. No decent
  978
  person in Britain wants to see us brought down to the level of American electioneering with all its high-pressure salesmanship. This is just what the Conservatives are doing [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. I can understand that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) does not agree with every word that I am saying. I am confident that when the people wake up to the cynical, commercial and high-pressure advertising devices which are being used to put over the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister there will be a great revulsion of feeling.
  We will, of course, divide against this Bill, not only because of the specific provision in it, which, taken by itself and in isolation, is a dirty bit of politics, but also because it is part and parcel of the process which was described by Lord Hailsham as bringing our public life into absolute contempt.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to give my right hon. Friend full support for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), because the comparison between the constituency which he represents and that which I represent, though they are only a few miles apart, is most marked both in geographical character and in the composition of the electorate.
  I want to deal at once with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, that if there had been dissatisfaction among Conservative supporters about the present Statutory arrangements for motor cars in Parliamentary Elections the proper recourse. should have been to increase the number of motor cars.
  Mr. Ross: Or limit the number of passengers.
  Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the proper recourse should have been to increase the number of motor cars to deal with this complaint. The present arrangements are that there is one motor car on polling day at a Parliamentary Election for 2,500 electors in a borough constituency and one motor car to 1,500 electors in a county constituency. That is a ratio of roughly five to three. But there is an extraordinary

  979
  comparison between borough constituencies and the counties, and I claim that an increase in the number of motor cars, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, would have been very far from fair and could not possibly have met the case.
  In 1945, I contested the West Bromwich Division of Staffordshire. I am pleased to see my opponent in his place today. He knows that his constituency has 7,180 acres in it, for an electorate of 60,932. In my constituency, 6,948 acres cover the four rural parishes of Alfrick, Lulsley, Doddenham and Knightwick, with an electorate of only 1,070. There are fifty times as many people in West Bromwich a built-up area in the Black Country, as there are in roughly the same acreage of a rural district in my constituency. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) nods his head and apparently questions the relevance of this statement, but the plain fact of the matter is that in his constituency he is allowed to have about twenty-four motor cars on polling day while I am allowed to have thirty-six motor cars on polling day—50 per cent. more—yet in one little part of my constituency the number of electors is only about one-fiftieth of the number in the entire area of his constituency.
  It follows that any rearrangement of the number of cars permitted could not operate equitably and satisfactorily through all the differing types of constituency which there are up and down the country. Although my constituency is a very large area and, in parts, is relatively sparsely populated, it still does not compare with certain county constituencies in Scotland. The Argyll division, for example, has an area many times bigger even than that of my constituency. The electorate may be approximately the same. Therefore, the requirement under the present law that the number of motor cars available on polling day shall be approximately the same in all county constituencies makes it nearly impossible to bring all rural voters to the polls.
  Every hon. Member taking part in this debate will no doubt quote from his own voluminous experience of procedure on Election day. In those four parishes to which I alluded just now, with 1,070 electors in an area of 7,000 odd acres,
  980
  something of the order of 50 per cent. only of the electors voted in 1951. I went to that district in the 1951 General Election. The circumstances were that in that part of the country there was a very bad fog. There was only one motor car available over 7,000 acres to try to bring more than 1,000 electors to the poll on a very foggy day. The result was that only about 50 per cent. of the people in that area were able to vote, although the national average was 82·6 per cent.
  I believe that in a democratic society the purpose of an election is to get as near as possible 100 per cent. of the electors to the polls. I have argued this issue publicly with Socialist Members. All of us, I believe, have been opposed to adopting the Australian system whereby people who do not cast a vote at an election are fined. I do not believe that there should be any form of compulsion, but contrariwise; I do not believe there should be any artificial restriction or inhibition against getting electors to the polls. I have made a comparison between a packed industrial borough constituency, West Bromwich, and my own constituency. That area represents only a small part of the area of my constituency. I have deliberately selected two extreme cases, one area heavily populated and one sparsely populated, but that serves to show that the present arrangements, restricting the use of motor cars is thoroughly inequitable and could not be improved by the manipulation of the numbers or ratios of cars as suggested by the right hon. Member for Smethwick.
  A second matter on which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House touched only lightly and did not underwrite in the later passages of his speech is the unfair situation which exists and the anomaly, as between county council, municipal and Parliamentary Elections. My right hon. Friend did not mention that there is a common register for all three types of elections. It is the same register used at county council elections as at municipal elections and Parliamentary Elections. I wonder if a Socialist supporter later in this debate will explain why, in 1949, this invidious distinction was made between county council and municipal elections on the one hand and Parliamentary Elections on the other? I have asked Labour supporters to tell me publicly why that

  981
  distinction exists and why they legislated so that differing conditions apply. As yet I have not heard a satisfactory explanation of this deliberate discrimination against Parliamentary Elections. I hope we shall hear one today.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: The hon. Member will appreciate, surely, that local government elections are restricted to a ward, or two wards, for a county council election. The area is smaller, and the number of voters smaller. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There are a number of county council seats in one Parliamentary division, except in the case of London, and London County Council is a special case. Another point is that in Parliamentary Elections it has been obvious in the past that firms in particular have been much more prone to supply cars and chauffeurs than for individuals taking part in county council elections.
  Mr. Nabarro: I shall deal with both points made by the hon. Member in the course of my speech. I respond shortly now, because the hon. Member has made an interesting point. I could quote several county council divisions in my constituency which are larger in area geographically than a whole Parliamentary constituency represented by certain hon. Members opposite. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) nods in agreement. Of course that is so.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member should not be so clever. I never made the slightest response. I always try not to make any response to what he says.
  Mr. Nabarro: I am always pleased to tickle the right hon. Member in the right Spot.
  I pass to the third question to which I want of allude, the matter of the ownership of motor cars. In 1931, only a matter of 25 years ago, there were about 1 million vehicles in this country. When the 1949 Act reached the Statute Book, there were fewer than 50 per cent. of the number of motor cars there are today. The private motor car population has doubled in ten years. I am in no doubt that in the next ten years it will double again [An HON. MEMBER: "God help us."] An hon. Friend says "God help us," but we ca mot legislate to keep private cars off the roads. Within that short period of
  982
  two decades the number of motor cars in this country will have quadrupled between 1949 and 1969.
  There is today about one motor car to four families. One family in four owns a motor car and in ten years time, at the present rate of growth, the proportion will become one in two. Under the present restrictions, in a county constituency one official motor car is permitted, on an average taken over the whole country, to deal with the conveyance of 350 families, yet the number of motor cars available to the community as a whole is one to four families. I hope that this argument is not unduly complicated, but it is undoubtedly the fact that one motor car is provided officially for 350 families in the electorate, whereas the ownership of cars is one to every four families. Surely that is a shocking disparity which ought to be remedied.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: The flaw in the argument of the hon. Member is that under the present law there is nothing to stop a man taking his family to the poll. That applies both ways, but it destroys the hon. Member's statistics. Apart from any other consideration, perhaps he will deal with the abuse by which at present an owner of a car may include in the family nonexistent in-laws, a sort of legion of people who are not in the family at all.
  Mr. Nabarro: I shall deal with both those points. I do not believe we should ever permit an important provision of a statute to remain on the Statute Book if it is unenforceable. The hon. Member called this an abuse. At present there is one motor car for four families. Can he tell me whether it is possible in present circumstances for the police to enforce the law about the use of motor vehicles on polling day? The right hon. Member for Smethwick ought to listen to this, because he got his homework all wrong. The present law is that a person may take to the polls in his motor car members of his own household. As I understand the law, there is no restriction upon the use of motor cars at Elections for any political purpose so long as it does not include conveyance of persons to the polls. That means that under the present law 50 motor cars carrying emblazoned upon them for demonstration purposes the popular slogan in West Worcestershire, "Nabarro Again", on Parliamentary

  983
  Election days can go into any part of my constituency so long as they do not convey electors to the polls. But I repeat: how does one enforce the rule that only members of the household may be conveyed to the poll in a motor car owned by the person concerned? How is it possible to enforce it when motor cars are already so ubiquitous as to be one to four families in the land? The proportion is rapidly rising to one in two families.
  Mr. John Diamond: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to this proportion of one in four families. Averages can be misleading. Can he tell us how many individuals possess more than one car? Has the hon. Gentleman any private experience to draw upon?
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I have private experience to draw upon, but I am not covered under Section 88 as a Parliamentary candidate. I drive my car around to the committee rooms and my wife drives another car to the committee rooms. There is no law against that. [Interruption.] I see that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South is now above the Gangway acting as a sort of shadow Parliamentary Private Secretary. If he wishes to interrupt me, will he get to his feet and do so?
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are arguing against the provisions of the Bill, will tell us how the police can possibly enforce the law in its present state requiring that only members of the driver's household may be driven in a car to the polls, when at every Parliamentary General Election in which I have taken part—they may not be quite as many as some hon. Members, but I have taken part in three, the General Elections of 1950, 1951, and 1955—
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Since 1949 there have been only three General Elections.
  Mr. Nabarro: Yes, and as I am a consistent sort of chap I have taken part in all three of them. In my experience of those three Elections there were complaints and counter-complaints by both the major political parties. They were widespread. The Tory Party alleged that Socialist cars were conveying persons, other than members of the drivers' households, to the polls. Contrariwise, there were Socialist complaints of the same
  984
  general character against the Tory Party. In the constituency of West Flint the police were called in, and a police officer was asked to arbitrate in a quarrel outside a polling station. He said, with complete aplomb and was faithfully recorded that there is no restriction in this matter, and that anybody could use any car and take anyone he liked to the polls.
  It is a fact that the agents of both major political parties know the provisions of the 1949 Act, but the general public hardly knows that these restrictions exist. Particularly, they do not understand the logic or the illogic of saying that there shall be no restriction upon the use of cars at county council and municipal elections, whereas these drastic restrictions must apply to Parliamentary Elections.
  Mr. Crossman: I am sympathetic to some parts of the hon. Gentleman's argument. In his private experience of General Elections, did the hon. Member find that in his talk with anybody it was suggested that to abolish the restriction altogether would give a benefit to the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Nabarro: I will tell the hon. Gentleman, who is sympathetic to certain sections of my argument. I am not so dogmatic as to believe that anybody can be completely right in this matter, but of one thing I am quite sure. I used the word "ubiquitous" just now; I am using it again. There is a practice, which is quite ubiquitous, of Labour supporters riding in Tory cars. [Laughter.] Oh, I am all for it. I do not mind. My philosophy is one of total freedom, but not anarchy. If my political organisation in the Kidderminster Parliamentary Division of Worcestershire is so poor as to allow my fervent supporters, working on my behalf on a Parliamentary polling day, to take Labour voters to the polls, and if that is sufficiently widespread, 1 deserve to lose the Election because I should be proved an incompetent person. Does not the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) entirely agree with me that the practice of Labour supporters riding in Tory Party cars is ubiquitous?
  Mr. Crossman: I think it is a growing practice with the growing political intelligence of the electorate, but the hon.

  985
  Gentleman did not answer my question. Did he find any person in his constituency who said that it would advantage us and not advantage the Tories to abolish this restriction? The hon. Member is fair-minded; if he were to find that the overwhelming public opinion in his constituency was that the Bill would only favour the Tory Party, would he not agree that it would be unfortunate for such a Bill to be introduced?
  Colonel Richard H. Glyn: The limitation was first imposed by the Labour Party.
  Mr. Crossman: I think that argument was met from our Labour Front Bench. The aim is to reduce the unfair advantage accruing to one side, to wealth.
  Mr. Nabarro: May I answer the hon. Gentleman's first question? The Bill was published a few days ago. It was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the debate on the Address.
  Mr. Crossman: It was too dirty and shameful to put into Her Majesty's mouth.
  Mr. Nabarro: The plain fact is that I have not yet had time to test public opinion in my constituency in the matter, but I am sure that, though there might possibly have been some advantage to the Tory Party 20 or 30 or 40 years ago in having no restriction on the use of motor cars on polling day, there cannot he any such advantage today because of the proliferation of motor vehicles and their wide ownership, throughout every section of society in this country.
  Surely the hon. Member for Coventry, East, who sits for one-third of the premier motor-vehicle manufacturing city in the country, understands that factories everywhere in Britain are faced with the problem of where to park the cars of their workers? Men and women of every degree go to their work in hundreds of thousands of cars, and they create for factory managements a growing: parking problem. I only mention till; to illustrate the proliferation and the wide ownership of motor vehicles of every description. I say nothing about mopeds, scooters and motor cycles. [An HON. MEMBER: "And helicopters."]
  986
  There may be helicopters in the years to come.
  A huge number of vehicles is available, far greater than ever before, and it is surely ridiculous for us, the Conservative Party, responsible for the Government at this time, to allow to remain on the Statute Book a totally unenforceable and illogical provision. [Interruption.]—It is certainly unenforceable, and any attempt to enforce it might create a truly ridiculous state of affairs.
  I want to wind up by a reference to the Conservative Party conference. I missed it this year for the first time. I could not go to the conference, so I did not see the incident to which reference has been made. I have noticed in earlier years, on many occasions since 1950, resolutions passed by the conference with overwhelming majorities calling for the removal of this motor car restriction on polling day at Parliamentary Elections.
  Mr. Lewis: Why?
  Mr. Nabarro: I am coming to that.
  Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman is going on to explain, will he also explain how many such resolutions were passed at Labour Party conferences? The Leader of the House tried to kid us that it was being done to help the Labour Party also. How many resolutions have we passed?
  Mr. Nabarro: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete what I was going to say, I will come to that matter later.
  I had referred to the fact that many times during the last few years resolutions have been passed by a large majority at the Conservative Party conference calling for the repeal of Section 88 of the 1948 Act. I have noted that on radio, television and on public platforms. Socialists constantly jibe at the Tory Party saying that the annual party conference is of little value because the Prime Minister takes no notice whatever of the resolutions passed there. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) cannot have it both ways.
  We have had these resolutions year after year, and, talking as a party man, if the Conservative Party's annual conference passes by a large majority a resolution to the effect that a particular provision in a Statute should be repealed, I

  987
  see no reason whatsoever why the Conservative Parliamentary Party, which has a majority in the House, should not implement what is recommended by its political conference. The hon. Gentleman has always supported a system whereby if at a Labour Party Conference a provision is built into a resolution his leadership is bound to act upon it. Surely, he cannot—
  Mr. Crossman: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that what we are here dealing with are changes in the constitutional representation of our country. The Representation of the People Act has constitutional repercussions on how we run our Elections. To justify this change in the Act by saying that it is called for in a resolution put forward at the annual conference of one of the main parties is really to say something which is extremely dangerous to the House. It means that the party outside has the right to dictate how Elections should be run, and that is a very unwise thing for the hon. Gentleman to say.
  Mr. Nabarro: When I want any wise advice or guidance I shall certainly not go to the hon. Gentleman for it.
  For a variety of reasons, which I have endeavoured to explain this afternoon, I strongly support this Bill. Many of my reasons have been listened to by hon. Gentlemen opposite in complete silence, and none has been entirely rebutted by anything which they have said, particularly about the size of constituencies and the number of motor cars available. An added reason for the change is that the Conservative Party annual conference has wholeheartedly supported this provision in earlier years.
  I do not believe that the Bill will be regarded in the country as a partisan Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is useless for hon. Members opposite to scoff because they are in no closer touch with public opinion than I am, and I have not yet had an opportunity in just seven days to test opinion in my constituency. I am perfectly sure that the Conservative Party ought to proceed on the general basis of requiring that new legislation suits and matches conditions which exist in the country today. With 5 million motor cars available—
  Mr. Lewis: Four million.
  Mr. Nabarro: No, 5 million motor cars approximately, and with the possibility that the number will double within the next decade, it would be quite unrealistic as well as illogical to continue a restriction introduced in 1949 for bigoted, dogmatic and partisan purposes by the party opposite.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I think that the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will, when read in the cool light of tomorrow, be felt even by his own side not very substantially to have helped the case, if there is one, for this change in the law.
  As far as my knowledge leads me to believe, the House has always proceeded in matters of electoral reform by getting the greatest possible common agreement between the parties. This was certainly the case with the Speaker's Conference of 1944, many of the recommendations of which were subsequently implemented both by the all-party Government and by the Labour Government. That is true of what happened on many occasions before that—in 1918, for example.
  I am not suggesting that legislative amendments of either party when dealt with on the Floor of the House have always been universally welcomed. What I am saying, and it is a principle to which I hope we shall stick—that is why so many of us feel very concerned about this departure—is that I trust that every effort will be made to get agreement between parties before Measures changing Election practice are introduced. In this case, that has not been done. The hon. Member for Kidderminster gave one of the reasons why it has not been done. He said that what is now proposed had been demanded time after time by the overwhelming majorities at the Conservative Party conference and that, therefore, in his view, it was right that the Government should give effect to what their supporters seek. If that becomes the accepted principle, then something that has been for long an established principle in the House will be broken. That, I think, would be regrettable in the interests of Parliamentary democracy.
  Mr. Osborne: I rather agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it

  989
  not true that the Speaker's Conference in 1944 did not recommend this specific point about the limitation on motor cars and that it was only inserted during the 1945–50 Parliament in face of fierce opposition and contrary to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference?
  Mr. Skeffington: There are two points in reply to that intervention. First, an attempt was made to get agreement in 1944. No attempt has been made to get agreement about the matter with which we are dealing today. We knew nothing about the Bill until a few days ago. There was an earlier suggestion about the limitation on cars, which was rejected, but there has been no general attempt to reach a compromise. Secondly, even in the Carr Committee the recommendation to limit cars was lost by only one vote. which shows that there was a very real division of opinion about it.
  I agree that when these matters come to the Floor of the House they may not always receive universal approval. But an attempt ought to be made to get agreement on an amendment to the law of this kind instead of justifying that alteration, as did the hon. Member for Kidderminster because it has been demanded by Conservative Party's annual conferences. I profoundly disagree with that point of view, and I hope that some hon. Members opposite will also disagree with it; I do not think that is a good reason for changing democratic procedure.
  I believe, in view of the debate which we had yesterday and the day before, when we were discussing the fundamental economic and human problems which confront the nation and the fears which many people have about the future, that the country will be surprised that the Government have thought fit to introduce this Measure as the first in their programme. Incidentally, the Opposition had to draw attention to the fact that there was a singular omission in the Gracious Speech about unemployment and sagging production.
  I think people will be surprised that the first Measure introduced in this Session is one of this character. Even if there is a case for an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, why on earth give it such a high priority and give the impression that it is introduced because it may advantage the Conservative Party? The Conservative Party has
  990
  been extremely unwise in its own interests to introduce the Bill so early in the Session.
  If one looks back over the record, one finds that the party opposite seems to have had a pathological fixation about cars. I have been reading the debate which took place in 1948, first on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), and subsequently on 14th June when the final new Clause was added to the 1949 Act. Looking back, it is difficult to recall a matter which aroused such violent language and such extravagant comment, a matter which, though important, was not really of the consequence which was sought to be attached to it by Conservative Members of Parliament at that time.
  The noble Lord, who was then the Member for Horsham and is now very happily ensconced elsewhere, referred to the Clause on the limitation of cars at Parliamentary Elections as "calamitous," and the late lamented Member who then sat for Holderness said that this was the first step on the road to totalitarianism. We had heard of many other first steps during the 1945 General Election, but apparently, the limitation on motor cars was to be the first step. The noble Lord who sits for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and is still with us used some really extraordinary language. I suppose it is amusing if one does not take it seriously. Perhaps the noble Lord was put up to keep the debate going; I do not know. He asked:
  "What about the fleet of a thousand cars at the disposal of Sir Ben Smith in the North-West Regional area"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 90.]
  How he could have read into an Amendment for the limitation of cars at Elections the idea that the National Coal Board was going to allow the use of its cars for the Labour Party, I do not know, but that is what he said. He asked if they were to be at the disposal of Socialist voters. Then he asked what about the civil servants in their hundreds of thousands. who were probably going to vote Socialist at the next Election in order to maintain themselves in jobs?
  I think the. House will agree that that was violent and extravagant language, and there seems to be this kind of reaction whenever there has been an attempt to limit something which, rightly or

  991
  wrongly, we honestly think is an advantage to the Conservatives and their party.
  It has not escaped our notice, of course, that this matter has been repeatedly pressed for, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, at the Conservative Party Conference time and time again. Of course, we could assume that it was an entirely disinterested demand in the interests of democracy. I have never assumed that those who differ from me are insincere, but they may honestly take the view that this is an advantage to them in political warfare. It is a perfectly legitimate point of view, and I do not see that we need quarrel with that. What I do quarrel with, first, is the method by which it is being done. It is its priority in the Parliamentary timetable. Secondly, I quarrel with the suggestion made by the Home Secretary that this change is being made out of their kindness of the Tory heart to help everybody and to help us. The Home Secretary cannot believe that, and if hon. Members do not pursue that line, perhaps we shall have less heat and more light in our debate.
  I would add this on the question of electoral reform. If there was need for a Bill of this kind and for this Amendment to be included in it, there are so many other changes of great importance that could have been included. My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate so well from this side of the House, referred to party finances, and, if the Government were really interested in fair play in Elections, where the money comes from and how it is spent, is much more important to democracy than the restrictions on the use of cars. There has never been a whisper of a suggestion that the Conservative Party's funds should he disclosed.
  The father of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said seventy-eight years ago:
  "I should like all the finances of the Tory Party to he open for inspection for anyone who may wish to look at them, be he friend or foe."
  If the Government were now to come forward with a proposal of this kind, I think the response, even on the question of cars, would have been very much warmer on this side of the House, and would have
  992
  been in the interests of Parliamentary Government. So long as their funds are secret, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will always lay themselves open to the worst charges and the worst rumours. We have heard so many of them in the past and we do not know whether they are true or not. One remembers that Earl Baldwin said he had to go into the City to raise a £1 million fund, and Lord Younger, the then Treasurer of the Conservative Party, said in 1929 he was raising a fighting fund of £100,000, exclusively subscribed by members of the Carlton Club. These things may or may not be true, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite quite sincerely that if they are interested in democratic practice, they could have introduced reforms along these lines, and that it would have been better for them and for the country. Where their funds come from is of considerable importance.
  The Home Secretary, in justifying, or in giving one of the reasons for justifying, this Bill, talked about the growing number of cars. That is perfectly true, but the more there is a distribution of cars among individual families the less need is there for party cars. Many of us would have liked to have seen a system whereby, if there was need to convey people to the poll—people who were not very well or old—it should be done by an impartial authority. There are difficulties in such a scheme. It might be expensive and, administratively, it is inconvenient, but the sole legitimate excuse for party cars is the fact that, otherwise, there are people who could not vote. That is the only real reason. The Home Secretary, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster, it seemed to me, completely destroyed the valid reason for the Bill, because there are more and more individual cars so there is less need for party cars. What we object to is the advantage to a political party, not to an individual, in having more cars.
  Therefore, if there was any justification at one time for this sort of Amendment of the law, say five or ten years ago, immediately after the war, before we had many new cars, and so on, it certainly does not exist today, and will not exist so long as this country can maintain its motor-car industry output. It seems to me that on this point the Home Secretary completely gave away any practical reason for the suggested change.

  993
  There is another reason which makes the use of party cars, not individual cars—and this is really our point—far less necessary. The Labour Government, very much to its own disadvantage, though I think it was right, introduced the postal vote. I think it was to its own disadvantage because, quite frankly, the organisation of the postal vote is something which requires a great deal of patience and skill, and we do not get very much of it done unless we have devoted people to work voluntarily or else pay for the work to be done. Quite frankly, we cannot afford to pay for it as hon. Gentlemen opposite can and do.
  There are a number of constituencies which in 1951, and, indeed, I think, in 1950, were probably lost by the mobilisation of the postal vote alone. That was done in many cases much more successfully by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I know something about some of the marginal constituencies, because I have fought one three times, and I know the amount of paid help which an opponent could afford. I am not criticising that. I wish we were in a position to do the same, but, quite frankly, we are not.
  Therefore, the case for conveyance—the historical reason for a hundred years—of the old or the sick person or the person on shift work, has now gone. It is provided for by the postal vote. This is something which we introduced, certainly not to the political advantage of the Labour Party, but very much to the advantage of hon. Members opposite. If I may conclude this part of my argument, today, as a result of this arrangement, the number of cases where even the party cars are required is very much smaller, and that is particularly true where hon. Members oposite are concerned.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I am following closely what the hon. Member is saying in regard to the postal vote. He says that the Conservative Party is able to pay people in order to ensure that the postal vote is collected. I should like to say that I have never heard of any constituency in which workers have been paid to collect these votes, and I think it is quite wrong.
  Mr. Skeffington: A number of examples in the past have been brought
  994
  to my notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] West Ham was one case. The number of assistants in the Conservative Party local headquarters who are paid whole-time is often known. There is nothing to be ashamed of about that. I am not saying that this work is paid for, or that there are not voluntary workers. Of course, there are, but in the past, the Conservative Party has had more people able to give a great deal of time to political activities than we have had in the Labour Party. That is particularly true today when so many of our women who used to help at elections are working during the day, having to take a job in order to balance the family budget. That does not apply so much to women in the Conservative Party.
  In the General Election of 1951 the percentage of electors voting averaged about 81 per cent.; in some cases the figure was 84 per cent. That means, in effect, that there were very few electors wanting to vote who could not do so. Almost as soon as an election register is prepared one has to knock off about 10 per cent. to account for deaths, removals, and so on. On a General Election register one never has a live voting list of more than about 90 per cent. Therefore, we have got extremely near to the total poll of voters able to vote with the provisions of the 1949 Act and the postal vote. Consequently, there is very little evidence that the provision of more party cars will help people to vote, quite apart from whether it will actually be a disadvantage to one party or another.
  If the amendment is to be forced through, as I suppose it will be, I hope that consideration will be given to making the cost of petrol used by party cars an election expense. I am not wanting the cost of petrol on family cars to count. That would be some safeguard in rural constituencies that there would be a limit to the unfair advantage which the Tory Party would otherwise have in those areas.
  It may well be that the Measure will not turn out to be so very much to the advantage of the Conservative Party—partly as a result of today's debate. Although I think it will be of some advantage to the Conservative Party in rural constituencies, I do not think it will be of such great disadvantage to the Labour Party in urban constituencies. I believe,

  995
  however, that there will be a number of people with no particular party alliance who will deplore the amendment because it will seem to be, because of the timing of the legislative programme and the arguments used by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Kidderminster, a matter of purely Conservative advantage. It will not induce these people to vote Conservative.
  In 1948 the then hon. Member for Holderness described the limitation on cars as being a step towards totalitarianism. I believe that this proposal today is a step back the other way, to the kind of privilege from which I hoped we were getting away. Although it cannot by any means be said of all Conservatives, one feels that there are a certain number who, if they can, will load the scales against the people by means of wealth, influence and privilege.
  Not long ago I read some words by the eighteenth century dramatist, Thomas Holcroft, who attended a sale of the rotten borough of Gatton, a Parliamentary seat. He wrote:
  "The celebrated auctioneer scarcely noticed the value of the estate. The rental, the mansions, the views, the woods and waters, were unworthy of regard, compared to what he called an elegant contingency."
  He went on to say that the buyer of the borough would have:
  "No tempestuous passions to allay, no tormenting claims of insolent electors to evade, no tinkers' wives to kiss, no impossible promises to make, none of the toilsome and not very clean paths of canvassing to drudge through; but, his mind at ease and his conscience clear, with this elegant contingency in his pocket, the honours of the State await his plucking and with its emoluments his purse will overflow."
  I believe that, in putting this Measure so high in the legislative programme without adducing any practical reasons why it is necessary now, the Conservative Party is tending to go back to the traditional rôle which it has occupied in politics, and that is bad for the Conservative Party, the country and the Parliamentary system.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has made a very earnest speech, with parts of which I was in sympathy. He concluded with a passage taken from an eighteenth century book,
  996
  and I think that symbolises the attitude of a great many of his hon. Friends. The Labour Party is viewing the problem much too much in the light of past prejudices instead of present conditions.
  I must follow that by singling out from his speech one point on which I sincerely agree with him, though here I may not find myself at one with my hon. Friends. I should have been happier if this Measure had not been the first out of the hat. I concede that before I make my speech.
  The Bill is of far greater social significance and to the rural areas in particular, than of political significance to either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. I was glad that the hon. Member concluded with what I regard as a very right observation in doubting whether electoral advantage would accrue to the Conservative Party as a result of the Measure to the extent some of his hon. Friends believe. I entirely share that view.
  It is in the sense that the Bill will assist rural areas that it has my very cordial support. It is always possible in Measures of this kind to strike a political attitude based on past prejudices far removed from social realities. I earnestly suggest that some hon. Members opposite are in danger of doing that. We can argue interminably about how much, and whether appreciably, the Bill will affect party fortunes on one side or the other. What is beyond argument is that it will make an immense difference to a large, and, I regret to say, increasing, number of English villages. I have previously said—iast time I said it it met with great approval on the other side of the House—that, because of the decline in public transport services in rural areas, there are parts of rural England which are threatened now with an isolation which they have not suffered since the advent of the internal combustion engine. More and more villages deserted by the bus companies are coming to depend upon the good will of motor users. I regard that as a very significant factor in respect of the Bill.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): No one will deny that the shortage of public transport in rural areas is a growing problem, but the hon. Member will be aware that the Representation of the People Act provides for

  997
  polling booths to be sited sufficiently near where people reside. Therefore, transport is not quite the problem in regard to voting that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
  Mr. Deedes: I still say that the provision falls some way short of the realities as I know them to be in the rural areas. Although car ownership has spread widely enough to damage the public service, it has not spread widely enough to fill the vacuum that the absent public vehicles once occupied. To combine the present transport situation in rural England with the continuance of Section 88, which the Bill will repeal, is really to disfranchise large sections of the English countryside. I refuse to think that the Opposition desire that; if it were so, we should not be moving forward from the logical consequences of the Reform Acts; we should be moving back.
  I suggest to hon. Members opposite that this question ought not to be considered wholly in the light of past arguments, all of which I think I can claim to have read, and with some of which I had a certain sympathy at the time when they were advanced, in 1948. Far more should it he considered in the light of the new pattern of transport, resulting from a transport revolution, with which very few hon. Members on either side have caught up. The car has a new rôle in England today, in both urban and rural areas. Many people who live in agricultural areas go to work in factories in the nearest towns, in cars which are shared between two, three or four persons. They have bought second- or third-hand cars at reasonable prices, and they are in the habit of taking their cornpanions—who share the cost—to work and back. In some of our towns commuters are coming in and going out each day from the surrounding villages, on a miniature scale. That has been the trend of the last decade.
  If I were seeking to make a political argument out of this matter I would add that a fair proportion of those cars carry Labour voters. This situation has come about largely as a result of the immense spread of factory and industrial development throughout the rural areas. It is no longer confined, as in the first Industrial Revolution, to certain centres of coal, steel, shipbuilding, and so on.
  998
  This situation is rapidly expanding. One proof is the decline in the use and sale of the push-bicycle.
  In rural areas this fact raises sharply the question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred, and to which hon. Members opposite must provide an answer before the debate concludes. There has been a remarkable contrast between the numbers of cars available in post-war years, including Election years. In 1945 there were about 1½ million private cars; in 1948, when we discussed the Bill which we now seek to amend, the number was just under 2 million; in 1950 we fought the Election with 2,¼ million cars and in 1955, with 3½ million. This year there will be about 4½ million cars, and in the next Election I would put the figure at at least 5 million privately-owned cars. Is no account to be taken of this fact? Are we expected to ignore it?
  Has any other country ignored it? I have not studied this matter as closely as I should have, but I am under the impression that there is no parallel restriction in other countries. I agree that the political significance of this transport trend is very difficult to assess in terms of gain to one side or the other, but it has certainly not widened the gap between Tories with cars and Labour voters without; in fact, it has gone a very long way towards closing it. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was probably thinking in those terms when he said what he did. I have never thought that this political argument was very strong anyway, because Section 88 does not prevent the wealthy car owner from recording his vote; it prevents him, in certain circumstances, from giving lifts to those who are less fortunate. In the country many people who are without public transport for the first time will perhaps find it more difficult to vote than in any preceding Election.
  What solution do the Opposition offer? The argument may be advanced that most of those who are allowed to use their cars freely will be Tories, and wilt therefore give lifts to their Tory friends., Anybody who knows anything about rural England knows that that argument cannot be put forward very strongly. I claim no special virtues for neighbourliness in rural areas, but where there is—as there now has to be—a friendly habit

  999
  of giving neighbours a lift from the village to the nearest town, regardless of politics, I cannot persuade myself that these arrangements will not prevail on polling day. It is contrary to human nature to suggest that they will not.
  I want to say a word about enforceability. When a Member is faced with legislation that he does not like, it is common form for him to say that it brings the law into contempt. In the case of the law that we propose to amend, however, that is perilously true. It cannot be pretended that Section 88 is fully understood by people outside the legal profession. Any layman who was cross-examined upon its provisions would be in difficulty, and a study of the debates which took place a decade ago indicate that not even all its sponsors understood it. The Attorney-General of that time—Sir Hartley Shawcross—said:
  "There will always be marginal cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 111.]
  That is profoundly true. My main objection is not to the lack of comprehension—because that argument might be laid against a great number of the laws that we pass—but that this Measure has led, and will go on leading as long as the Section prevails, to a highly disagreeable system of espionage and counterespionage in all Elections—a system in respect of which those on my side are as guilty as those on the other.
  In the Hornsey by-election, held in May, 1957, the following account was published in a reliable national newspaper:
  "Observers with cameras are to be posted by the Conservative organisers at each of the 24 polling stations in the Hornsey by-election on Thursday. They will be on watch for any unauthorised car being used to take electors to the poll."
  In the by-election in North Lewisham, which had just preceded the Hornsey by-election, the police had been called in. Hence the precautions. My experience of polling day is that when I arrive in a village—and this happened to me in 1955—I ask how things are going and am told by my agent that they are going splendidly, and that he thinks that they have found an illicit Labour car being used in Little Bumbledon—and the police are called in. This is a complete waste of time, and it adds enormously to the burden and the
  1000
  odium of election campaigns, when people are tired and their nerves are at full stretch. We should be well rid of that side of the picture.
  I refuse to believe that the Opposition are enthusiastic about perpetuating this atmosphere of mistrust and ill-feeling, which nobody can deny exists in a majority of constituencies at present. I accept that in 1948 there were arguments—even if they were political ones—in favour of Section 88, and I can understand that many hon. Members opposite supported that Section. But even then there was one overwhelming argument against it. It reduced by legislation the numbers who could vote in an election, and that argument, politically, socially and democratically, is very difficult to defend. Now, taking into account the new balance of car ownership, and the predicament of people living in the rural areas, which are new factors, I believe that it is impossible to defend, and that is why I gladly acknowledge and support the Bill.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Dye: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) speaking of his experiences in a rural area. He has made the same kind of speech today as he usually makes in his villages. He is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people. He has missed the main point, which is that every fact that he has mentioned can be used in an argument against his side.
  So far as I know, this is the first occasion when the first debate following the debates upon the Gracious Speech has been upon a Measure that was not even mentioned in that Speech. There must be some reason for that, and I think that the hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) have both given that reason quite clearly; it is that the Conservative Party organisation wants this Bill, and wants it above all else. How, then, can they argue that there is no party advantage m the Measure they have now put before the House? Clearly it is deliberately designed to secure an advantage for them.
  If the argument is that certain voters, particularly in the rural constituencies, are dependent upon the motor car to go to the poll, is not that a very sound reason for saying that the business should be arranged

  1001
  impartially and not that one party should have an advantage? If hon. Gentlemen opposite were really approaching this matter purely on the ground that voters in rural areas have difficulty in reaching the polling stations, they could very well have come forward with a scheme which would ensure a more abundant number of polling stations and some arrangement whereby, impartially, transport was made available to take people there.
  What was the percentage poll in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ashford? Was it any less than the average for the whole country?
  Mr. Deedes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dye: I gather that it was not. Then his whole argument falls to the ground. In my constituency at the last Election, the poll was about 82 per cent. In a rural constituency, that is very good. That was under the restriction on the use of cars. That was in 1955, and roughly the same figure was reached in 1950 and 1951. When has there been a higher percentage of the electorate voting in any General Election than in those three General Elections, at a time—the only time—when these restrictions have been in force?
  Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman has taken up a point I made. I would ask him to bear in mind the first point I made, that since 1955 there has been a very serious decline in public transport in rural areas. This is a factor which must be taken into account.
  Mr. Dye: In the villages, I have never know a time when public transport, whether it be the railways or the bus services, has been of any use for taking voters to and from the polls. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford may have an exceptional constituency—I suspect that that is why he is still here—but, by and large, in the rural constituencies, the public transport service is of no use. This is the reason that hon. Members opposite want the free use of motor cars in abundance for their party when the next General Election comes.
  Rural voters are as keen to vote as anyone else, and, in spite of their difficulties, they go to the poll in just about as good numbers as do those who live in the towns. If we could improve on 82 per cent., I should be all in favour of
  1002
  that. I want nothing but a fair chance. I wish to see no advantages, whether by motor cars or by any other methods. I want only a fair chance to put my case before them, let the people vote, and give them every facility in doing so. If hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with that—I see some of them nodding—why do not they agree to a round-table conference to discuss the matter, instead of pushing this Measure through the House in this way? If they want impartiality and a fair chance for electors to vote, why do it by this method, on the first day after they have disposed of the Queen's Speech? Hon. Members opposite know quite well what the real reason is.
  There are dangers in this proposal. We have been reminded already that, in county council and district council elections, there is free use of motor cars. In order to describe what happens in these circumstances, I will take the example of my own part of Norfolk. In 1955, at the county council elections, what happened was that in divisions where Conservative candidates were standing, those candidates had free use of a vast number of cars. With what result? They got as many electors as they wanted to the poll, winning two seats, but so many cars did they have that they blocked the roads leading to the polling stations with cars bearing placards saying, "Vote for the Tory candidate".
  There is not usually a great deal of room in our village streets where the schools are. Is it fair for all the rich people in the neighbourhood to come with their cars, leaving them parked outside the polling station and bearing placards with the name of their candidate on them? If a Labour supporter did that within the precincts of the schools, he would be breaking the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course he would, if he used the precincts of a school to put up a poster asking people to vote for his candidate. The thing would be removed immediately. Yet the Tories can come with a vast fleet of cars, parking them outside the polling stations, and get away with it.
  If, at a Parliamentary Election, we are now to find in front of every one of our local polling stations a fleet of cars standing with Tory colours on them, the Labour cars being unable to carry their

  1003
  voters up to the polling stations because the roads are blocked, and the entrances to them—[Interruption.]—and this is what happened in my county council election.
  Mr. Roderic Bowen: What about the police?
  Mr. Dye: We have a very good police force—better, perhaps, than Wales has, since people there want to change it or, at least, the management of it—but, in our peaceful Norfolk villages, we do not have policemen on duty at the polling stations. We just have the local fellow who is a special constable; he stays there, where it is warm, if it is a cold day. After all, his job is just at the polling station, not to control traffic outside.
  If there is free and unrestricted use of cars, the Tories, particularly in rural districts, will try to dominate the situation by the use of their motor cars in getting voters to the poll and blocking the entrances to the polling stations. This would be unfair. There would not be a local policeman to control the traffic.
  Mr. Osborne: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman very closely because I believe that he is sincere in what he says, but will he tell us this? Is he really accusing his local police of failing in their duty—he said it had happened in two local elections—by allowing Conservatives to commit an offence that Socialists would not be permitted to do? Is he really saying that the police officers in his area are not impartial in the way they conduct themselves on election days?
  Mr. Dye: The hon. Gentleman said that he did me the honour of listening to what I said, but he did not understand it. What I said was that the Tories parked their cars in the street outside the school—
  Mr. Osborne: And blocked the street.
  Mr. Dye:—and blocked the street.
  Mr. Osborne: That is an offence.
  Mr. Dye: Is it? They had their placards there. If a Socialist did the same, not by blocking the street but by putting a poster inside the school, he
  1004
  would soon be in trouble. I am not charging our police with failing to do their duty, or anything of the sort.
  What happened in that case? The Conservative got their candidate elected to the county council. He did not ask to serve on any committees and, to the best of my knowledge, during the three years he served he never made a speech. When his time of office was up, he did not even seek re-election. In other words, by their overwhelming use of cars, the Conservatives could get a nonentity elected to the county council, merely to keep out someone else.
  Is not that just what is at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite? They know that their case is weakening, that the character of their candidates is not good enough for the job, and they want to gain an unfair advantage by using their cars to get into this House people who otherwise would not get here. That is the whole purpose of this Bill.
  What is the purport of the discussion that has followed publication of the Bill? The Times and the Daily Telegraph do not support the party on this side of the House; but, after all, the Daily Telegraph is a responsible paper, and on 30th October it published a leader on this subject. It also published letters, said that it had received many more from Conservatives, and promised a second leading article. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tory freedom."] Let us hope that, in this respect it was, and that, in this case, its advice is taken. I say that because it is quite clear that the Daily Telegraph would either expect the House today to reject this Bill or the Government to withdraw it. After what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench, I hardly think that the Government will simply push this Bill through. If they do, they will hang their heads in shame—
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What was the date of the Daily Telegraph issue that asked for the Bill to be withdrawn?
  Mr. Dye: I did not say that it asked for it to be withdrawn. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be in the interests of democracy if what the Daily Telegraph said was put on record. This is what that newspaper said on 3rd November:
  "We have received a large number of letters from Conservative supporters in favour of the

  1005
  Government's proposal to lift the present restrictions on the use of cars in General Elections. Last Thursday we raised objections to this measure, but many of our correspondents have failed to grasp the point. There are, surely, three questions to be asked. Is it right to repeal the clause? Will it make much difference'? Is it expedient to do it now? Of course there is a strong case for those—most of them experienced party workers—who claim that Clause 88 of the 1949 Act was always anomalous, and is now an out-of-date nuisance. But the Socialists do not think so. They believe, perhaps quite wrongly, that to lift the quota system would again put their supporters at a disadvantage.
  There is, at any rate, a controversy. Having failed to get the Socialists to agree to repeal the clause, is the Government really wise to follow their bad example of going it alone? The convention that electoral reform should proceed by all-party agreement is a good one. Would it not, for instance, have been preferable to enlarge the present quotas of one car for every 1,500 voters in county constituencies and one for every 2,500 in boroughs? If, as some Government spokesmen argue, the new conditions will make very little difference anyway, to voters of any party, then it becomes even harder to understand why it has been thought worth while to repeal the clause at all—above all, to repeal it in what is probably the last Session before a General Election.
  Had the Government acted in 1951, or in 1955, it would have been easier to persuade the electorate that it was acting on principle. As it is, the Conservative Party must expect to find itself the object of a smear campaign"—
  Mr. Osborne: We are getting it.
  Mr. Dye: Continuing the article:
  "The Socialists will exploit the timing of the Bill, representing it as a mere attempt to snatch an unfair electoral advantage. Of course the Government can defend itself against this charge, but its tactics have been lamentable."
  That, I believe, is rather a weak description of how the Government look today, and they would, indeed, be well advised to revise their plans, and either withdraw the Bill or state quite clearly that they will accept Amendments—widen the scope of the Bill. If the Government did that, avoided a Division today, and took this Bill on the Floor of the House as soon as they liked after proper consultation, the country would he better served, and politics in this country would be brought hack to a fairer plane.
  6.17 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Although the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) criticised the Bill severely, I got the impression that
  1006
  he has misgivings about the operation of the present law—at any rate, in his own constituency. May I say to him, however, that it is rather late in the day to suggest a conference on this subject? I believe that he was a Member of the House in 1948, and he will remember the events of that year. Had he raised his voice then in the way that he has raised it today, we would now have listened to him, I think, with much greater respect. It is just as reprehensible to prevent people doing things for one's own party advantage as it is to permit them. That, I think, is the answer to an intervention made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
  I am glad to take part in this debate, because I believe that I alone in this House am on public record as having spoken against the proposal contained in the present Bill. In fact, I wound up the debate at the Conservative Party Conference at Scarborough in 1952. My argument was that it was desirable to restrict as much as possible alterations in the election laws each time there was a change of Government.
  That view did not prevail, but that was very soon after a change of Government. It was the first conference after the Election in which the Conservative Party was returned to power. We had had little more than two years' experience of the operation of this Section; there had been only two General Elections—in fairly quick succession—and very few by-elections. Even so, it was acknowledged at that time—and, I think, generally acknowledged—that the Section was, to say 'the least, open to abuse.
  We have now had three General Elections, over six years have elapsed, we have had many by-elections and the position has been studied, and studied care-Cully, both by those involved in party politics and those outside. We know a great deal more about the way in which the Section operates. I do not believe that there is a fair-minded person in the House or outside who would not agree that not only do abuses exist, but that they are crowing. There are more abuses of this Section at each succeeding Election.
  My own constituency is a borough constituency, unlike that of the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Dye). My personal view, for what it is worth, is that on the

  1007
  whole the restrictions contained in the Section which it is proposed to repeal have tended to help me rather than otherwise. I believe that for a variety of reasons with which I certainly do not wish to weary the House. The geographical nature of the constituency means that, on the whole, it is more to the advantage of the Labour Party to be able to use transport than it is to the advantage of my own party. It is certainly true that during the recent local government elections general comment was made that, on the whole, the Labour Party had far more transport at its disposal than did the Conservative Party. I think that this is some slight evidence of what I have said.
  Nevertheless, my own supporters strongly urge upon me the need to amend the law in the way which the Bill proposes. They know my views and they take the opposite view. They do so not, so to speak, as members of the Tory Party corpus, but as individuals whose rights and duties are interfered with as the law now stands. The present law not only appears to individuals to be irksome; it runs directly counter to what they believe to be right.
  Let me give an obvious example. Many people have an elderly relative living near them. What is more proper on Election day than to give that person, a mother or father, or whoever he or she may be, a lift to the polls? [An HON. MEMBER: "In a Tory car."] In any car. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with that?"] It is perfectly proper to do that, and the ordinary individual, whatever his politics, believes that that is a right and proper thing to do. He is prevented from doing that by this Section and he therefore regards the Section not as wrong in a political sense, but as morally and offensively wrong.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) made the valid point that the postal vote comes in here, that where one has an elderly relative who finds it difficult to get to the poll then the postal vote will enable him or her to vote. That only applies where there is real medical difficulty. If the principle is extended, then all elderly people should be eligible for a postal vote, and I do not think that any hon. Member in any part of the House would think that right.
  1008
  The present law is producing two opposite evils simultaneously, one in urban areas and the other in rural areas. In urban areas there is wholesale evasion of the law as it stands. No one in any part of the House has denied that this afternoon, and no one can. For the most part, of course, evasions are individual and indeed unconscious. But in a good many cases that is not so. The individual concerned knows that he is either breaking the law or, at any rate, sailing very close to breaking it.
  I will give an example of the kind of thing which I believe is beginning to happen and which is obviously of a different order from the individual infringements which have been very common hitherto. There are boroughs which have more than one constituency. In my own case, the Borough of Hendon is divided into two constituencies which have one returning officer. I think that is the rule in nearly all boroughs with more than one constituency. That returning officer registers all the cars of all the candidates at the time of a General Election. It often happens that within a borough one or more seats are safe in the sense that there is very little chance of their changing their political representation, whereas others are much less safe. It is not difficult so to arrange things that within the borough as a whole one concentrates the number of cars that one is allowed to use for particular purposes in particular parts of that borough. I am not certain whether it can be done without breaking the law, and if hon. Members opposite say that the law on this subject is simple I should like to have a firm legal reply to that question because I think that it is very difficult to answer.
  Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the cars must he registered for the particular constituency and not for the borough?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. Member will study the law, he will see that it permits individual candidates to register an unlimited number of cars. What the candidates are limited to is using the cars. As far as I know, the law does not in any way limit the places where the cars can be used. I am merely saying that this is the kind of thing which is worrying people and which may be an

  1009
  infringement or defect in the law. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not merely amend it.?"] For this very good reason, that this is only one example of a mass of doubts and difficulties of which everyone in the House is perfectly aware.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy (: Is it not perfectly clear that in issuing the labels for the cars which may be used at an Election the returning officer—he may have a list which exceeds the number of cars that are allowable—will only issue the number of labels according to the amount of cars that are allowable.
  Mrs. Harriet Slater: In that constituency.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not altogether agree with what the hon. Member says. I agree that twenty-five cars is the limit to the number that can be used, but, as far as the issue of labels is concerned, I am not at all sure that it would not be perfectly in order to issue more labels than that, although they could not be used without infringing the law.
  Mrs. Slater rose—
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have made my point. This is an example of real obscurity and, possibly, infringement of the law. This is one example of many which can be given, some of which have been mentioned in the debate.
  Mr. Albert Evans: In a divided borough there can result a concentration of cars in one or other of the constituencies. Is it not clear that with an abolition or limitation in numbers that concentration can be carried much further? It would be possible to get a concentration of a larger number of cars in a constituency, thus giving an unfair advantage to one side.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What I am saying is that the law is either defective or it is being abused; no one can honestly tell me which it is. There are so many defects in and abuses of this law, that it simply will not hold water.
  May I give an example of what happens in rural areas? The trouble in such areas is of the opposite kind. In such areas, the tendency is not so much for abuses to arise as for electors actually to be prevented from going to the polls. I represent an urban constituency, but
  1010
  when I can, I go to my home in Hampshire. There we are surrounded by a number of small villages.
  I have in mind one particular village which is only a mile or two away from where I live. It has a total of about 100 voters. It is extremely scattered and is spread over several miles. It gets the use of one car for half an hour on polling day. There are over a dozen elderly people in the village. If the day is wet, they simply cannot get to the poll, whatever happens. That is the present position and one which is well known to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West. I know his constituency, which contains many such villages.
  In those villages, there may be some temptation to break this law, but it is much more difficult to do so in rural areas, because if cars go driving about in those areas people see exactly what happens. The result is that while we get breaches of the law commonly in the towns, we get restrictions imposed unduly—if that is not an improper word to use—in country areas.
  It is true that in the case of the village of which I have spoken, the majority of those who are disfranchised are Conservatives, but that makes matters worse, and for this reason. It is a palpably one-sided law and the individuals concerned feel that the law is being imposed against them for that reason.
  Mr. Dye: In that case, will the hon. Member complete his statement and say what percentage of people voted at either of the last two General Elections? The figure may have been as high as 90 per cent., as it is in many cases, without any official party cars being used.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It certainly was not as high as that in the constituency as a whole.
  Mr. Dye: The hon. Member does not know?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Of course not. Nobody knows. It would be a breach of the law—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to know what proportion of a small village voted. It would be highly improper. We get the proportionate return for the constituency, but not for each polling booth. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about counting the people who go in?"] It is

  1011
  true that individual party officials may know. Certainly, the proportion of people who vote is nothing like 90 per cent.
  The most important objection of all to the present law is not the deliberate evasion; it is not the kind of thing which has been discussed so much during this debate. By far the greatest number of breaches of this law are perpetrated by perfectly innocent people. I cannot produce evidence of that, for obvious reasons. Innocent people do not say that they have been breaking the law. If it is brought to their attention, they are shocked. We all know—the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows perfectly well—that innumerable breaches of this law are perpetrated by people in all innocence.
  Mr. Ede: I know nothing of the sort.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that he must have lost all interest in politics.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Will the hon. Member give way? He is my own Member of Parliament. Does he suggest that when there are breaches of the law the remedy is to repeal the law?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: When a law is so deficient that it is riddled with abuse and open to every kind of evasion, it is unenforceable and ought not to stand. The point I am making is that a law which makes many innocent people criminals is itself a thoroughly vicious law. It offends against the individual concerned, it undermines public morals and it brings the law itself into contempt. For that reason, I support the Bill.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), after giving the House an explanation of his speech at the Conservative Party Conference, when I understood him to say that he advised against the repeal of Section 88 of the 1949 Act, went on to try to justify its repeal. He brought forward all kinds of arguments which do not stand the slightest investigation.
  The hon. Member referred to 100 country people—Tory voters—in an isolated village who were deprived of the opportunity to vote because the Tory
  1012
  organisation was not able to provide them with adequate cars.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I said that there were about a dozen elderly people who were affected. I did not suggest that it applied to all the 100 people.
  Mr. McLeavy: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member, but I understood his case to be based upon the fact that at least 100 old people in the village were deprived of voting, and of voting for the Conservative candidate. In case of misunderstanding, we can read the hon. Member's speech in HANSARD tomorrow to see precisely what he said.
  The position in the rural areas was met by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was Home Secretary at the time, by allowing a larger number of polling stations. Every parish area was entitled to a polling station and there was, therefore, little difficulty for the people in the agricultural areas. The question of the use of cars has been grossly misrepresented by most hon. Members who have spoken from the Government side today. They have painted a picture which is not in keeping with the prevailing position.
  The Leader of the House referred to the new Clause which was proposed in Committee as an Amendment to the 1948 Representation of the People Bill. I was the person who moved the new Clause. It was on 21st April, 1948, and the debate is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT from col. 1923 under that date. The Home Secretary did not give details to the House of the terms of that new Clause. Looking at it today, I am perfectly sure it was a right and proper Clause and I regret very much that the Government of that day did not accept it in its precise terms at that time.
  The purpose of the new Clause which I moved was to abolish altogether the use of cars by political organisations at Parliamentary and municipal elections. It was not to stop an individual using his own car for himself and his family. Its purpose, secondly, was to make it obligatory upon returning officers to create a pool of cars which would be available for the use of persons making application direct to the returning officer and who could satisfy the returning officer that they would not otherwise be able to record their vote.

  1013
  I felt that was a very fair and equitable way to deal with this very thorny question of the use of election cars. It is all right for the Government side to talk about the Socialist Party not being placed at a disadvantage. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know very well that if the Socialist Party were not being placed at a disadvantage by the rescinding of this limitation, they would not be supporting this Bill today. The very fact that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that the limitations imposed prevent the use of fleets of motor cars drawn from industry and run at the expense of industry at elections means that they are seeking to take a further mean advantage of the Opposition.
  The hon. Gentleman seemed to make very light of the question of the extension of the use of these cars. He knows as well as I do that the Tories, with unlimited freedom to use fleets of motor cars at Parliamentary and municipal elections, will have a distinct advantage over other candidates. After all, if we in this House of Parliament believe in the spirit and principle of democracy we cannot agree to a system which allows preferential facilities to some parties against the interests of the majority of the community.
  I think one can say that it is seldom that Parliament embarks upon the difficult and controversial problems of electoral reform. It is equally true that the whole process of amending legislation since the great Reform Act, 1832, has been to widen the scope of the franchise and to bring about a more equitable and fair system as between the wealthy and poorer candidates. If we look at the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, we see there further progress, for the Act removed the evil of allowing payment for securing votes for a candidate. It made another important changes in the avoidance of corruption and illegal practices.
  We came to the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who was then Home Secretary, the Bill which became the Representation of the People Act, 1949. I believe that this marked a further progressive step towards reducing errors in the electoral machinery. All these changes were never welcomed by those who enjoyed the privileges which
  1014
  were being taken away, but in the process of time they have been recognised as beneficial to the progressive development of British democracy. Even the nations of the Commonwealth have built their Parliamentary structures upon the broad basis of the British system.
  A free democracy can be based upon only two essential principles; first, universal franchise second, complete and fair election conditions. If we remove one or the other of the essential factors we make our Parliamentary system a mockery and a sham.
  Let us be perfectly frank about it. Let us look at the advantage which the Conservative Party has at present over the Labour candidates. What are the Tory Party's advantages? Even under the existing law the Tories enjoy overwhelming advantage over the Labour Party. They have in the first place behind them about 75 per cent. of the national and provincial Press. Whatever crimes or errors a Tory Government commit they are transformed by the Press into great virtues. I believe we are coming to the position when the whole stream of political life is being poisoned to serve the interests of the Tory Party.
  Mr. Osborne: Surely, after the evidence given by his hon. Friend, having read the Daily Telegraph's editorial, the hon. Member cannot make that point?
  Mr. McLeavy: An isolated comment of the Daily Telegraph on this topic should not be taken as a criterion that the Daily Telegraph is not wholeheartedly behind and backing the Tory Government.
  Mr. Denzil Freeth (: Is the hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the attitude of the Beaverbrook Press to the Board of Trade, for example, is one designed to portray my right hon. Friend as an angel always?
  Mr. McLeavy: I know that there are slight differences between the Beaverbrook Press and the Conservative colonial policy, but I should doubt very much whether there is any disagreement between that Press and the Conservative Party in their determination to try to stop the return of a Labour Government at the next General Election.
  Reference has been made in the debate to agriculture and to transport difficulties.

  1015
  If I were to start discussing transport matters I should probably get myself out of order, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that no one has spoken in the House more often than myself 3n rural transport. The agricultural areas are traditionally Tory. They enjoy a far greater representation in Parliament per head of the population than do the industrial areas. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that, and it always gives the Tory Party a substantial political advantage.
  My point is that it is to the credit of the Labour Party that at no time during the amending of the Representation of the People Act did we try to remove or interfere with that situation. I wonder very much whether, if the circumstances had been changed and it had found itself with a Socialist stronghold in the countryside with a representation out of proportion to the representation in the industrial areas, the Conservative Party would have been quite as generous as was the Labour Party.
  Mr. Osborne: But the party opposite abolished the university seats.
  Mr. McLeavy: As to finance, I want to emphasise briefly what has been said already from the Opposition Front Bench—that there is no doubt about it that the hidden donations to Tory funds from large industrial concerns are contrary to the spirit of democracy, because the Tory Party is the only party that refuses to publish a balance sheet showing the source of its money in order that the community may know precisely how much every party in the State is receiving and the source from which it is getting it, and be able to form an opinion as to whether this is a right and proper practice
  I am not trying to secure any advantage out of this. I am trying to face facts as I see them honestly and sincerely. I want to say to hon. Members on the Opposition side—
  Mr. John Mackie: The Government side.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend is speaking of the future.
  Mr. McLeavy: If at some time in the future we have a Government, of whatever political flavour, who receive secret
  1016
  donations towards their party organisation and the fund being built to keep them in office from big industrial concerns particularly interested in a certain type of legislation going through the House; if we have a Government inclined towards bending their knee to that form of corruption, there is no protection for the public against it in the law of the land. There is no protection against the greatest measure of corruption going on behind the backs of the public and to the detriment of the community.
  I am not suggesting that members of any Government would fall for that kind of illegal practice, but it is possible and the people are always suspicious when they find vast sums of money being spent on announcements on hoardings and in the Press to put forward the case of a political party. They always wonder where the money is coming from, who is giving it, and why. To deny the public the right to know who are donating to the Conservative Party is to leave the public in a position of doubt as to what is really happening in Parliament today.
  We are a great democracy. I hope that there is no one in the country who is not proud of our reputation and the example we give. For heaven's sake let us maintain it. This paltry, pettifogging, political Bill, which the Government had not the moral courage to mention in the Gracious Speech, is unworthy of the great problems which confront us today. The world is afire with revolution and with people striving to obtain greater and greater justice and power. We shall not prevent that happening by this kind of tactics.
  One of the greatest things that has happened in the trade union movement has been that we have been able to convince the workers that the pathway to better conditions all round is through the procedure of democratic constitutional methods. We are able to present here today a democratic Opposition to the Government, pledged and based upon the principle of bringing about changes in a constitutional way. That is something to be thankful for when we contemplate parts of the world where the problem concerning government is not one of constitutional position but of revolutionary and other kinds of opposition.

  1017
  The workers of this country have pinned their faith to the democratic procedure which we apply here. They believe, and their belief has been sustained by the leaders of our movement, politically and industrially, that the best form of society and of government is the democratic form.
  I say seriously to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches that once they destroy the belief of organised labour that it can change social and economic conditions through the ballot box, they will drive it into the hands of other, undesirable political organisations. I beg the Government and their back benchers to believe me when I say that if they carry on with this legislation, whilst they may by all these methods of mass propaganda deceive the people and win a victory at the next General Election, they will sow seeds that they will regret the whole of their lives.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. C. W. Armstrong: We were taken back by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) into the history of electoral law. All I want to do this afternoon is to try to illustrate how the conduct of Elections has changed over what is historically a relatively short period.
  I remember my father describing to me the first Election in which he took part. I must confess that he was born 114 years ago in the year 1844. I do not know if any other hon. Member of the House had a father born so long ago, but I notice from the monument to Lord Randolph Churchill, the father of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), that he was born five years later, in 1849. However that may be, the Election I remember my father describing was for Armagh, the constituency which both he arid I had the honour of representing later. The year was 1863 and it was an Election on the hustings, before the days of the ballot box. It was not the last such Election, which I think was in 1868, five years later. But, as my father explained to me, it was a matter of vital importance in an Election on the hustings to have a good Election cry.
  One of the candidates at that Election was Sir William Verner, who had fought at Waterloo. Incidentally, my father had
  1018
  attended the Duke of Wellington's lying-in-State in 1852. The Election cry of Sir William Verner was "Hooray for the Waterloo hero" and the House will he relieved to know that on that stirring cry he was returned triumphantly to Parliament. The point I want to make is merely that it will seem as strange to our children that in 1958 we should be arguing about the use of motor cars at an Election as it seems strange to us now that Elections were ever held on the hustings.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong) should know, as a representative of Northern Ireland, something about Elections. Also I think he should have been able to make a longer contribution and tell us some of the rather dubious practices at the Elections in those times. It is most appropriate, having preceded me, that I should have the opportunity of linking that up with what I consider to be a very bad principle which the Government are introducing into the Representation of the People Act of 1949.
  I think I shall be speaking for many hon. Members on this side of the House if I say that we had a different opinion of the Home Secretary and had singled him out as having an attitude distinct from some of his colleagues to these matters. It was a matter of great regret to me personally today, therefore, to hear the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. It was different in spirit from the speech he made at the recent Conservative Party Conference. It is true that in the very last sentence he gave an indication to an organisation outside this House—not to the Opposition officially but to an organisation of men and women outside this House—that legislation would be introduced, giving way to the pressure of a viewpoint that had been expressed.
  Earlier tonight arguments were advanced in favour of the Bill which suggested that e must get near a 100 per cent. poll. With that no one would disagree, but the inference is that Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act is somehow or other preventing that ideal being attained. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the Elections of 1950 and 1951 produced the highest polls in General Elections in the history of this country, and

  1019
  these were achieved with the restriction on the use of motor cars.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who spoke earlier, indicated that there was wholesale evasion of this Section of the Act. Having made the statement that no one on this side of the House had denied that, he himself made the assertion without furnishing proof. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say a surprising thing for him, a former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office. He said that he was very undecided on the point about labelling official cars in an Election. Yet the hon. Gentleman was the man who replied in 1952 to the Conservative Party Conference, turning down the very proposals which the Government are making tonight. I interjected earlier to say that the hon. Gentleman made a very good speech. It was so good indeed that I am sorry he has not waited, because it is the best reply to the speech which he himself made in 1952. and, in the main, it represents our opposition to the proposals of the Government.
  To return to the point about the labelling of cars, most Election agents know from the Act that the only cars which are legal and lawful are those which are supplied with labels officially by the returning officer. It is true that other cars may be run, but they cannot be used for carrying electors to the poll.
  Returning to the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South, the hon. Gentleman said that Section 88 was immoral, was deceitful and that it should go, but that was very different from the statement he made at the Conservative Party Conference in 1952. I quote him:
  "I think that it is probably true to say that in practically every constituency nowadays both sides have enough cars at their disposal to serve all the purposes that are necessary, and that there is no advantage to either side. The various provisions of our electoral law necessarily affect the different parties in different ways, and it would be quite unfair for any party to pick out these provisions which they thought affected them adversely and to reject them."
  The next part is most apt, and I commend it to the Home Secretary for his consideration:
  "The true test is, I believe, this: What is the public interest and convenience? That is the test of what ought to be provided for in our electoral law, and I think that applying that test here we should say that the answer
  1020
  is that we should have sufficient transport to serve the necessary purpose of taking to the poll those who cannot conveniently manage to get there in any other way."
  That is what Section 88 of the Act does.
  Let us put all party considerations aside and try to be objective. I do not agree that the Labour Party has as many cars as the Conservative Party, but let us assume that that is so. What is wrong with the proposition that each side should make a contribution to a pool of cars under the control of the returning officer to go to people whose addresses are supplied by the party organisation? Is that not a reasonable proposition? Is it not what is provided for by Section 88?
  I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland talking to the Home Secretary. Presumably he is seeking information. He ought to know the Act because he was one of the members of the then Opposition who took a deep interest in it. If he does not know the Sections of the Act, I am surprised that he has not taken the precaution of acquainting himself with them before coming to the House today.
  The Bill was not even quoted in the Queen's Speech because the Government were too ashamed of it. The first intimation of it was given at the Tory Party Conference. So the Government of the day makes its statement to a junta outside the House of Commons. Then, last night, after we had had a debate ranging over foreign affairs, the problems of Cyprus, the Commonwealth, foreign investment, pensions, and so on, the Government introduced, at the first opportunity after the conclusion of such a momentous debate, a cheap tawdry Bill like this.
  Scotland has 80,000 unemployed, but what do they matter? Apparently, it is much better that the Tory Party should seek electoral advantage before the deluge comes. There is an increasing problem of mental illness in the country. In Scat-land almost two-thirds of the hospital beds are occupied by people suffering from mental illness. But the Government put that completely aside. The view is. apparently, that the Government must take advantage of the situation, the pedigree of which is "by Malice out of Spite," words used by a representative at

  1021
  the Conservative Party Conference about this proposal. The truth is that the Government are subordinating the national interest in favour of the Tory Party.
  One of the reasons for the provision introduced in 1949 was that it would prohibit the general use of motor cars. The Government now say that in view of the proliferation of cars we are behind the times. The reverse is the truth. It is because there is a proliferation of cars that it is less necessary for cars to be provided in an organised fashion as in the past.
  Another purpose of the provision in 1949 was to ensure equity and fair play where one candidate could have unlimited cars to the disadvantage of another. Another purpose was to obviate the relic of the bad old days of corruption and undue influence being used on electors to vote in a particular way. Those who suggest, as some hon. Members opposite do, that they are seeking, altruistically, to help people get to the poll are talking with their tongues in their cheeks, for that is not the primary purpose of the provision of cars. The provision of cars is one of the worst forms of snobbery. It is done to impress the people taken to the poll of the superiority of those taking them and in that way to influence them unduly in casting, their votes.
  The hon. Member representing Oxford in those days, speaking against the provision, said that the elector was being assisted to do something which it was his obligation to do, and that it is pure hypocrisy to pretend that an analogy could be drawn of the kind put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), who had said that he saw no difference between the provision of the pint of beer of the old clays and the carrying of people in motor cars. Nor is there any great degree of difference in the motive behind it.
  When the Home Secretary was commending the Bill to the House, I felt that he recognised that there was little case for the introduction of the Measure, certainly with the priority given to it. Even if it be granted that the Labour Party has as many motor cars as the Conservative Party, the Labour Party will still be handicapped, and hon. Members opposite know it. The friends of hon. Members opposite are able to take a day off from their office or board of directors, whereas
  1022
  our friends, even those who have motor cars, are required to clock in and are subject to some discipline within the factories.
  There is less need for the Bill in view of the way in which postal voting has been extended. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) will be interested in this.
  Mr. Mackie: I could say something about it if I wished.
  Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member would have plenty to say. He could tell us about the power of motor cars in the 1945 General Election when the official party opposed him and he had the courage to stand as an Independent candidate. The postal vote deals with the problem of invalids. Therefore, there is no need for crocodile tears over invalids who are prevented from voting by the strictures of a Socialist Measure. Postal voting helps policemen, returning officers, polling clerks, commercial travellers and all who may be away from their place of residence on polling day. The provision in the Act for increased polling stations, in connection with which every parish area is made a polling district, takes away the last vestige of any excuse for the repeal of Section 88. I think that my right hon. Friend's suggestion of mobile polling stations was a very valuable one.
  I could go on to give many more quotations from the Conservative Party Conference. There, whatever members of the Government may say in the House today, they were under no doubt as to why they wanted an amendment of the Act. Indeed, the resolution in 1952, at the Conservative Party Conference, was moved by Councillor Idris Owen of Staly bridge and Hyde. One can understand why he was so anxious for the Conservative Party to carry the resolution. He was the candidate for Stalybridge and Hyde and he was narrowly defeated in the General Election by only 155 votes, so he had a real, personal reason. He, I am sure, was not worried about the objective position of this proposal. He was vitally, personally interested, and that is the reason for the Government bringing in the Bill.
  What did he say in that debate? He said:
  "Our task is one of introducing any form of legislation necessary to get every man to the poll."

  1023
  If that was the object of the resolution, this action of the Government is not the way to do it. The way to get every man to the poll is to introduce compulsory voting—and certainly not by the method now proposed. Then he betrayed some of the psychology behind the Government's recent actions and in some of their proposals. This same proposer of the resolution made someone else say, "It is time we took off our gloves and put on the clogs". Kick them when they are down; that is the attitude.
  So we go on to another quotation which, I think, is a gem of snobbery, and which shows up the whole impression which the Conservative Party are trying to create:
  "People have been accustomed in the past to expect a car to call for them, and think you do not want them to vote unless you send a car. People I have met when taking them to vote regard the visit to the polling station in the car as one day in the year they look forward to."
  What a patronising statement, what sheer arrogance and snobbery.
  It reminds me of the coloured American who turned up at a polling station at eight o'clock in the morning. A polling booth attendant said, "Good morning, Mr. Brown". The man turned and walked away. He continued to walk to the corner of the street and back to the door of the polling station, but always turned away, until two minutes to eight at night. Then he went into the polling station, cast his vote and came out. Someone said to him, "Why did you cast your vote at two minutes to eight when you were here just after eight this morning?" The man replied, "Yes, sir, I know sir, but it is nice to hear ' Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown ' all day. I know that at two minutes past eight it will be, It is that damned nigger again '."
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), when answering a debate at a Conservative Party Conference, said:
  "It is probably true that there are enough cars and no disadvantage to either side."
  He then went on to destroy the whole case of the resolution, and tonight he stands up in order to restore himself in the eyes of the Conservatives.
  At the 1955 Conference, the proposer of a resolution asking for the abolition
  1024
  of Section 88 came from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). Again it was patently clear why the Conservatives wanted the abolition of this Section. It was because their candidate was narrowly defeated by a majority of 193. All this talk of high-flown, altruistic ideals in wanting to provide transport to get people to the polls is so much poppycock, sheer hypocrisy and sanctimonious humbug.
  The same thing happened at the Conference in 1956. Again, a resolution was moved by a representative of Gorton, Manchester, where my hon. Friend has a majority of some 200 or 300.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made an excellent speech and made allegations not only about this Bill, which smacks of Tammany Hall, but about other matters to which he referred in relation to finance, "Mr. Cube" and "Mr. Steel" and the insurance companies which had been spending lavish sums of money on advertising in the newspapers.
  What is the evidence of interference with the liberty of the subject to express himself in newspapers? The evidence comes from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who tried to interfere with what the editor of the Dumfries and Galloway Standard had to say. This is the sort of thing that is going on throughout the country, and it must be stopped. I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will dig in their toes, go into the country and expose the Government for what they are doing—cheating, as Robert Burns so very well expressed it when he said, "They are practising their tricks and caprices in order to cheat the people."
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not propose to follow all the points made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), but I propose to deal with his suggestion that it is improper for the Government to implement resolutions passed at the Conservative annual conference.
  I think this comes very badly from a member of the Socialist Party. 1 have always understood that when a resolution is passed at the Socialist Party conference it becomes holy writ and that the

  1025
  unfortunate leader of the party has to do his best to put it into his policy statement at the subsequent General Election. I remember the conference in 1945 when the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo)—I am sorry he is not here today, but I understand that he is ill—forced the Labour Party, against the wishes of its leaders, to agree to the nationalisation of certain industries, and I may say that we have never recovered from that disaster.
  The worst remark of the evening was made by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) when he referred to the Government "jerrymandering with the constitution". I well remember the debates which took place in 1948, and if there was not jerrymandering with the constitution then I should like to know what jerrymandering is. Seventeen seats were pushed in to get seventeen extra Socialist Members into the House, and at the subsequent review by the Boundary Commission they were thrown out again. That was really jerrymandering.
  Before dealing with my detailed criticisms of the Opposition's case, it would be as well if I considered what lay behind the Bill. Its aim is to amend a Measure which was introduced in 1948 and which certainly deserves amending. That was one of the most misleading Measures ever introduced. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the Preamble of that Act, which says that it gives effect to most of the recommendations of the Final Report of the Speaker's Conference of 1944, Cmd. 6543.
  That is a most misleading statement. It indicates agreement between the parties and that the Measure implements the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. That is not true. I draw the attention of the House to the letter sent by Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister at that time, July, 1944, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). In an appendix to that letter, the Prime Minister's attention was drawn to four resolutions of the Conference which were rejected. One of them was that there should be a limitation on the number of motor cars which were available at a General Election.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the hon. Member give the voting on that occasion?
  Mr. Williams: Yes, although it has already been given and the right hon. Member would have heard it had he been present instead of being elsewhere to check some typing. The voting was: Ayes 14, Noes 15.
  It is monstrous that when we introduce a Bill to rectify what we think is an injustice, hon. Members opposite should say that they have never introduced a Measure of this sort about which there was not general agreement. There was not general agreement in 1948.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Member will find that this Section was put in by the House and was not part of the original Bill.
  Mr. Williams: It was not included as an Amendment by the House, but I will explain the position later, since the right hon. Member's memory is obviously at fault on this point.
  The attempt in 1948 to fool about with the constitution was disgraceful. In his speech on the Second Reading of that Measure, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford put the position very clearly. The point was made by the Labour Government of that day that the Speaker's Conference could not bind succeeding Parliaments. My right hon. Friend said:
  "It is quite true that nothing can bind a Parliament. Every Parliament is entirely free to behave like a gentleman or like a cad; every Parliament is entirely free to behave honestly or like a crook. Such are the sovereign rights of this august assembly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 864.]
  What was done then gives us ample reason for introducing this amendment to the law today.
  To reply to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire; the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) introduced a new Clause in Committee. That was a very strange Clause. It said:
  "It shall be a statutory duty of the returning officer in a parliamentary or local government election to provide transport facilities, if available, to and from the polling station for persons entitled to vote and who in the opinion of the said returning officer may owing to a casual illness be prevented from recording their vote unless means of transport were available …"
  Of course, one had to notify the polling officer in time. If one were taken ill,

  1027
  with a fractured ankle or something of the sort, at the last moment, there would be no hope of getting transport. There was no mention of how the returning officer was to get motor cars, whether he was to hire them, requisition them, or obtain Army transport.
  The Clause was rejected by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was then Home Secretary, as being unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would try to introduce another Clause on Report strictly to limit the use of motor cars at Elections. The then Home Secretary brought forward his proposals on Report. That was the worst dog's breakfast I have ever seen, but it is now substantially the law. What the law means has never been clear, and there was bitter controversy on this issue during the passage of the Measure.
  The then Attorney-General had to be called in to give his opinion. He said:
  "There may well be people … who use their motor cars on Election day in the way the hon. Member suggests, and who are serenely indifferent as to the way in which their passengers vote and do not mind at all which way those passengers vote.… In that case, they would not be caught by this Clause."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 115.]
  When I think that the Attorney-General of the day had to give that sort of advice to the Government, I am not surprised that Sir Hartley Shawcross has chucked in his hand. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is doing all right."] He was doing extremely well when he was a member of the Socialist Party.
  It is no wonder that an interesting feature of the debates in 1948 was the attitude taken by certain hon. Members, especially Members of the Liberal Party—unfortunately, there are no Liberals present tonight. The Closure had to be applied to the debate on the Clause of the hon. Member for Bradford, East. The hon. Lady who is now the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who was then a Liberal, voted against the Closure, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). On that issue they were in agreement.
  On Report, when the Home Secretary's new Clause was introduced, the hon. Lady voted for it and the right hon. and learned Gentleman against it, thus main-
  1028
  taining that flexibility of approach which is so typical of the Liberal Party today. My right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, who was taking a leading part for the then Opposition, moved an Amendment to decrease the number of voters per car from 1,500 to 500 for rural areas. In the subsequent Division, the hon. Lady supported the Opposition, that is to say, she wanted a reduction, although she had supported the Government's new Clause first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not vote—I suppose that he was outside taking instructions from someone else. The next Amendment proposed a similar reduction for urban constituencies. The hon. Lady supported the Opposition, and so did the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  That reminds me of the story of the late right hon. Leopold Amery, the father of my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for War, when he referred to the policy of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin as a policy of riding two horses at once galloping in opposite directions, which, he said, was impossible. With the 1948 Bill, the Liberal Party was riding at least four or five horses. I shall be interested to learn the attitude taken by the hon. Lady tonight. My bet is that she will go straight into the Lobby to which the Opposition Whips direct her and will certainly not vote as she did in 1948.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has already referred to the increase in the number of motor cars in the country. He referred to the great increase which has taken place since 1931.
  Mr. David Jones: He has four cars.
  Mr. Williams: I imagine that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has more than one car. He probably has four, too. There is no need to pick on my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. My hon. Friend pointed out that in 1931 there was only one car in the country for each twenty-seven electors, whereas today there is one car for eight electors.
  One of the most appalling features of the present law is that it is so easy to get round it.
  Mr. William Hamilton: How does the hon. Member know that?
  Mr. Williams: As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there have been twenty prosecutions, eighteen of them in respect of the Socialists and two of them in respect of the Conservatives. I suppose that means that there must be plenty of Socialists Trying to get round the law. I believe that one way of getting round it is to take someone to the poll without knowing which way he will vote. The Attorney-General has to prove that you knew which way your passenger would vote and that you took him to the poll to ensure that he would vote for a certain candidate.
  I understand that another system which has been tried is for an exhibition of paintings to be given in a house near to the polling station. Any car can take a person to the exhibition. At the back door of the house where the exhibition is held there is a car which runs a shuttle service backwards and forwards to the polling booth. I am assured that that is perfectly legal and has been done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Has the hon. Member done it?"] I have never employed that method. I represent an urban constituency, and the number of cars which I have available is roughly the number that I would use whether any increase were allowed under the law or not. The difficulties are caused for hon. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, who has an enormous constituency and who suffers very severely from the restrictions.
  After the 1955 Election an inquiry was conducted by the Conservative Party from 178 constituency agents to see whether they considered that there had been any infringement of the law in the course of the Election. The report which was sent in to the Conservative Party revealed that there was evidence of the law having been broken on sixty-three occasions by Socialists, on nine occasions by Conservatives, on six occasions by Liberals and on forty-seven occasions by both or all parties. In fifty-three cases there was no evidence of the law having been broken.
  We cannot permit the Statute Book to be cluttered up with laws that are broken as often as that. It is time that the law was framed in such a way that people can respect it and conform to it. For that reason I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Mr. Stan AwberyMay I ask a question before the hon. Member sits down? Will he agree that if the number of cars at Elections is increased, they should be put in the charge of the presiding officer and the presiding officer, not the parties concerned, should control them?
  Mr. Williams: I do not think that that would meet the case at all. The returning officer would have no right to make people lend their cars. After all, they are private property. If such a provision were to be applied, the cars would have to be provided by the returning officer. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not make that point when the right hon. Member for South Shields was Home Secretary. The right hon. Member turned that suggestion down flat, said that it was unworkable and introduced his own Clause.
  Mr. Awbery: I am asking what the hon. Member for Exeter would do.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) certainly made an interesting speech. I say that sincerely. But the important point is that not a single one of his statements justifies the introduction of the Bill. That comment applies to all the speeches made from the Conservative benches today. We have heard arguments about elderly people and about the evasions which take place on election days and we have heard a number of legal or pseudo-legal arguments.
  I want to say a few simple but perhaps blunt words. They amount to this: surely the reason that this Bill is being introduced is that there has been a demand by the Tory Party and an expression of opinion by the overwhelming majority of the Tory Conference that they want something which will provide an advantage to the Tory Party. They have said, "We have the money, we have the cars, therefore we want to change the law in order that our prospects of being returned at the next Election may be enhanced." That is the simple story. Why should the Tories try to evade it? it is nonsense for the Home Secretary to say that the Bill will benefit the Labour Party.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: It is humbug.
  Mr. Wheeldon: I agree that it is humbug. This Bill arises simply out of the gratitude of members of the Tory Party, gratitude on the part of the landlords who have had their rents decontrolled—gratitude for the increased rents which they are drawing and will continue to draw—gratitude on the part of the brewers who have 50 per cent. derating on their productive and 20 per cent. derating on their retail establishments, and gratitude on the part of the dividend strippers for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's agreement that there should be no retrospective legislation. This is a sordid piece of typical Tory class legislation. I know very well that a number of different reasons have been given in the House tonight why the Bill should be introduced.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Can my hon. Friend say why the Conservative Party were ashamed to put the Bill into the Queen's Speech?
  Mr. Wheeldon: I am afraid that I cannot explain that. The electors will draw the obvious conclusion.
  Mr. Lewis: May it not be because they realised that the Speech was being televised for the first time and that millions of people would hear it and would be put wise to this obvious trick by the Tory Party?
  Mr. Wheeldon: That is probably a reason they had in mind, but of course it is impossible to fathom all the factors which guide them.
  The first reason given by the Home Secretary in opening the debate was that the law was unsatisfactory in practice and that a number of offences had been committed under the Section. I am not very old in my membership of the House, but I am fairly old in experience in the conduct of elections. I have been connected with elections for many years. I was a little surprised to hear what the Home Secretary and other hon. Members opposite said about evasions of the election laws. There are evasions, I know, but I think it untrue that they are on the scale which has been suggested. If we consider elections over many years, we are bound to accumulate a large number of examples of evasions of the law; the election text books are full of them. Nevertheless, I think it is an exaggeration to put the case in the way in which it has been put by some hon. Members today.
  1032
  The point was made by the Home Secretary that in these days of universal car ownership everything should be all right. That is stuff and nonsense. There has been talk about 4½ million cars. I believe that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said there was one car for every four families. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has four cars."] Even in that relationship, one has to remember that cars are not spread evenly among families, but the great majority of them are owned by those at the top of the scale where the money is. How many electors in my constituency have cars? I should say there are not 5 per cent. and I am giving a figure which, if tested, would prove to be on the high side. That applies in the main to working-class constituencies throughout the country.
  Even if more and more working-class people are becoming owners of cars—which is all to the good and I am glad they are—they are not in the same position as members of the Tory Party. There is the expense in the first place and there is the question of petrol. Quite a substantial amount of petrol would be consumed in touring on election day. There is the question of time off and of permission being given. That is not always easily obtainable from employers. These things are by no means on the level suggested by some hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Is not my hon. Friend making a mistake? Would not these working-class car owners who could not get time off to drive the cars themselves send their chauffeurs?
  Mr. Wheeldon: I shall be coming to the question of chauffeurs in a moment. With all this increase in the number of cars, no matter who the owners may be, it must be remembered that in the majority of working-class constituencies the Labour Party candidate has difficulty in getting his quota of cars under the present arrangements. In an ordinary constituency, of average size, 20, 22 or 23 motor cars would be allowed. I wonder how many Labour candidates are able to get 23 cars—not so many. We always have been and always will be very considerably handicapped in that respect compared with Tory candidates. The Tories are not under disabilities such as I have mentioned.

  1033
  If the Bill is passed we shall revert in very large measure to the state of affairs which obtained a few years ago. Those who are familiar with election practice and election law will know of some of the cases which came before the election courts. One which came most vividly to my mind in connection with the conveyance of electors to the poll was known as the Hartlepools case. In that case, in 1910, a Marmaduke Furness possessed a great number of horses and carriages and decided to assist his father who was the candidate in the Hartlepools division. He hired a special train and took his horses and carriages to the election, fed them, and paid men to look after them. Someone thought that a little rough and had the matter decided by the courts, but the courts said—as they said in similar cases—that the sort of thing was perfectly lawful. Horses and carriages have now largely disappeared, but motor cars have taken their place. The judge in that case said:
  "with the development of motor cars the whole use of vehicles at elections has become an oppressive use largely favouring the rich at the expense of the poorer man."
  A good many years have gone by since 1910, but, if the Bill is passed, we shall be going back very largely to that state of affairs. What will there be to prevent any rich man bringing 100 or 200 cars to a constituency? There will be nothing at all. He could bring in chauffeurs to drive them and it would be perfectly lawful. We should not overlook the fact that as the law stands at present a person can hire cars for his own use on polling day and allow the candidate to have the use of other cars. That is another matter which has been before the courts and no one has said that it is unlawful, so that hiring indirectly would be possible if the Bill passed. Then we should have a reversion to what I believe were the bad old days.
  It must be within the recollection of many hon. Members that this sort of thing happened in their elections. Take the case of Birmingham and the constituency of Edgbaston, where it is possible to get every Conservative voter to the polling station by 5 o'clock in the afternoon because their houses are about four to the acre, with the exception of a very insignificant portion of the constituency. The number of motor cars
  1034
  available in that constituency is tremendous. Before the 1948 provision was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the moment when cars had finished serving one constituency they flooded to adjoining constituencies. I have known an occasion when at least 100 cars have been brought to another constituency at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening. That sort of thing will happen again if the Bill goes through. It gives a completely unfair advantage to the candidate who happens to be the possessor of wealth in the form of cars.
  Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend develop that point and explain to the House that most of those cars will be owned by company directors who are getting a 100 per cent. tax allowance on them, so that in fact the taxpayer will be paying for the use of those cars?
  Mr. Wheeldon: That point was made earlier by one of my hon. Friends and it is perfectly germane to this discussion.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) spoke of the difficulty about polling stations in rural areas. I have not had a great deal of experience of rural areas. Therefore, I bow to the opinion of those who have had such experience, but there are certain facts which are fairly self-evident. Last night I did a little arithmetic and, if my arithmetic is correct, I think the House will be interested in the results. The hon. Member for Kidderminster—and almost every hon. Member opposite who has spoken in the debate has agreed—said that people in rural districts were having a raw deal; they did not have facilities; cars were not there and they were prevented from voting. If a state of affairs such as that actually obtained would it not be reflected in the number of people who voted at elections?
  Mr. Mackie: Yes.
  Mr. Wheeldon: An hon. Member opposite says "Yes." If so, we should find that the number of people who polled in a county division would be smaller than the number who voted in a borough division. What are the facts? The percentage of people who vote at elections in county divisions is higher, although not very much, than the percentage of those who poll in the boroughs. The hon. Member for Kidderminster spoke about

  1035
  Scotland, which, with its wide open spaces, would surely reflect the truth of this matter, if it is to reflect itself at all. In Scotland, polling in county constituencies has been 1 per cent. higher than in the burghs. These facts dispose of the contention that the rural constituencies are having a raw deal because of this restriction.
  Mr. Mackie: I can supply the hon. Member with evidence from one Scottish rural constituency, my own, where the poll has dropped over the last three General Elections. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite are laughing too soon. The poll dropped in actual numbers, but my majority was bigger last time than it had ever been before. The fall in numbers shows the extreme difficulty that many people in this constituency have had in going to the poll. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) will accept that illustration in the good spirit in which I offer it.
  Mr. Wheeldon: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is—I will not say "peculiar"—difficult, and that the hon. Gentleman has had some little trouble there. No one on this side of the House has said that there are not difficulties in rural areas, but we have gone on to say that those difficulties can be overcome not by increasing the number of cars available but by following the provisions of the same Act of Parliament, the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and securing additional polling stations.
  It is the duty of the authority to provide a sufficient number of polling stations. The Act lays down that either a local authority or a group of thirty people may make representations to the Home Secretary on this point. I speak from personal experience. I have never made any representation about the need for additional polling stations which has not been met. If there is a need in any county or rural constituency for additional polling stations, the need can be met. It will be entirely wrong to abolish the present provisions and to pass this Bill.
  At least from 1883, when this House passed the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, it has been the object of this House, within broad limits, to con-
  1036
  duct elections on a fair basis so as to ensure as far as possible that a wealthy candidate shall not have an advantage over his less wealthy opponent. That is good. Democracy must behave fairly in these matters if it is to be democracy at all. In spite of the increase in the number of cars owned by the working class, there is no justification, even today, for a Measure like this, which is an attempt by the Tory Party to enhance its chances of being returned and to make sure that the wealth which resides in that party is used for party political purposes. That is the object of the Bill, and this House should oppose it. When that object becomes known in the country the Bill will receive the same condemnation there as it has received from hon. Members on this side of the House.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. F. M. Bennett: I would begin by saying that the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) at least appeared to deal with the Bill. It was in marked contrast to some of the other Opposition speeches, which, although strictly within the rules of order, wandered over a very wide field.
  We are discussing whether or not a particular Section of a particular Act should be repealed, yet we have been subjected, for instance, to widespread allegations of corruption and of failure to publish accounts—
  Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. The relevance of matters which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends has been raised three or four times with the Chair, and the Chair has ruled that what has been said was in order. Is the hon. Member for Torquay now in order, by these tedious repetitions, in returning to these matters and thereby reflecting on the conduct of the Chair?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I do not think the hon. Member for Torquay was making reflections on the conduct of the Chair. I thought he was pointing out that some of the points raised in debate were not closely connected with the principle of the Bill.
  Mr. Bennett: Indeed, I took the trouble, out of respect for the Chair, to say that the Chair had laid down certain Rulings which ought to be observed. Mr. Deputy-Speaker has now ruled again on

  1037
  this matter, and so I propose to continue my speech. I was saying that, while remaining within the strict rules of order as laid down by the Chair, this debate had wandered over a wide field to subjects which have little or no direct connection with this Measure.
  Most of us came to the House today thinking that we should hear a closely reasoned debate why Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, should not be repealed. Instead, I repeat, we have been subjected to a wide range of accusations, comprising anything from corruption to misuse of wealth. Hon. Members opposite have even gone back to the seventeenth century to get examples which might be assumed to be arguments against the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Small Heath, as I said, at least appeared to the listener to be dealing with the Section which has been under discussion. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Fernyhough rose—
  Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Member, who has sat there constantly muttering, likes to get up and make his own speech later on, he may have the chance. I shall not give way to him, so he might as well calm down again.
  A blind spot in the arguments which have been advanced from the Opposition benches has been that while they did everything they could to show there were possible advantages in the present electoral system to the Tory Party, they neglected to point out corresponding advantages which accrue to the Socialist Party. We did not hear a word about the political levy, for instance, and of the 'massive sums of money, in the form of fighting funds, placed at the disposal of the Socialist Party by the trade unions out of the contributions of members, including Conservatives and others who may not be supporters of the Labour Party. [Interruption.] It is obvious from the reception that my remarks are receiving that it is very unwelcome to the party opposite that these and other facts should be given the prominence in the debate they deserve.
  From the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate for the Opposition, we heard a savage attack, with which we are quite familiar, about the personality of the Prime Minister and the esteem in
  1038
  which he is presently held by the British population. We are not at all surprised at this. In fact, it is the best possible tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that on every conceivable occasion of debate the Opposition do their best to try to make personal attacks on him in order to try fruitlessly to reduce him to the stature of their own leaders—an effort in which they will never succeed—
  Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Although the hon. Member has not yet mentioned motor cars, can you reassure him that ail these other things are in order?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: They have been raised in debate, and he is entitled to reply to them.
  Mr. Bennett: I am heartened very much by the reassurance that I am still within the rules of order as laid down by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, so I propose to continue on exactly the same lines.
  Right from the opening remarks of he right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick we have had a continuous series of attacks on the Prime Minister—some of them rather personally offensive. We have also had considerable tributes paid, as I understood them—though rather malicious—to the efforts of some advertising firm because of the effectiveness of its propaganda on behalf of the Conservative Party.
  I do not know what the constant mention of that firm's name —which I had not heard before—was intended to convey, but I should have thought that it was a welcome tribute to its efficiency. I would only add that, however efficient it may be, it would, indeed, have a difficult job to make similar very effective propaganda on behalf of the leadership of the Socialist Party, if only because it would find it rather hard to pick on one out of two or more, to specify as to the future leader.
  The general impression conveyed by hon. Members opposite throughout the debate is that of a party that, until only a few months or weeks ago, was quite, confident of winning the next Election. They are now scared that they will not do se and are trying, in advance, to find any excuse they can think of to hide the

  1039
  true reason for the defeat they will suffer. The real reason is that they no longer have the confidence of any substantial element of the population.
  All this talk of corruption, of card sharping, the bringing in of irrelevant speeches made by people in the past, are symptomatic of a party that has lost confidence in its own future. A party that felt certain to win the next Election would not worry about twenty or thirty cars in a constituency, and the way in which hon. Members opposite are now behaving gives us fresh confidence that they are rattled.
  We have heard a great deal today about the advantages of a so-called rich party. We have heard that having more cars, more wealth and more backers on one's side will win elections. I was recently in the United States, where the allegation has been made for a long time past that the Republican Party, because of its additional wealth, its additional possibilities on T.V., the number of cars that its supporters possess, would and must secure a majority for that party. If hon. Members opposite really think that being the so-called rich party can, in fact, win elections, I advise them to read today's newspapers and see the results of the elections in America. In actual fact, of course, elections are not won or lost as a result of there being twenty, twenty-two or twenty-four cars to a constituency.
  Turning now to Section 88 itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I felt like interrupting on similar lines earlier on this afternoon, when so much that was far removed from the subject was spoken, but I certainly took it a good deal more quietly than hon. Members opposite have taken my general remarks.
  We had an extremely convincing speech by the Leader of the House explaining why it was not only right but sensible to alter the provisions of the Act by repealing Section 88. When all the party gunpowder on the benches opposite has been expended, I am sure that hon. Members occupying them know perfectly well that this Section has been a farce in practice for a considerable time past.
  If I might answer the charge levelled that this is a deliberate piece of Tory engineering to get an advantage for themselves by tabling a Measure that is designed to help the Conservatives, I would
  1040
  again remind the other side that this provision was put in only as a last-minute thought in the course of the transaction of the main Bill after Second Reading. It was not supported in the all-party Speaker's Conference that preceded the introduction of the Bill, nor was it supported at another all-party conference—which the Leader of the House has mentioned—at which, again, Labour Party organisers were represented. This was a last-minute Measure, adopted unilaterally by the other side, and in now repealing it we are not contravening anything traditional in Election practice but removing an attempt at political discrimination made by the party opposite.
  As a matter of fact, this has always been rather a futile Section, because it really does not amount to much in any case. First of all, if one does take a voter in a registered or even an unregistered car, there is no guarantee as to which way he will vote. Although, too, one can make the point that one hon. Member may have one or more cars—and it is rather dangerous to raise that here, because we on this side can think of one or two right hon. and hon. Members opposite who are not exactly unblessed with worldly goods, and so I thought the remark made on that score was an unworthy one—we know that cars are very widely distributed today, and there is no possible way anyhow of knowing which way a transported voter will in fact vote.
  I do not believe for a minute that this Measure will give any advantage to either the Conservative Party or to the Labour Party. I do not think that it will have any effect, partywise, at all, and I believe that that view is shared by many hon. Members opposite. To me, the overwhelming reason for getting rid of this Section is, as the Leader of the House has said, that it is open to widespread almost inescapable abuse.
  When a car drives up to the polling station, it is impossible in any circumstances whatsoever to know whether the people in it do or do not belong to the household of the person driving the vehicle. Hon. Members know perfectly well that it would be almost impossible for any law administrator to see this law carried out. That is the chief and fundamental reason for getting rid of it. It is completely wrong, within the constitution.

  1041
  to keep a law so open to abuse that it puts a premium on the dishonest people of any party. That is what the present system has, in fact, done—[Interruption.] Of course, there are other laws that could be liable to the same attack and, within my own limited sphere of political activity, I have always said that any law that is constantly abused and is incapable of being enforced should not be maintained on the Statute Book—
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member gets up but he will not trap me. I have no intention of giving way. He must not seek to receive courtesies that he does not give.
  In order to show that this abuse is widespread, I want to quote an example that occurred to me, not in my last by-election at Torquay but in the General Election, when I lost at Reading—
  Mr. Lewis: Sour grapes.
  Mr. Bennett: How silly! The hon. Member would not think that I was capable of "sour grapes" if he remembered that in the result I moved from Reading, a marginal seat, to Torquay, where I live. So sour grapes is the last fruit I could be accused of possessing. At the time, Reading being very much a marginal seat, a large number of newspapers, bath international and national, came to Reading to observe the contest. As it turned out, there were a couple of hundred votes in the result. The election was very close, and it was one which these papers wanted to observe. An American newspaper came down and investigated at first hand the conduct of the election at Reading. This was the Wall Street Journal, and a full report of the election at Reading appeared in the issue of 24th May, 1955. The Wall Street Journal, as a result of the time which the newspaper's reporters spent in Reading, said:
  "Thousands of voters have moved to new neighbourhoods since the last electoral register was prepared and will have to go across town to their old wards to vote. All these people have been carefully spotted and preparations made to haul them in autos. Under strict British electors laws, each party in Reading is limited to use of twenty-four such cars. But Chunky 'Kim' Mackay"—
  whom some hon. Members may remember here—
  1042
  "who is masterminding the Mikardo campaign says Labour will throw 50 or 60 autos into the job.
  "They'll get around the law by dropping passengers a block away from the polls."
  In view of that statement to the Press, which was never contradicted by the Labour master-mind at this election to which I am referring, it clearly reveals that abuse has gone on.
  Because I have produced this example, it does not mean that I do not suspect that some Conservative voters have not been similarly guilty in the past of picking up neighbours and making more than one visit to the polls. We all know that this has happened. I do not think one hon. Member could honestly say that no supporter of his at the last Election had not broken this law by taking other than members of his own household to the polls. If hon. Members in their heart of hearts can say that they believe there has been no instance of abuse in their constituencies, they are even more naive —[Interruption.] The hon. Member is not only naive, he is so fundamentally stupid that he would hardly know what goes on at an Election. I am making an exception in his case.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The hon. Member has made a challenge that hon. Members here have deliberately flouted and broken the law. He challenged us. I want to be on record that neither I, nor, I am sure, any of my election agents or workers deliberately flouted the law as the hon. Member said he did.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, but the lion. Member for Torquay (Mr. Bennett) should not call the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) stupid, and I must ask him to withdraw
  Mr. Bennett: If you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that "stupid" is not the right adjective to use about the hon. Gentleman, obviously I will withdraw it. Regarding the other point which you say is not a point of order, I should like to repeat for the record that I did not say that any hon. Member here had deliberately flouted the law. I said that there was not in my belief one hon. Member in this Chamber who could honestly say for certain that no supporter who voted for him had strictly observed

  1043
  the law and not gone in a car other than as a member of his household. That is what I said, and that is what I repeat, and it is quite different from accusing an hon. Member of deliberately flouting the law.
  However, having endeavoured not only to deal with the wide-ranging attacks that have been made on the Government but also to come back to Section 88, in representing the Conservative Party, I am perfectly happy to leave the judgment of this Bill not only to the House but to the people of the country, who will not adopt for a moment this silly nonsense about corruption and gerrymandering but will realise that this measure is a sensible and practical way to bring the electoral law into repute once again.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) divided his speech into two parts. He will forgive me for saying that the first part would hardly have done justice to a preparatory school debating society. It was a mere knock-about, hitting at other people and sides and his opponents, which did very little credit to himself or, in my submission, to this House.
  If I may be forgiven for appearing to pontificate in this matter, the other part of his speech was undoubtedly an attempt to deal with a problem which every one of us regards as serious, namely, that of having on the Statute Book a Statute which is incapable of being enforced. I do not think there is anybody on this side of the House, and I should very much doubt whether there is anybody on the other side, who would wish to have on the Statute Book such a Statute; but if the elimination of such a Statute is the reason the Government have brought forward this Bill, then they could have done it in a very much more effective and open manner. They could quite easily have done away with the limitation upon cars which was brought in by Section 88 of the Representation of the People Act and they could have replaced it with a means of ensuring that every elector who could not go to the poll under his own steam, so to speak, was given the means of going to the poll by an impartial authority.
  Many suggestions have been made for achieving that end—mobile polling stations, for instance. It may very well
  1044
  be that some of them were not entirely, 100 per cent., practicable. At any rate, some effort could have been made in that direction by the Government had that been their object. I would be the last person to claim that I was a good House of Commons man; but there is no distinction which I, and I believe everyone else in the House would sooner have, than that of being said to be a good House of Commons man. One of the big elements in being a good House of Commons man is that one should do nothing which would bring the Parliamentary institution into disrepute.
  Even at the risk of being thought sanctimonious, I say that in the last few years I have been greatly perturbed by a number of things which have been said and done by people in high positions in this House which have reflected very little credit upon it. We should not take ourselves or our parties too seriously, but it is carrying things a bit far when people come to the Dispatch Box in the name of Her Majesty's Government and speak quite obviously with their tongues in their cheeks. One such person was the Leader of the House this afternoon and it is not the first time that he has done it.
  The attitude seems to be, "It does not matter what I say here however much people here know that it is untrue, or that it is only half a truth. It will be all right. In my case, it will be reported faithfully in the 99 per cent. of the Press which supports my party. Therefore, it will be all right and the other side will go with very scant reporting indeed. The probability is "—so the argument must run in the minds of people who do these things—"that we shall get away with it". Now, it may be that for the time being they will get away with it, but that sort of conduct will not redound to the credit of this House.
  Looking round the world, looking upon one of the Parliaments that we have established in a now independent country, and seeing the way in which a party which happens to be in power with a large majority is cynically, apparently, using the forms of democracy while all the time taking steps which will ensure that it remains permanently in power, one cannot help but wish that nobody in this Parliament should give even the slightest suspicion that such a thing was being done here.

  1045
  I know that the Bill that we are discussing tonight is only a very small drop in the ocean, only small beer compared with some of the diabolical steps, as I would think, that have been taken elsewhere. It is, however, a small step in a very undesirable tendency towards making it appear to be all right for a Government, apparently respecting constitutional forms, to do things by the legislative machinery when they happen to be in power which are of advantage to their own party and to the detriment of the other party. The test should be the national, not the party interest.
  I am quite certain that everybody on these Labour benches would like to see a 100 per cent. poll in every election. We are firm believers in Parliamentary democracy. We want to see it successful and we are particularly jealous of the working of our Parliamentary democracy in this democracy, because so many people are constantly looking towards it as a model which should be followed. We want to see the maximum number of voters enabled to go to the poll.
  It may well be—I am perfectly prepared to admit it—that the limitation upon cars which the Labour Party introduced was not the right way to do things, but can anyone seriously, otherwise than with his tongue in his cheek, say that the Bill which we are discussing tonight is the way to remedy the matter? It is, quite obviously, a Bill brought in for party advantage and I very much hope that the House will reject it.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Denzil Freeth: The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) began his speech by attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). The hon. and learned Member said that my hon. Friend's speech had begun by a kind of prep. school knockabout turn which cast no credit upon this House. If the hon. and learned Member reads my hon. Friend's speech tomorrow and compares it with the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), he will find that my hon. Friend kept very closely to the order of the speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick. Indeed, his speech was designed largely to rebut the points made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  1046
  If my hon. Friend was making a speech that appeared to be a knockabout turn, how on earth can we describe the speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick, which hardly touched upon the subject of Section 88 of the 1948 Act? In a speech of something like 40 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman spent barely 10 minutes on the subject of cars.
  It is amazing that, according to hon. Members opposite, it is always highly laudable to attack the Tory Government or Tory Members and to suggest that they are being insincere and that everything they do is merely done to gain party advantage, but that it is obviously quite wrong for us ever to hit back. It is quite wrong, apparently, for us ever to suggest that we find the species of cant to which we have been subjected this afternoon not so much sanctimonious as nauseating and smug. It is peculiarly nauseating when it comes from the party which passed the 1948 Act, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) reminded the House earlier, was ostensibly designed to enact the proposals of the 1944 Speaker's Conference. The 1948 Act set to work, as far as it dared, to put the Labour Party in a position where it would be more likely to win the 1950 General Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The next thing that party did was to abolish the university seats—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hamilton: And the Tories have not restored them.
  Mr. Freeth:—apparently because the university electors were too intelligent to return Socialist Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Why not restore them?"] If hon. Members will admit that we are right to bring forward this Bill today then doubtless my right hon. Friend will bring forward another to restore the university franchise at a later date.
  Following the abolition of the university franchise against the agreement of the Speaker's Conference in 1944, hon. Members opposite refused to accept the recommendations of the Boundary Commission relating to the boundaries of seats. They added a substantial number of seats to those which the Boundary Commission recommended.

  1047
  Indeed, it is interesting to note that those seats which they did either invent or alter have all in the recent Report of the Boundary Commission and in its recommendations been abolished or put back as they were before. I believe it is greatly to the credit of the Tory Party, and something which the Socialist Party when in power never dared do, to have accepted the recommendations of the Boundary Commission lock, stock and barrel, because only that Commission's Reports can honestly be described as being absolutely impartial and irrelevant to party considerations.
  Mr. H. Hynd: When the hon. Member is talking about what happened to seats under the 1948 Act, will he remember that the Labour Government wiped out 20 seats in London which were Labour seats?
  Mr. Freeth: There are, I think, limits even to the degrees of charlatanism of a Labour Government.
  Section 88 was, of course, inserted into the Measure by the will of the House. I forget which hon. Member opposite said that that Clause was put into the Bill by the will of the House. It is a strange way to describe the insertion into a Bill of a new Clause against which the Opposition voted in its entirety. That Clause was instituted against the wishes of the Opposition of the day. It was foisted upon the House by the Government of the day, who used their majority to put that Clause into the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked why there was the invidious distinction—I think those were his words—between local government elections and Parliamentary Elections in this connection. Of course, the original Clause, which had been moved in April of that year by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), had been designed to apply equally to local government elections and to Parliamentary Elections. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary, said it was impossible in local government elections to arrange for the registration and the fair allocation of motor vehicles to drive people to the polls.
  So we have had a situation for the last ten years or so in which there have been no restrictions upon cars at the local
  1048
  elections; and yet, as the pendulum of politics has swung, we have seen the Labour Party gain control in boroughs and lose control in boroughs, gain control in local authorities of every kind, and lose control, as the political pendulum swung.
  We have never heard that the Labour Party lost control of a certain borough or a certain county or a rural district or an urban district because it had not enough cars. Members of the party opposite have always claimed that they have won on their merits and that the people were willing to go and vote for them. We have had a situation which has worked very well in local government elections and I suggest that the time has now come for us to revert to some kind of reasonable system in Parliamentary Elections as well.
  In 1948 the hon. Member for Bradford, East was talking about the richer candidate, and it is now always being said that the richer party will benefit most by the repeal of Section 88. It is worth remembering that that Section is a very strict Section indeed in the matter of the registering of cars. The owner of the car can drive it all day, in which case he cannot go to work that day. He has either to be on duty for fourteen hours and probably be a danger to other road users at the end of the day, or he must he prepared to have a succession of drivers to take over his car and drive quickly back and forth to the polling stations. Thy very strict rules in the 1948 Act governing the use of motor vehicles are rules which militate against people who fear that their cars might be damaged or be badly driven by others, people who are unable to get away from work for the whole Election day, although a number of them might be able to get away for a short period.
  Then we come to the idea that if I offer somebody a lift on polling day and the car is covered with stickers and flags I am in some way exercising persuasion over that person. The Labour Party mutt be very unsure of itself. I thought it was unsure of itself today because it decided that it had to devote all this time in debating the Bill to trying to throw mud at the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Pannell: It stuck all right.
  Mr. Freeth: That may well be shown to be non-existent in the end, exactly like

  1049
  the scares that we had at the Bank Rate Tribunal.
  I am a bachelor, and if I had wooed and won a fair lady and was going to marry her I think that I should feel exceedingly dissatisfied with myself if she ran off with somebody before the wedding merely because she had been offered a lift in his car. That is what the party opposite is suggesting. It is suggesting that the voters whom hon. Members opposite have wooed and won are prepared to renounce their party's charms and vote Tory merely for a lift in a car. Flow do they know such things? Hon. Members opposite are no more in the small booths of the polling station when people put a cross on the ballot forms than I am. When I pick up Mrs. Jones in my car she may say that she will vote Conservative, or Liberal or Labour, but when she gets inside the polling booth who knows how she will vote? She knows perfectly well that the ballot is secret and that she can vote how she likes.
  I want the Section repealed not so much in order that I can take more people to the polls who will vote Tory but so that I can take more people who will vote, because on this side of the House we happen to believe that the more people vote the more people there will be who will vote Tory. Therefore, any idea of restricting the number of people who vote is something which is to the disadvantage of the Tory Party. If hon. Members ask me whether this Bill will help the Tory Party, I will say that in so far as it increases the number of voters it must increase the vote of the Tory Party.
  Mr. Awbery: Now we know where we are.
  Mr. Freeth: One peculiar suggestion made from time to time is the mobile polling station. It was suggested by an hon. Gentleman opposite that if we had mobile polling stations there would be no real problem in the rural areas. Frankly, that is the most utter nonsense to anybody who knows the rural areas. There might be a polling station in a village with fifty or a hundred voters, a nice compact community, to which everybody could get with ease. Very often, however, within the boundaries of the parish there are people living three or four miles from that polling station and it takes
  1050
  time to collect people from the outlying farms. In my division we have only forty cars and 60,000 electors, and it becomes difficult so to plan the cars so that they can cover the ground and be available in the major centres of population in the evening when people come from work.
  It becomes excessively difficult in country areas where there are old people who are not well enough easily to walk to the polling station, and some doctors are not as sympathetic as they could be about signing the form for people to have a postal vote. Sometimes doctors do not automatically assume that anybody who does not feel well enough to go to vote should have a postal voting form. That is worth considering.
  Mr. Awbery: Could not that position be met by giving the returning officer the power to engage as many cars as are necessary to bring to the poll people who are unable to walk? That would give no advantage to either party and it would enable all those people to go to the poll
  Mr. Freeth: It would still be necessary to get a doctor's certificate. It is worth remembering that the suggestion about a returning officer running cars was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, East in April, 1948, and was rejected by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he was Home Secretary. Let us also remember, when we are dealing with postal votes and the like, that the closing date for the reception of postal voting applications is some days before polling day, and that it is possible for people to fall ill in the interim.
  If we were living in the nineteenth century I would be all in favour of limiting the excessive power of the rich, or however hon. Gentlemen opposite like to put it. But with the number of cars today there is, as we have heard time after time, one motor car for every eight voters, and if we include motor cycles, and so on, there is one car for every six voters. In other words, it is pretty well impossible for any political party not to be able to organise matters, and for people themselves not to be able to get lifts from their friends, for anybody who wants to be able to go to the poll, if there is a free movement of cars within the constituency and anybody has the right to give anybody else a lift.

  1051
  The point is not that we need restrictions because we have more cars, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been arguing in a kind of Alice in Wonderland way earlier today; the point is that if we have plenty of cars we do not need restrictions. The whole aim in life is to get rid of restrictions and controls as soon as possible, so that people can live their own lives and organise their own lives in the way they want. That is what I work for, and that is why I am all for getting rid of this restriction. In 1945 there was one car for every twenty-two voters; now there is one for six, if we include motor cycles. Therefore, there are plenty of cars which can be sent round to take people to the poll. So people will be taken to the poll, and the more people who vote the better it will be.
  Section 88 should be repealed because it is a bad law. It is a bad law because people do not understand it. They do not see the need for it and it seems nonsense to them. Somebody said to me, "Why should I on 1,500 days running be legally allowed to take my ox, my ass, my gardener and any neighbour of mine down to the village hall"—
  Mr. Denis Howell: In the car?
  Mr. Freeth: "—in the car and they can vote in parish council elections, rural district council elections and county council elections, and it is all legal, and yet on one day in every four or five years it becomes illegal for me to carry to the poll anybody who is not a member of my household?" If it is said that provided the car does not carry anything to show to which party the owner belongs it is legal, then nobody is able to fulfil that condition when they have been campaigning for some time.
  The number of cars has been too small. I read today that in the Chichester by-election there is not even one car per polling station. If a car goes wrong on the morning of polling day it cannot be taken out of service and a substitute put into service. [HON. MEMBERS: "It can."] It cannot on polling day. It can only be done if something goes wrong with the car before polling day.
  Mr. D. Howell: Is the hon. Member aware that, although one can use only up to the required number of cars at any
  1052
  one time, one can register as many as one wishes, so that a substitute is possible?
  Mr. Freeth: What the hon. Member says is true as far as it goes. One can register as many cars as one likes, but from the time that one sets out on the morning of polling day with one's forty or so registered cars one cannot have a substitute. If one can in Birmingham, at all events it is not allowed in Hampshire. Therefore, the law seems to be in a peculiarly unsatisfactory state, and that is an extra argument for getting rid of it. To most people the law seems stupid and therefore they are perfectly prepared to connive in any small ways in which they believe it possible to evade it.
  Surely we have moved away from the time when the Labour Party needed to shelter behind restrictions of this kind. I have been sent—I have not checked it, but I presume that the quotation is as written—an extract from the Chorley and District Times of 3rd June, 1955, which records Councillor P. Quinn, chairman of the divisional Labour Party, as saying:
  "For the first time in the history of the Labour Party there were over one hundred cars and they had had to draw out of a hat in order to choose which car to use."
  According to my arithmetic, each candidate in the Chorley division could use thirty-two cars. To suggest that the Labour Party will not have sufficient cars is obviously nonsense. Let hon. Members opposite discard the sanctimonious and nauseating smugness about what they did in 1948 and admit that they played the party game for all they were worth and that we are now merely trying to put matters back on to a sensible basis.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: When referring to hon. Members on this side of the House the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Denzil Freeth) twice used the words "smugness" and "nauseating". I have never listened to anything more smug and nauseating than his reference to his picking up a Mrs. Jones. I can well imagine the number of Mrs. Jones's that he will see year in and year out—and always pass them by.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: There are more Mrs. Smiths.
  Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member will never see them and the chauffeur will never see them, except on polling day. It would not matter whether there was a blizzard or a tropical thunderstorm; Mrs. Jones could stand about with her basket loaded or a kiddie in her arms and he would pass her by. But on polling day Mrs. Jones will be picked up, not because the hon. Member thinks she will vote Labour or that she will vote Tory but because he expects she is probably going to waste her vote. What humbug. This smugness and hypocrisy comes from a party which at a time when the unemployment problem in this country is growing week by week, can waste the time of this House with a footling Bill of this kind.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that this was a law which people did not understand; they did not see the need for it. What does he do? He says that the law has been broken. Therefore, we do not deal with the people who break the law because they are criminals; we abolish the law. That is marvellous. There is not a burglar, a prostitute, a gambler or a single criminal in this country who would not be delighted by his philosophy. Because we break the law and because it is difficult to catch us all, instead of strengthening the law, we abolish it.
  This is perfectly in keeping, so far as Elections are concerned, with everything which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have ever stood for. They have never believed in a fair fight. We have only to read the history of Parliament to know how long they kept the workers out of the Parliamentary struggle when they did not believe in their having a vote at all. Every concession had to be wrung from them. They have never in their lives agreed that we ought to fight on a fair basis—a basis of equality. They have always wanted the scales weighted in their favour.
  I wish that the Home Secretary had had the courage of the hon. Member for Basingstoke for he insinuated that this Bill should, in his opinion, be followed by one reinstating the university votes. In other words, he still believes that some people are so important that they ought to have two votes to other people's one. I suppose that when that has happened, he would reinstate or reintroduce the business vote. We would go back to that glorious stage in democracy when
  1054
  Tory money and Tory power ruled the country. What a mess was made of it and of the lives of the people who lived under that rule.
  The Tory Party should begin to realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) made perfectly clear, that this is now a grownup, intelligent democracy. It is a democracy which can only function provided that the vast majority of the industrial workers believe that it is a fair democracy. If we begin to give the impression to the miners, engineers and the other industrial workers that the scales of our Parliamentary system are being weighted against them, that they cannot by the exercise of their intelligence at the ballot box get the justice to which they are entitled because of Tory rigging, we turn men's minds in other directions, which could he fatal to this democracy and to Parliament.
  Therefore, I beg right hon. and hon. Members opposite not to start to play too much jiggery-pokery with our election law, and not to try to weight the scales too much in their own favour. I bee them to begin to realise that our people intend to have a fair fight, and intend to have the rules applied equally to both sides. Unless the Government appreciate that, this challenge to industrial workers may be a challenge which, in the lone run, will have disastrous results for all that which we in the House of Commons are supposed to love and cherish.
  9.0 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: In a sense, this is the most simple Bill which I have ever discussed. In a sense, it is a straightforward Bill, but on investigation it is seen to raise matters of party political and constitutional importance deserving extremely close scrutiny. It enables candidates to use their supporters' cars, without any limit of number and without any limit of the amount spent by the supporters on those cars.
  There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this. There is nothing in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, as it stands to prevent people taking persons to the poll, irrespective of the candidate for whom they are to vote. The whole of the opposition to the provision in the present Act was

  1055
  based in 1948 on a philanthropic plea by the Conservative Party to be permitted to allow Conservatives to take people to the polls irrespective of the party for whom they are to vote. All Conservatives wanted to do was to be able to take people for the ride. They did not want any party advantage but wished merely to indulge in a piece of philanthropy which, we heard from the Leader of the House today, was really for the benefit of our party rather than anybody else.
  In the course of its passage through the House, the 1948 Act was amended to make it perfectly clear that what was forbidden was merely the use of cars by supporters for the purpose of taking electors to the poll in support of a particular candidate. What was aimed at was not the philanthropic taking of people, the casual taking of people, irrespective of how they were to vote, but the organised use of cars to take to the poll people who would not otherwise go there to vote for a particular party candidate.
  The case now presented by the Leader of the House is somewhat different. He is not making the philanthropic plea which was made in 1949. He is now saying that it is necessary to have the Bill in order for people to be taken to the polls when they want to go. What is the present position? It is that there is now the postal vote for those unable to vote otherwise, there is a greatly increased number of polling stations, and there are registered cars for those few people who could not otherwise go to the polls.
  This matter was discussed at the Bournemouth Conservative Party Conference, when Lord Tenby, replying for the Government against the enthusiastic demand of Conservative workers for this provision to be abolished, said,
  "Has the restriction on the use of cars resulted in any significant fall in the percent-age of the electors in this country who are voting? The polls of 1950 and 1955, which were after this restriction was imposed, were unusually high and were, in 1950 and 1951, 84 per cent. and 82 per cent. high respectively, which is the highest since 1929."
  To say that the unrestricted use of cars is necessary in order to get electors to the poll is sheer nonsense. In our Election arrangements we accept limitations for one reason or another. Both parties are agreed that there are limits to the amount of Election expenses which can be in-
  1056
  dulged in. There are provisions against undue influence. What is the point of all these provisions? Their object is to avoid a distortion of the true voting wishes of the electorate and to obtain in the House of Commons a true reflection of the views of the electorate. That is the whole object of it.
  Cars have an influence in all this. Even the Conservative Party recognise that this is so, and they have not introduced a provision to eliminate the Section in the Act which forbids the hiring of cars. The hiring of cars is forbidden because it is perfectly well recognised that the unrestricted use of cars can lead to a distorted representation of the electorate of this country.
  In this provision, even tax advantages are not excluded. There are enormous tax advantages through cars in this country. The Answer was given the other day that the total amount of all capital allowances on cars, both initial and annual, in 1957–58 is estimated to be about £35 million. Companies such as Tate and Lyle, in the circumstances in which they took their Income Tax case to the courts, could return those cars for expenses for Income Tax purposes without restriction. There is no restriction in what the Government propose on the number of cars which can be used or the expenses which can be indulged in, with the result that in certain circumstances commercial cars could be used, cars of companies—and a certain amount of the expense incurred in using those cars is subsidised through taxation.
  Let us consider for a moment the advantages in the use of cars in an Election. Suppose the use of a car in an Election results in about twenty people going to the polls—not people who want to go there in a poll of 80 per cent. or 84 per cent. under the present arrangements—but people who might be indifferent about voting, who might not want to vote but who are induced to vote by the unrestricted car invasion which could take place under this provision. A figure of twenty people per car is not a very high figure. The advantage of fifty cars, with twenty people per car being induced to vote in this way, would mean a total advantage of 1,000 votes.
  It is not surprising that there has been a tremendous demand from Conservative workers for the abolition of this restric-

  1057
  tion on cars. We have in this proposal by the Government enough vice to swing an Election. On the last occasion when he spoke the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) suggested that cars should be requisitioned to prevent one candidate from having an advantage over another. He recognised the advantage to be obtained out of cars. The hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) suggested that we should lay down that no motor car should bear the posters or the names of any candidates. Both of them are on the Conservative benches and they both recognise the part which cars can play both in collecting votes and in propaganda on Election day.
  The Prime Minister says that we are out-of-date and has referred back with nostalgia to those Edwardian days when he used to ride high in cars with people wearing veils. He says that conditions are now entirely changed. Well, those veils are very transparent and very provocative. The true position is that at this stage cars can play a crucial part in an Election result. Who has the advantage? The people who have advantage from it are those with large cars. What is the use of cars shared by workers going to the factories? They are not available on Election day for getting people to the poll. What is the use of small cars? What election agent would plump for Baby Austins, bubble cars or mopeds? What they need is large cars in large numbers and people with leisure, or chauffeurs, to drive their cars; people who have the money to pay for the running of them and, of course, the special advantage to those who can enter all this as an item in their expenses account.
  The advantage is to the Conservative Party over the Labour Party and to the party organisation against the Independent. I can remember that in the last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. H. White) gave some extremely interesting figures. He said that in his by-election in 1938 he had 60 cars against the 600 brought out by the Conservatives and in a by-election later—this is where the party organisation comes in—when he was running without the support of any party organisation he had twenty cars against 700 massed against him. Of course there
  1058
  is an advantage to the Conservative Party against the Labour Party, and an advantage to the party organisation against the Independent.
  There are various things which ought to be included in any consideration of the Representation of the People Act. Nowadays one can get Income Tax allowances for what is party political propaganda. That should be dealt with. We should like to know who contributes to the party funds. That should be dealt with. The Labour Party publishes accounts, the Liberal Party supports the publication of accounts, and the only party opposing it is the Conservative Party. Why does it oppose the publication of accounts?
  Lord Randolph Churchill has been quoted in this House before, and I quote him again. What he said on this matter is very apposite:
  "I would like all the finances of the Tory Party to be open for inspection to anyone who wishes to look at them, whether friend or foe. Where you have secret expenditure you will certainly have corrupt expenditure and where you have corrupt expenditure you will have vitiated elections, disfranchised boroughs, party disgrace and public scandal."
  Why is there this constant opposition from hon. Members opposite to dealing with and ventilating this matter and having the party contributions published? Can we not end this under-the-counter behaviour? Is that not a matter which should be considered in any Representation of the People Bill?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) brought before the House some extremely serious matters. He referred to the speech of Lord Poole at Blackpool and quoted this passage from the speech:
  "I would like to pay tribute to the really tremendous work that Dr. Hill and his small organisation are doing. We certainly could not do our job in Central Office at all if it were not supplemented by what Dr. Hill and his organisation do and I would therefore like to pay a real tribute to him for his work in the last two years."
  Dr. Hill is a Member of Her Majesty's Government and his organisation is paid for out of taxation, yet we have this tribute paid to him by Lord Poole.
  Now we want to know what lies behind all this. What is the explanation of this speech by Lord Poole? We want to know; we are entitled to know; and I hope that the Attorney-General will deal with the matter.

  1059
  The next extremely serious matter which was raised by my right hon. Friend was that of the Rented Homes Campaign, the object of which was to attack the Labour Party's housing policy. It was a direct attack on this party, involving party politics. The Attorney-General has seen the evidence for himself, of Government labels addressographed and apparently a mailing list which came from Government sources all used by this organisation.
  Prima facie this is an extremely serious matter which requires the most serious investigation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Impartial."] It involves the whole constitutional position of our country and involves the honour of a good many gentlemen. I hope there is to be a proper explanation of this, because it is a matter of which some explanation must be given. I ask the Attorney-General to deal with the matter in his reply.
  Why was not the Bill mentioned in the Queen's Speech? Is the suggestion that it was not important enough to mention? I gather that that is so, from what the Leader of the House said when he was explaining why this Measure had not been dealt with before. The explanation was the Government's preoccupation with more urgent problems. Now, apparently, the time has come when the Government are not preoccupied with more urgent problems. They have apparently achieved the aims of their policy. They have achieved a pool of unemployment. Do not the Government consider that problems more urgent than ever before still exist in the internal economy with which they should be preoccupied?
  Of course, it is not the true explanation why the Bill was not brought forward before and was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech that the Government considered the Measure unimportant. It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech because the Government recognised what an important Measure it was. It is a matter for which the Conservative Party have pressed in conference after conference. It is a matter of constitutional importance dealing with the method of electing Members of Parliament. It touches the very foundation of representative Government.
  It is the only piece of reform to the Representation of the People Act. Many other reforms have been suggested, largely uncontroversial. One can think of a
  1060
  large number of reforms about which there can be no question between the parties at all, yet the Government have not chosen to include those in the Bill. Why not? Because, of course, they want the Bill so narrowly drawn as to exclude any possibility of Amendments.
  What the Government are concerned with is to get the Measure through, and to get it through at all costs before the Election. This is the very first Measure introduced by the Government after the Queen's Speech. I put it higher. It is the only Measure which it is absolutely certain the Government will get through before the next Election—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. The Government have been indulging in a delightful piece of window dressing, encouraging their supporters with promises of compensation which, as the Prime Minister said earlier, will wreck planning in this country. They have brought forward a pretty piece of work—that will not bear examination—about pensions.
  None of these may find its way to the Statute Book, but this Measure the Government are determined to have on the Statute Book. It cannot be said that the Bill is less important than a Bill dealing with deer in Scotland——yet the subject of deer in Scotland has a whole paragraph to itself, announcing:
  "A Bill will be laid before you for the protection and control of deer in Scotland."
  Why was not this Bill included in the Queen's Speech? I am sure that not even the biggest "Blimp" would suggest that the deer in Scotland are more important. Certainly, it was not suggested at Blackpool. The truth is that this Bill would have sounded quite atrocious in the Queen's Speech.
  Just suppose it had been said of Her Majesty's Ministers, "They will immediately introduce, as a matter of extreme urgency and national importance in the present conditions of unemployment, a Bill which they are determined shall be given priority over all other Measures" —as they are doing—"namely, a Bill to enable candidates at Parliamentary Elections to have the use of their supporters' cars without limit on number or expense." Perhaps it is not surprising that it was not included.
  Why was it not included? Could not the Prime Minister bring himself to make

  1061
  such a true declaration in the Queen's Speech about this Bill—or was it just that the speech was being broadcast and televised? Did the Ministers have in mind that paragraph in the Gracious Speech which says:
  "Today, for the first time, this ceremony is being watched not only by those who are present in the Chamber, but by many millions of My Subjects."
  Were they afraid of being watched and found out, or was it some lingering piece of decency that prevented their besmirching this solemn occasion with such a piece of squalid party politics?
  Perhaps it was thought, very cleverly, that it might slip through under the Government's reference to
  "Other measures will be laid before you in clue course."
  "In due course"? This Bill was already printed at the time when the Queen's Speech was delivered. The Government had it already drafted, already printed, knowing that they were to bring it forward as the very first Measure of supreme importance in this Session of Parliament.
  The truth, of course, is that the best amongst the Government know that it is morally unjustifiable, and the rest knew perfectly well that it would be politically unwise to mention it. Ours is a democracy whose working depends upon mutual loyalty, on both sides of the House, to our common democracy and a measure of mutual confidence between both sides in working that democracy. Many democracies have fallen and are falling, some of them because of party conspiracies and chicanery. It has been our strength in this country that we have had a stronger belief in our democracy than the differences that have separated us. What the Bill does is to injure that democracy, and it is for that reason that we shall certainly oppose it.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)rose—
  Mr. H. Morrison: If the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will forgive me, I should like to put one question to the Leader of the House. Very grave charges have been made with regard to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Health. Is it not desirable that the appropriate Ministers should be in their places?
  Hon. Members: Where are they?
  The Attorney-General: May I say in reply—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the Attorney-General. He ought to be allowed to speak.
  The Attorney-General: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to say that those Ministers have, unfortunately, other engagements, but Ministers from the Departments are present and I shall deal with the charges which have been made.
  I should like to start my reply by making one, I hope, uncontroversial remark. It is that we have had today, I believe, a very suitable debate for today's date, and I should like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) on devoting a greater part of his speech to the Bill than did the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). Certain questions have been put by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman to which I shall endeavour to reply.
  It is clear that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman brought joy to his supporters. I do not begrudge them that for one moment; it may not last very long. If the House will allow me, I should like to begin by replying to the other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. As they were not ruled out of order, I hope that I may refer to them, too, without getting out of order.
  I think the right hon. Gentleman's first charge was that the Tory Party did not publish its accounts, and that allegation was again repeated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We had a debate on this matter as long ago as 1949. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the Socialist Party publishes a full account of what is spent on Socialist organisation, propaganda and education? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Do the accounts published include all that is raised in the political levy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I want to put these questions because they are important.
  Do they include all the moneys spent by the Co-operative Union, and by the Co-operative Party, on political education and propaganda? That does not seem to me to tally at all with what the

  1063
  late Mr. Greenwood said in the debate in 1949, when he undertook to make more disclosures if the Conservative Party agreed to do the same. That does not look as if there was full disclosure. [Interruption.] The truth is that these accounts, which were put forward as accounts of expenditure on advocating Socialism and on propaganda, are incomplete accounts. When complete accounts are published perhaps that subject can be raised again.
  The next subject which the right hon. Gentleman attacked—[Interruption.] I am dealing with the allegations that were made. I do not want to spend too much time on these earlier allegations, because I want to spend a good deal of time on the serious allegations which have been put forward about the Rented Homes Campaign. That is what I want to spend time upon and I want also to say one or two things about the Bill.
  The next allegation by the right hon. Gentleman was in attacking the expenditure by "Mr. Cube" and he criticised that. It has been criticised many times in the past by the party opposite. It really cannot be regarded as wrong, even by the party opposite, for anyone attacked to defend himself. Although it may annoy the party opposite, I believe it to be in the interests not only of the directors and shareholders, but of the public and the employees in those industries, that the facts should be made known, and made known without any doubt. I do not, however, want to take up any more time on that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because I want to come, and I hope the House will listen to me, to what was the main charge in the right hon. Gentleman's indictment. I recollect only one occasion when such far-reaching allegations have been put forward on such a slender basis. I shall Leek to make that good.
  First, there was an article published in the Daily Herald of 11th October, to which I would like to refer. It said:
  "Whitehall scandal of the booklets, by A. J. McWhinnie. Official publicity machinery of a Government Department—the Ministry of Health—is being used to distribute a booklet which specifically attacks Opposition policy. Mr. Gaitskell will probably expose this scandal himself when Parliament reassembles. Daily Herald investigators have established that a "Rented Homes Campaign' booklet, aimed at -resisting the municipalisation of rented property, is being posted under official Gov-
  1064
  ernment address labels. Although 'On Her Majesty's Service' has been cut from the top of the label, a Stationery Office code number gives the trick away. The code starts with the letter 'H', followed by SPO 'and a series of figures. 'H' stands for Ministry of Health, 'SPO' for a Special Press Office mailing list."
  Immediately that was published, on the same day, the Daily Herald was told this by the Ministry of Health:
  "It can be categorically stated that no copies of this pamphlet have been issued by the Ministry of Health (which in any case since 1951 has had no official concern with housing matters) and that no official addressed labels have been supplied for that purpose to any outside body or individual."
  That was what the Daily Herald was told. Not a word of that was published in the Daily Herald.
  Curiously enough, the Daily Herald got hold of the other envelope, the one which is alleged to have come from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Again, the Daily Herald was told that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had taken no part in the distribution of the pamphlet or provided any facilities. The Ministry said, however, that it would have the matter investigated if the Daily Herald would supply the envelope. The envelope was not supplied. There was no publication of that reply.
  Then, I understand, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put down a Question on this matter for answer yesterday. It was taken off the Order Paper. The powder was obviously being kept dry for today, and it was today, and only today, that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Health received notice that this matter would be raised.
  What exactly is the allegation which the right hon. Gentleman made? I took down his words, and I think I have got it right. His allegation was that the Government facilities had been put at the disposal of the Rented Homes Campaign.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I said facilities, materials, had been used—not put at the disposal of, but used—by the Rented Homes Campaign.
  The Attorney-General: I must say that I shall look forward to reading HANSARD tomorrow to see whether my note was correct, or the right hon. Gentleman's correction.

  1065
  But let us take it on that, that the accusation is that Government facilities have been used by the Rented Homes Campaign. I can say with regard to that that no Government facilities of any kind have been put by the Government—[Interruption.] This is the accusation which the hon. and learned Gentleman said affected the honour of many gentlemen.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
  The Attorney-General: I will give way in a moment. I just want to say this. I have tried to establish what the accusation is. It is alleged to be one of great constitutional importance affecting the honour of many gentlemen. What I want to say with regard to this—and I am entitled to say it—is that if any such envelopes came out of any Government Department, it was not with the authority of that Government Department or with the authority of any Minister.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I made it perfectly clear, I trust, that I hoped we should get a proper explanation of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have got it."] We have not. We are very, very far from it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that these labels have been used, these addressographs and this mailing list. What we want to know is, on this prima facie case, what is the explanation?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  The Attorney-General: I am endeavouring to answer, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, he will get the answer.
  Let us see what the evidence produced is, the evidence which has been held up so long. There are two envelopes—let me remind the House of this—two envelopes with postmarks dated 17th September. [Interruption.] I thought the right hon. Gentleman said two. I have seen only one, and that had that date. Both envelopes had a Stationery Office stick-on label on. One had the top half of the label cut off. The allegation is based partly on that ground, but mainly on the ground that bath labels purported to have a code number upon them. That is the ground upon which allegations affecting the honour of so many people are made.
  1066
  What I want to say is this. If these envelopes did emanate from a Government Department, if they were sent by a civil servant, then, quite clearly, that civil servant was guilty of misconduct and of a breach of his duty. I have made it quite clear that any sending out, any use by him of these envelopes or of these addressographs for that purpose would have been quite wrong and there was no authority for it. I made it quite clear that there was no Ministerial authorisation for any conduct of that sort. I am not saying—
  Mr. Dugdale rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who is addressing the House, has not given way. It is disorderly to be upstanding unless the Minister gives way.
  The Attorney-General: I am trying to deal with allegations which have been brought forward and which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with now, and I am making it quite clear that there is no Ministerial responsibility for this. These letters were not sent with Ministerial authority.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point or order. Would it be in order for a Minister to say in the House in debate that if a thing has been done by a civil servant there is no Ministerial responsibility?
  Mr. Speaker: I understood the Attorney-General to use the phrase "no Ministerial authorisation". That is what he said. Later he said "responsibility". Of course, Ministers are responsible for their Departments. If a charge is a personal one against Ministers it is a grave matter for the House and the House should listen to both sides with calm and weigh up the evidence.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, because I am trying to recite the facts so far as they have been ascertained at the moment.
  I want to make quite clear that there was no Government authorisation of any kind for the use of envelopes, addressographs or anything of that sort for this purpose. I went on to say, and I should like to repeat, that if these stick-on

  1067
  labels, bearing these code numbers, were put on these envelopes in a Government Departmnt by a civil servant then it would seem that that civil servant was guilty of misconduct.
  I want to add that really this small matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—has been built up out of all proportion. If the right hon. Member for Smethwick really believed that there was anything in it, surely it was his duty as a Member of the House and a member of the Privy Council to hand over these documents for immediate investigation and not to hold them just to use as political propaganda.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It was surely my duty as a Member of the House to bring this matter to the attention of the House as soon as I could.
  The Attorney-General: Well, of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not withdraw a Question on the subject.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes me to say that he has asked Sir Norman Brook, as head of the Civil Service, to investigate whether any unauthorised use has been made of Government facilities in this respect, so that there will be an immediate investigation, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Smethwick will make the documents available. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who?"] I said Sir Norman Brook, as head of the Civil Service. The next allegation—
  Mr. Morrison: May I put this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Is it right to pass the responsibility of this inquiry on to another civil servant? May I put it to him that there should be an outside, independent person, possibly a High Court judge, to investigate this matter. Further, I think it is improper to shove this on to another civil servant. Secondly, may I ask whether the Attorney-General will undertake—[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite will laugh on the other side of their faces. May I ask whether he will undertake on behalf of the Prime Minister that when the inquiry is completed a full and adequate statement will be made to this House?
  The Attorney-General: With regard to the second question, I am sure that a
  1068
  statement will be made when the investigation is completed. The right hon. Gentleman asks me again by whom it would be done. I have said that the Prime Minister has asked the right hon. Sir Norman Brook, as head of the Civil Service, to do this. I would say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that really it is appropriate that the head of the Civil Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—should inquire as to the use of two stick-on stationery labels and an addressograph by two civil servants.
  Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I wish to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only civil servants who are involved in this charge. There is a receiving end—the people who received the labels—and it is not appropriate that a civil servant should inquire into that part of the offence.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order at all.
  The Attorney-General: There is one other matter to which I ought to refer before I come to speak about the Bill. Those are the observations the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to make about a firm of advertising agents called Colman Prentis & Varley Ltd. I was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to advertise them or whether his words were to be taken as a threat. However that may be, one thing at least is clear, that he attempted to denigrate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I would only say this to him in reply, that the high esteem which my right hon. Friend enjoys throughout the country is as a result of his own actions and not as the result of advertisement. I will say no more about the right hon. Gentleman's speech except that it seems to me that he has clearly demonstrated—more clearly than I have ever seen it done before—the distinction which exists between the amusing invective which we have heard deployed recently by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and mere vulgar abuse.
  Now may I turn to the Bill. In the course of this debate not so very much has been said about the Bill and I would at least say that it is a beautifully drafted Bill, it is a model of brevity, it is clear in its language—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poole."]—I am talking about the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poole."]—I am SO

  1069
  sorry. I thought at last I had been able to get to the Bill, but certainly I will deal with that point.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy does no more than every hon. Member of this House knows that he does, namely, to explain and expound Government actions and Government policy. If Lord Poole found the work that my right hon. Friend and his organisation did—perfectly proper work; it has been done by other Governments—useful as a basis for party propaganda, that is a matter for him. I am not responsible for Lord Poole's choice of words. My right hon. Friend has done nothing more than this House knows that he does, namely deal entirely with Government policy.
  Perhaps I may now come to the Bill. I was hoping to make a non-controversial remark by describing it as a beautifully drafted Bill, a model of brevity, clear in its language and in its effect. Its effect is, of course, just to remove a blot from the Statute Book which ought never to have been put there.
  I am not going to deal with the history of the Measure which we are about to repeal, but it is not my belief that the effect is now—it certainly was not the effect in 1948—that if the provision is repealed the Socialist Party will have so few cars available and the Conservatives so many that the Socialists will be under any disadvantage on polling day. Whatever may have been the position in the early years of the century and whatever it was in 1948, that is an untenable argument today. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, one has only to look outside the factories to see that cars are widely owned by all sections of the community.
  In expounding the effect of Section 88, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not get it quite right. The Section contains two prohibitions. I will divide its effect in two. In one part each candidate is allowed to use only so many cars, and they have to be registered with the returning officer and have to carry placards, and if one breaks down on polling day it cannot be replaced. The other part applies to the use of cars by persons other than candidates. The House may be interested to know that out of the
  1070
  number of prosecutions of which my right hon. Friend gave details, apart from one prosecution of an agent and a transport officer for using more cars than were allowed, there have been no prosecutions under that Section of a candidate or his agent for using unregistered cars, for using cars in excess of the number permitted or for using cars not carrying the prescribed placards. All the prosecutions were of individuals not connected with the party organisations for taking to the polls people who were not members of their household or visitors to their household.
  I must say that I fear that this practice is far more widespread than the number of those prosecutions suggests. It can be committed so easily and with such slight risk of detection, and so many matters have to be established before an offender can be brought before the courts. Also, policemen on polling days have a great deal to do apart from watching cars discharge passengers and finding out whether they are brought there with a view to voting for a particular candidate.
  Complaints are also received, and one reason why I suspect that the breach of this provision by individuals is more widespread than those figures show is the number of complaints that have been received. After the North Lewisham by-election there were no fewer than thirty-one complaints. They were all investigated. In twenty-six cases no, or no sufficient, evidence was available to warrant a prosecution. and in 14 out of the 26 cases the complainant withdrew his allegations when he discovered that he had complained about the conduct of a member of his own party. The complaint in two of the other cases certainly would not have led to a conviction, and in the remaining three cases, which involved only single journeys, the Director of Public Prosecutions, with whom the decision rested, decided that the public interest did not require a prosecution. So in the end it led to no court proceedings.
  Mr. Niall MacDermot: So there was nothing in it.
  The Attorney-General: I do not agree with that. I am not saying that the law was not broken. All I am saying is that no convictions resulted. People just do

  1071
  not understand why, when they give lifts to all and sundry every day of the year, and why, when they can give lifts on polling day in local elections, they cannot do so in Parliamentary elections.
  In these days, it is not uncommon for neighbours to travel to and from work in a car belonging to one of them. If they go to a factory, when their hours of work are over they may return from work together. If, for instance, four neighbours in perhaps a small car, coming back from a factory, decide on the way home to go to the polling station with a view to voting for the Labour candidate, they will be committing an offence. That shows how ridiculous this provision is. On that ground and on that ground alone there is a strong case for repeal.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
  The Attorney-General: I have not much time to give way.
  But that is not the complete strength of the case. The people who are hit by this provision are the people who are not car owners. The people who are car owners can still go in their cars, with their households, to vote. The people who are hit are the people in the countryside who will have to walk, and the only reason the Socialists have for wishing to retain this provision is because they think that if it remains on the Statute Book, Conservative voters may not be able to get to the polls.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 245.

  Division No. 2.]

  AYES

  [9.57 p.m.]

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Gough, G. F. H.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cole, Norman

  Gower, H. R.

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

  Conant, Mal. Sir Roger

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Grlmston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Ashton, H.

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Gurden, Harold

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Atkins, H. E.

  Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Baldwin, Sir Archer

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Balniel, Lord

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Malden)

  Barber, Anthony

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero (Macclesf'd)

  Barter, John

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Deedes, W. F.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Beamieh, Col. Tufton

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Hay, John

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Bennett Dr. Reginald

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bishop, F. P.

  Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle-upon Tyne,N.)

  Hobson, John( Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Black, C. W.

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Body, R. F.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hope, Lord John

  Bonham Carter, Mark

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hornhy, R. P.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Fell, A.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

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

  Finlay, Graeme

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Braine, B. R.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Forrest, G.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fort, R.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Foster, John

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Bryan, P.

  Freeth, Denzil

  Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

  Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

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

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Gammans, Lady

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Glover, D.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Carr, Robert

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Godber, J. B.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

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

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Speir, R. M.

  Kaberry, D.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

  Keegan, D.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Neave, Airey

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Kimball, M.

  Nicholls, Harmer

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Kirk, P. M.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Lagden, G. W.

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

  Storey, S.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Noble, Michael (Argyll)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Leavey, J. A.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Leburn, W. G.

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

  Osborne, C.

  Taylor, William (Bradford. N.)

  Legge, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Page, R. G.

  Teeling, W.

  Lennox-Boyd Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Temple, John M.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Partridge, E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Peel, W. J.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

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

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Pott, H. P.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, O, L.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  McKibbin, Alan

  Profumo, J. D.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Redmayne, M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

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

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Macleod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Rippon, A G. F.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Webster, David

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Maddan, Martin

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Marlowe, A. A, H.

  Russell, R. S.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr, R.

  Mathew, R.

  Sharples, R. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Shepherd, William

  Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.

  Mawby, R. L.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Albu, A. H.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Dye, S.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edelman, M.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Carmichael, J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Champion, A. J.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Baird, J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Balfour, A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Belienger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Clunle, J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

  Coldrick, W.

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Finch, H. J.

  Benson Sir George

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fitch, Alan

  Beswick, Frank

  Cove, W. G.

  Fletcher, Eric

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

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Foot, D. M.

  Blackburn, F.

  Cronin, J. D.

  Forman, J. C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Cooch, E. G.

  Boardman, H.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

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

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Grey, C. F.

  Boyd, T. C.

  Deer, G.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Diamond, John

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Hannan, W.

  1074

  1075

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hastings, S.

  Mason, Roy

  Short, E. W.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Healey, Denis

  Mellish, R. J.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

  Messer, Sir F.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Skeffington, A, M.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Monslow, W.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Holman, P.

  Moody, A. S.

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Holmes, Horace

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

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

  Snow, J. W.

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Mort, D. L.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Moss, R.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hunter, A. E.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Stonehouse, John

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

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

  Oram, A. E.

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

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Orbach, M.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

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

  Oswald, T.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Owen, W. J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

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

  Padley, W. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepoole)

  Paget, R. T.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Timmons, J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Tomney, F.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Parker, J.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Viant, S. P.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Paton, John

  Warbey, W. N.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Peart, T. F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

  Pentland, N.

  Weitzman, D.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Probert, A. R.

  Wigg, George

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Randall, H. E.

  Willey, Frederick

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rankin, John

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  McInnes, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Reid, William

  Winterbottom, Richard

  McLeavy, Frank

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Woof, R. E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Mahon, Simon

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

  Ross, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mann, Mrs. jean

  Royle, C.

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

  Committee upon Monday next.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance on why we are being called upon to take the Second Reading of an important Bill at Ten o'clock at night on a day when no Motion for suspension of the Rule has been made or carried? I appreciate that under Standing Order No. 21 such a Motion can be made without notice, but it does not appear on the Order Paper, and I was behind your Chair at the time and did not hear it being moved. So far as I know, there is no record of it being moved, and, as this is not exempted business, clearly we are not entitled to embark after Ten o'clock at night on an important Bill without a suspension of the Rule.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right. There is no suspension of the Rule and the Bill is not exempted. If he has any objection to the proceedings, the Bill must stand over.
  Mr. Hale: I object, Mr. Speaker, and as a second point of order, as an act of courtesy to you, I wish very respectfully to suggest to you that you might reconsider the Ruling you gave in 1952–53, based not on Second Reading but on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill", which appeared to introduce a new principle on the Second Reading of the Bill, which we regard as one of very great importance.
  Mr. Speaker: It has always been my view—and the Ruling goes back a very long time before my time—that on the Second Reading of the Bill no discussion can properly take place. The merits of the various Acts which it is proposed to continue can be discussed by Amendment in Committee. I do not for the moment see what the relevance to the position on Second Reading is of a discussion of the Motion, "That Clause 1
  1078
  stand part of the Bill." No doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity of elucidating that point. I must ask the day for Second Reading.
  Colonel J. H. Harrison (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Tomorrow, Sir.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): As the one chiefly responsible for putting business before the House, may I say that the normal practice over the years has been for this business to be taken formally. I am not interfering with the wish of the hon. Member. We shall respect his wish, but normally the Second Reading is taken formally and discussion in the past has taken place in Committee. We had catered for a discussion on Committee stage to give full ventilation of subjects arising out of the Bill. The sole reason for not suspending the Rule and for taking this business formally was that of following precedent. The hon. Member has stated objection and, therefore, we shall have to find time for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Gordon Walker:I think I should say that we came to an agreement on this matter, which generally is taken formally, and that it is very difficult to raise anything on the Bill which is in order at this stage. We understand that there will be a full opportunity in Committee to raise all matters, and my right hon. Friends would want to hold to the agreement made that this stage of the Bill should be taken formally.
  Mr. Speaker: However, if one hon. Member objects to the Bill being taken, I am bound to ask on what day it is to be taken. I am told that it is tomorrow.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Aircraft Accidents (Rescue Facilities)
  Aircraft Accidents (Rescue Facilities)
ROADS
  Purfleet-Dartford Tunnel
  Purfleet-Dartford Tunnel
  A.30 and A.303
  A.30 and A.303
  Medway By-pass (Land)
  Medway By-pass (Land)
  Motorways (Sales of Alcohol)
  Motorways (Sales of Alcohol)
  Whipps Cross, Leyton (Pedestrian Crossings)
  Whipps Cross, Leyton (Pedestrian Crossings)
  Eastern Avenue Extension (Houses)
  Eastern Avenue Extension (Houses)
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
TRANSPORT
  Farm Tractors
  Farm Tractors
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
RAILWAYS
  Finances
  Finances
  Capital Investment
  Capital Investment
CIVIL AVIATION
  Boeing 707 (Noise)
  Boeing 707 (Noise)
SHIPPING
  Laid-up Vessels
  Laid-up Vessels
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Thor Missiles
  Thor Missiles
  Washington Talks
  Washington Talks
  Transport Aircraft
  Transport Aircraft
  Forces, Germany
  Forces, Germany
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Oman
  Oman
  Cyprus (Service Wives and Families)
  Cyprus (Service Wives and Families)
  CYPRUS (N.A.T.O. DISCUSSIONS)
  CYPRUS (N.A.T.O. DISCUSSIONS)
  EGYPT (INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  EGYPT (INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  SUDAN (ASSISTANCE)
  SUDAN (ASSISTANCE)
UNITED NATIONS
  Chinese Representation
  Chinese Representation
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Compulsory Jurisdiction (British Reservation)
  Compulsory Jurisdiction (British Reservation)
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA AND STRAITS OF FORMOSA
  SOUTH-EAST ASIA AND STRAITS OF FORMOSA
  QUEMOY AND MATSU
  QUEMOY AND MATSU
  EXCHANGES OF SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL INFORMATION
  EXCHANGES OF SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL INFORMATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  TERRITORIAL FISHING LIMITS
  TERRITORIAL FISHING LIMITS
EMPLOYMENT
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Employment Exchanges (Staff)
  Employment Exchanges (Staff)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  North-Western Region
  North-Western Region
  Oldham
  Oldham
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing (Safety Regulations)
  Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing (Safety Regulations)
  Industrial Disputes Order
  Industrial Disputes Order
  Strikes
  Strikes
  Isle of Sheppey
  Isle of Sheppey
  Epping and Ongar
  Epping and Ongar
  Chigwell
  Chigwell
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
ROYAL NAVY
  Mediterranean Fleet
  Mediterranean Fleet
  Ford Aerodrome, Sussex
  Ford Aerodrome, Sussex
SHIPBUILDING
  Orders
  Orders
  Launchings
  Launchings
BRITISH ARMY
  Forces, Cyprus (Rations)
  Forces, Cyprus (Rations)
  Churchill Barracks, Ayr
  Churchill Barracks, Ayr
  Hutments, Richmond Park
  Hutments, Richmond Park
POST OFFICE
  Letter Box, Willenhall
  Letter Box, Willenhall
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Reception, Berwickshire
  Reception, Berwickshire
  Subliminal Advertising
  Subliminal Advertising
  Colour Television
  Colour Television
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Road Accidents and Alcohol (Report)
  Road Accidents and Alcohol (Report)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Caravan Site, Egham
  Caravan Site, Egham
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Cotton Industry
  Cotton Industry

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE On the Woolsack.
Prayers

ANGLE ORE AND TRANSPORT COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, these two Private Bills were passed in this House last Session but did not complete their stages in the House of Commons and were, by Resolution of both Houses, carried over to the present Session. I now have to acquaint the House that, pursuant to the Resolutions passed by this House on July 31 last, the agents for the Promoters of these Bills have deposited the Bills in the Parliament Office, together with a declaration stating that each Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House at the last Session. I therefore beg leave to present the Bills and to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, pursuant to the Resolutions of the 31st of July in the last Session of Parliament, that the Bills be read, pro forma, a first, second and third time, and passed.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bills presented accordingly, and (pursuant to the said Resolution) read, pro forma, 1ª, 2ª and 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

RIVER BANK EROSION
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that river boards, whose duty it is to keep the river banks in condition, are frustrated in their efforts by their lack of control over the regulation of speeding by
214
motor boats or in regard to faulty design in such boats which cause bow-wave to erode the banks; and therefore that certain river boards require protection so that licences given to craft shall not be automatically granted unless such craft conform to specifications designed to avoid bank erosion by wave action of the wake set up.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the Government are aware that difficulties do arise over the problem a river bank erosion and its causes. River boards, under the Land Drainage Act, and navigation authorities, under local enactments, have power to regulate the navigation by making by-laws, subject to confirmation by the appropriate Ministers. Such by-laws are, I understand, in force on most navigable rivers, requiring vessels to navigate at a speed and in such manner as not to cause damage to river banks. Fresh legislation would be required to provide for the licensing of vessels in the manner suggested by my noble friend. Existing powers are wide enough to deal with any vessel, whatever its design, which causes damage to river banks. It seems to the Government that these difficulties can best be overcome by co-operation between the river boards and navigation authorities to secure effective enforcement of the existing by-laws. I should like, however, to thank the noble Earl for his suggestion.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I ask this supplementary question? Would the noble Earl agree that, having regard to the interests of river boards in preventing erosion of banks, it would be desirable for them to be represented on navigation authorities? In these circumstances, will he press his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport to take up the matter with his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so that these questions may be resolved by compromise and that much public money may in future be saved from literally going down the drain?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: The noble Earl's suggestion would involve private legislation. However, I will gladly mention it to my right honourable friend.

PROTECTION AGAINST WAGE ROBBERIES
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question a which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to provide protection for messengers sent by firms to draw wages from a bank.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, such matters must be left to the judgment of chief officers of police, who are always ready to offer advice to firms on preventive measures.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether it would not be simpler if wages could be paid by cheque?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think it is for me to give an opinion on that aspect. I fear that it is not contained in the Question.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether or not the Home Secretary is in communication with county standing joint committees, and with watch committees, on what special steps need be taken, having regard to the present crime wave?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am frankly unable to answer the noble Viscount's question positively, but I cannot imagine that this particular matter is not engaging my right honourable friend's attention as a very important one.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: I am afraid I have had my supplementary thunder stolen by the noble Earl on this Bench. My supplementary was to have been: would the Government consider initiating legislation to make it possible for wages to be paid by cheque?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I said just now, I do not think that it would be proper for me to endeavour to answer that point as arising out of the noble Viscount's original Question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord be willing to bring the matter to the notice of his
216
right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
LORD CHESHAM: I shall certainly be pleased to do so.
LORD GREENHILL: Have we reached the stage where it has become necessary to have armoured cars to protect the transport of money from one place to another?
LORD CHESHAM: It is entirely a matter of opinion.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: Is the Minister not aware that this matter is at the present moment under discussion between the Ministry of Labour, the employers' organisations and the trade unions?
LORD CHESHAM: I am quite aware that there are discussions going on. But alternative methods of payment, and so on, do not arise from the noble Viscount's Question.
VISCOUNT DEVONPORT: Has the noble Lord considered the appalling premiums that must be paid by these firms now to cover the loss of wages? I know that that is only a small point. Alternatively, have Her Majesty's Government considered that very shortly someone will be murdered, and then the whole country will get up on their hind legs, and the Government will have to do something about it?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my personal impression is that the premium for such cover is not high at all. So far as a murder being. committed is concerned, we have a police force, and I think it is up to all firms to co-operate, so far as possible, with the police. I regret to say that it is not my opinion that enough firms do that now. A great deal more could be done by firms to protect their property, and I hope that they will make use of the various recommended preventive measures which they can be told about if they ask the police.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, does it not really stand out a mile that, with the present state of the police force, so short in personnel and with so many men diverted to other tasks than those of preventing crime or pursuing criminals. something more urgent should be done by the Government?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is precisely the reason why I suggested that firms themselves should take more active steps. I do not want to weary your Lordships, and it would be improper for me to do so, by going through the long list in my mind of the things that they could do.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord does not mean that firms should organise themselves into a series of vigilantes.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that when the police are offering firms preventive assistance in this matter, it is at least up to the firms to do everything they can to co-operate with the police to protect their own property.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
2.44 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Attlee,

E. Dundee,

E. Home,

E. Lucan,

E. St Aldwyn,

E. Selkirk,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Crookshank,

L. Amulree,

L. Hylton,

L. Layton,

L. Pethick-Lawrence,

L. Rea,

L. Wilmot of Selmeston.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Reading,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Lucan,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

V. Hall,

V. Samuel,

L. Amulree,

L. Ogmore.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the Third Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider any proposals for alterations in the procedure of this House which may arise from time to time, and whether the Standing Orders do or do not require to be altered to effect such alterations; and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee:

M. Salisbury,

E. Home,

E. Lucan,

E. Onslow,

E. St. Aldwyn,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Stansgate,

L. Amulree,

L. Macdonald of Gwaenysgor,

L. Rea,

L. Saltoun,

L. Silkin.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Norfolk,

D. Wellington,

M. Cholmondeley,

M. Lansdowne,

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Attlee,

E. Crawford,

E. De La Warr,

E. Dundee,

E. Halifax,

E. Home,

E. Ilchester,

E. Iveagh,

E. Limerick,

E. Lucan,

E. Munster,

E. Onslow,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Scarbrough,

E. Selkirk,

E. Swinton,

V. Alexander of Hillsborough,

V. Bridgeman,

V. Crookshank,

V. Esher,

V. Gage,

V. Goschen,

V. Hall,

V. Hailsham,

V. Samuel,

V. Simonds,

V. Soulbury,

V. Thurso,

L. Ammon,

L. Amulree,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Bridges,

L. Burden,

L. Chorley,

L. Hatherton,

L. Henderson,

L. Killearn,

L. Lucas of Chilworth,

L. Macpherson,

L. Mancroft,

L. Nathan,

L. Ogmore,

220

L. Pakenham,

L. Pethick-Lawrence,

L. Rea,

L. Reid,

L. Saltoun,

L. Sherwood,

L. Silkin,

L. Terrington,

L. Wise.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Reading,

M. Willingdon,

E. Buckinghamshire,

E. Hardwicke,

E. Iveagh,

E. Munster,

L. Ailwyn,

L. Ammon,

L. Birdwood,

L. Blackford,

L. Cawley,

L. Faringdon,

L. Glyn,

L. Hindlip,

L. Jessel,

L. Kershaw,

L. Latham,

L. Meston,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strang,

L. Terrington.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That a Standing Orders Committee be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and

221
the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

E. Buckinghamshire,

E. Munster,

L. Ammon,

L. Amulree,

L. Archibald,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Tweedsmuir.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the seventh Motion on the Order Paper standing in my name.
Moved, That the Personal Bills Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Macclesfield,

V. Simonds,

L. Cohen,

L. Kershaw,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Silkin.

—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session;
That the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the said Act be referred to the Joint Committee;
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Derwent,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Terrington,

L. Cawley,

L. Jessel,

L. Broughshane;

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Earl St. Aldwyn)
On Question Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request that they appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
2.46 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved on Tuesday, October 28, by Earl Jellicoe—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to add at the end of the proposed Address:
"but humbly regret that the gracious Speech makes no adequate proposals for dealing with the problems of industrial output, unemployment and under-employment, the continuing high cost of living, or satisfactory provision for old age, present and future."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper by way of an Amendment to the proposed humble Address. So far the discussion has ranged round a wide field of matters of public importance, but we have largely left to this day and to to-morrow the discussion on our financial and economic affairs. On behalf of my noble friends, I have put down this Motion in order to express our

223
dissatisfaction with the financial and economic policies of the Government.
Let me say at the outset that in the Motion we have included a reference to the Government's inadequate provision for old age pensions, and while we wish to adhere to that in the Motion I do not propose to speak on it, because since I put the Motion down it has been thought desirable to ask for a separate day for the discussion of pensions, which, of course, is a very wide subject. Therefore, neither I nor, I understand, any of my noble friends propose to discuss this question on the Motion to-day and tomorrow. Moreover, my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence referred to the matter in some detail last week and there was a fairly detailed reply by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. So that if we make no further reference to old age pensions, noble Lords generally and, I imagine, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is going to reply to me, will feel somewhat relieved.
To an increasing extent in the last fifty years and more all Governments have been compelled to accept responsibility for the general welfare of the people, including particularly their economic welfare. This is a phenomenon, I imagine, which really began in 1906 with the accession of the Liberal Government of that time, and it has been accepted by the two main Parties, although, curiously enough, many of the Liberals who were responsible for initiating this conception of government and a number of Conservatives still adhere to the Manchester school of laissez-faire. We have a good example of that in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, last week in the debate on the humble Address.
In respect of election programmes, the main political Parties each try to demonstrate that their programme, policy and administration will be more beneficial to the public than those of the others—that is, that, broadly speaking, they will provide a better standard of living. In their Election Manifesto in 1951, the Tories said:
"A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programme of rising costs and prices."
Well, this Government have been in office now for 7½ years and I should like to begin by accepting that criterion and
224
judging the Government by what has been the effect of their administration upon rising costs and prices. Broadly speaking, since that statement was made in 1951, prices have risen by about one-third. The pound of 1951 is to-day worth only 15s. in terms of purchasing power. The increases in prices have been particularly heavy in the vital necessities of life; that is, in food and clothing.
The House will forgive me if I give a few examples of the increases in the prices of staple foods. For example, bread has risen from 6d. a quartern in 1951 to 11½d.; milk from 11d. a quart to ls. 4d. to 1s. 8d.; cheese from 1s. 10d. a pound to 2s. 9d. to 3s.; meat—well, that has gone up to an astronomic figure, and it is certainly more than double; bacon, back and gammon, have gone up from 3s. 1d. a pound to 5s. 2d. to 5s. 4d.—and I would say, in parenthesis, that it is not the producer of the bacon who is getting the benefit of the increased price; tea has gone up from 3s. 8d. to 6s. 8d.; and generally, food prices have increased considerably more than the one-third to which I have just referred.
I need hardly say that these increases operate most harshly on persons with the smallest incomes. Obviously they are the people who spend a larger proportion of their income than do others on the staple articles of food. It is no wonder that families with two children or more whose earnings are under £15 a week cannot afford enough food to provide their families with the minimum energy and protein content recommended by the British Medical Association; and £15 a week is substantially more than the average earnings of families to-day, which is about £12 10s. a week. Rents have gone up by over 15 per cent, in the same period, more particularly in the last two years since we have had the benefits of the Rent Act passed by the Government, and they will go up more when the full effects of decontrol are felt.
This country has the highest increase in the cost of living in the world—certainly higher than the costs of the eight countries which might be regarded as our competitors. Sweden and Japan come next with 23 per cent., as against our 33⅓ per cent.; France, the Netherlands and Italy are about 15 per cent.; and the United States, Belgium and West Germany 7 per cent. Government speakers, in the course of the debate on

225
the Address in this House and certainly in another place, have prided themselves that at any rate prices have been fairly stable in the last year or so. That is not so. According to the Second Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes—that is, the Cohen Report—in the sixteen months up to June, 1958, prices had risen by 5·6 per cent.; and they have certainly risen since June, as is the experience of everyone with any knowledge of prices and the cost of living. So judging by the effect of their programme on rising costs and prices, the Government have failed miserably, and they have certainly not lived up to the criterion which was laid down by themselves in 1951.
I now turn to the next test. The Government have declared in the gracious Speech that it is their aim to maintain a high and stable level of employment. They have been in office for seven and a half years. How have they carried out this policy up to the present time? There is no precise up-to-date information of the registered number of unemployed available beyond September last, which is two months ago, but it is generally agreed that to-day the total number of registered unemployed is rather more than 500,000. In September, 1955—that is, when the Government came into office the last time—it was 185,000; in September, 1956, it was 238,000; in September, 1957, it was 267,000; and to-day, as I say, it is about 500,000. Of this latest figure of 500,000 no fewer than 193,000 have been unemployed for eight weeks or more, which means to say that to-day there are more people who have been unemployed for eight weeks or more than the total number of unemployed in 1955.
In the debate in another place an attempt was made to ride off some of this unemployment by saying that it was seasonal. I have taken the figures for September of each year, and if it is seasonal to-day, it was seasonal in 1955 and 1956. But you cannot explain unemployment which has lasted two months or more by saying that it is seasonal. Moreover, there are categories of workers not included in these figures: dock workers are not registered as unemployed, even though they have no work available, and there are miners and others. Then, in addition to these registered figures, there is a con-
226
siderable amount of short time being worked. For instance, in May, 1958, which is the last date for which I have figures, the number of people working on short time was 217,000, whereas in May, 1955, it was only 59,000. So that since the last time that this Government came into office the number of people working part-time has been almost quadrupled. Furthermore, this is not the end: unemployment will certainly increase. I think everyone who has spoken on this subject in the course of the present debate in both Houses has accepted the fact that we have not seen the worst of unemployment yet.
I need hardly elaborate on the cruelty and suffering caused to individuals, men, women and children, when, through no fault of their own, they find themselves unemployed, especially over Long periods. When we talk of figures and percentages and the advantages of a certain amount of unemployment in our economy, let us not forget the human factor in unemployment and what it means to the individuals. So here again, judged by the test of unemployment, this Government have not fulfilled their promise and have failed.
I should like to ask the Government about these high unemployment figures. Do they accept responsibility for them? Are these high figures of unemployment deliberate—that is, in accordance with their plans and what they desire? Or are they just the result of bad management, or of no management at all? Or are they, to paraphrase the words of the Prime Minister, "merely a piece of bloomin' bad luck"? We are entitled to know. When unemployment goes down the Government take the credit for it. What is the Government's position on the present large-scale unemployment and the even larger-scale threatened unemployment?
We are particularly vulnerable as regards our standard of living, because a large part of our raw materials—more than half—have to be imported, and we pay for these imports by means of our exports. The more we import, the more we have to export. These are truisms, but sometimes not entirely remembered. There is keen and ever-increasing competition with other countries in the export markets of the world. How are we faring as regards our exports? The gracious Speech refers to our seeking

227
"to expand our oversea trade both in Europe, by the creation of a Free Trade Area, throughout the world."
I will not blame this Government for not having been able to reach an agreement on the Free Trade Area. I say, quite frankly, that I think the Paymaster General has done a good job of work. He is doing it to the best of his ability, and I would not say that it is at all his fault that, so far, the negotiations have run into difficult waters.
Apart from that matter, we have not had much success so far in relation to our export trade. Between 1953 and 1957 (1953 happens to be the earliest year for which I have reliable information) the percentage increase in our exports was 21. But this is the lowest figure among the exporting countries; we are, so to speak, at the bottom of the table. Japan's increase is 132 per cent., and that of Western Germany 88 per cent. So we go down the scale: Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, France and America, of course, have all increased their exports to a considerably higher extent than we have. Indeed, in the Economic Survey for 1957 there is a statement that there was a slight fall in our share of world trade in manufactures, and there is every reason to believe that our exports in 1958 have not risen either in volume or proportionately to other countries. Both in the first and second quarters of 1958 our exports are down as compared with 1957 as well as 1956.
The one bright spot on the horizon is the increase in our exports in the motor trade, and that is very welcome. The increase, however, is merely in the sale of passenger cars: our exports of commercial vehicles have gone down very substantially indeed. But one swallow does not make a summer, and we cannot base our success in exports purely on the one industry, the motor trade. From the figures I have given as to unemployment and partial unemployment, it will be apparent that our industrial resources are not being wholly used. We have an immense amount of spare capacity. The steel industry, for instance, is working to 75 per cent. of capacity, and there are many other industries, the aircraft industry, and so on, which are similarly under-employed. I hope that some of my noble friends on this side will be able to expand this point.
As regards our national output, that has increased only fractionally since 1955, while industrial production has actually declined. I quote again from the second Cohen Report, published only a month or so ago, which says:
"Industrial production has fallen a little since the middle of last year, and in the second quarter was 2½ per cent. below the peak quarter a year earlier."
On the best figures I have been able to obtain, our total manufacturing is down to-day by 4 per cent. as compared with last year. Again, one would like to draw a comparison with other countries. Our increase in industrial production as between 1951 and 1957 is about 18 per cent. But in Japan and the U.S.S.R. production has doubled; in West Germany it has gone up by 75 per cent., in Italy and France by 50 per cent., and in the Netherlands by 40 per cent. Once again, with our 18 per cent. increase, we are at the bottom of the table of production, and it is doubtful whether we can easily increase our production. If our production had risen at the same speed as it has done in the whole of Europe, we should have been in a very favourable position as regards balance of trade, our finances, and in every other way. I would ask your Lordships to imagine what the prosperity of this country would have been.
I turn to another aspect of our economic position. We cannot hope to maintain our exports or our standard of living, still less to improve them, unless we increase our capital investments in such a way as to increase our efficiency and reduce our costs. We on this side of the House have constantly urged upon the Government the essential need for expanding our economy in both private and public. In April, 1957, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft said in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 568, col. 980]:
"Of course, we have to have a high investment economy. It is a condition of our survival."
I ask your Lordships to note the words, "It is a condition of our survival." Yet soon after that statement was made the Government deliberately embarked on their restrictionist policy, which has led to such disastrous results. But even before that, our capital investment in industry was proportionately less than that of any other country in Western Europe.
I will not weary the House with more figures (I think it has had enough to go on with for a time) but I can assure your Lordships that the table is roughly the same, and follows the same pattern: that we are at the bottom of the table for investments, both in our public and private economy. To-day, the Government have decided to reverse this policy, to a limited extent, and to permit and encourage capital investment, both in the public and the private sectors of our industry. But we shall derive very little, if any, benefit from this expansion if it is wholly undiscriminating. To expand production merely for the purpose of making more television sets, refrigerators, motor cars and so on for home consumption, or electrical gadgets to be acquired on the hire purchase system, is not going to improve our economy to any serious event. Indeed, it may well result in inflation and high prices and so increase the cost of production. Our primary concern must be our export markets and our expansion of credit and production must be directed to that end.
It is because the Government are not discriminating between capital expenditure which will help the economy and capital expenditure, both public and private, which will injure it that they are deserving of censure. They are impregnated with doctrinaire ideas—so much so that they have become blind to the public interest. Increased investment will mean more than a proportionate increase in our imports of raw materials, and these will have to be paid for. In 1958 the prices of the raw materials we imported were about 10 per cent. lower than in 1957. Those 1957 prices were, in turn, substantially lower than in 1956. If we had had to pay for our imports at normal prices the very high and record surplus of exports over imports, of which the Government boast, would have disappeared and we should have had the normal deficiency, although admittedly not so high as in some years. This is the "bloomin' piece of luck" which every Government speaker has referred to as if the Government had done something meritorious to deserve it. But it is of the essence of luck that it is fortuitous; there is no nonsense as to merit about luck. It comes to the righteous and the unrighteous alike—and more often than not it comes to the unrighteous—and it evens itself out in the
230
end. The Government must not gamble on their "bloomin' luck" continuing.
Moreover, this luck has been at the expense of the primary producing and, generally, the undeveloped countries of the world, and mainly members of the Commonwealth. Its effect upon them has been very largely to impoverish them. Nobody knows that better than the noble Earl who spoke on this subject yesterday. Instead of the Government boasting about their luck in getting their material so cheaply, too cheaply, as if they had done something clever, which they have not, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have not only tended to antagonise members of the Commonwealth but they have so impoverished them that they will be forced to reduce their imports from us or else very greatly increase their prices; and, in any case, these countries will be forced substantially to lower their standard of living. Noble Lords on the other side know that as well as I do. You cannot impoverish your customers and expect to do a thriving trade with them. Yet that is what the Government have been trying to do.
We have no confidence in the measures the Government propose taking to alleviate the position. At the best they are mere palliatives. They may possibly hold the employment position for a time—I would not deny that—by our taking in one another's washing; but in the long run they will be entirely inadequate. To increase artificially the consumption at home, with its increased demand for raw materials, without at the same time increasing our earnings abroad by means of increased exports is both mischievous and irresponsible. The Government have no clear aim or objective; they are floundering from one desperate remedy and one crisis to another. They are shooting without seeing the target, hoping that they will hit something, if it is only the Gallup Poll for the time being.
LORD BARNBY: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? Would he dispute the fact that Britain does not decide the prices of world raw materials, which he is alleging is the fault of the British Government? It is world factors that decide it, not Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SILKIN: I am delighted to hear that, because the Government have been

231
claiming credit for it, for their cleverness; and if prices had gone against us they would have gone the other way.
The Government are doing indiscriminately what should be done in a carefully planned operation. The Government may claim to have an ideological objection to planning and controls, and I know that a great many noble Lords opposite have; yet they do exercise controls, even though at times misguided. Every sound business must plan and control, which, after all, only means looking ahead and ensuring that policy is carried out. It must be bad for private industry to be subject to repeated changes of policy—expansion, restriction, expansion, low rates of interest, high rates of interest, low rates of interest, and so on. Business cannot carry on successfully under those conditions, and it is no wonder that we are in the plight that we are. Business must be allowed to plan ahead, even if the Government do not. I believe that the Government are deceiving and hypnotising themselves into presenting to the public a false and misleading picture of our economic position and prospects, a picture of confidence in the future which I believe is entirely misplaced and for which, on the basis of their policy, there can be no possible justification. It is for those reasons, because we on this side sincerely believe that the Government's policy is misplaced that we have put down this Amendment to the Motion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved: To add at the end of the proposed Address:
"but humbly regret that the gracious Speech makes no adequate proposals for dealing with the problems of industrial output, unemployment and underemployment, the continuing high cost of living, or satisfactory provision for old age, present and future."—(Lord Silkin.)
3.20 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, before addressing myself to the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down, may I in my turn, congratulate the openers of the debate on the humble Address? I enjoyed their speeches very much, and I found myself in full agreement with the happy words of the Leader of the Opposition when he
232
congratulated them on the way they spoke. Perhaps I may be permitted to add one word to the legends of Goschen, because the first question I was asked by the Governor of Bombay, when I stayed with him, was: was it true when they said of Goschen, when he became First Lord of the Admiralty, that "Lord Goschen had no notion of the motion of the ocean"; and he looked at me as if it might apply to me. And of course it does. I should also like to congratulate most sincerely the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, on the speech she made yesterday, not only on its content but, I may say, on the extremely happy way in which she has entered into this last sanctum of masculine isolation; and indeed also on the charm and naturalness with which she spoke, as if she had been here—I will not say for many years, because that might be discourteous, but at least as if she has been well accustomed to being here.
Let me turn now to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin has said. I am bound to say that I was interested to find that he was thoroughly satisfied with the words on pensions which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said. He did not wish to make a single comment on it.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Earl ought not to try to mislead the House into thinking that I was satisfied. In view of the long speech I had to make, I felt that it would be better if we had a separate debate on pensions.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then the noble Lord ought to have taken that part of the Amendment off the Order Paper. I should say that the level of pensions to-day is, in buying power, higher than it has ever been before; and in fact a married couple getting £4 a week will have contributed, if the husband has contributed since 1926, what would actuarily have entitled him to 6s. a week. When you compare that to a deficit rising to £400 million in a matter of twenty years I think it is absurd to pretend that the financial basis of an insurance scheme is not extremely doubtful. I regard it as running a great risk that this National Insurance scheme might turn into a National Assistance scheme if the payments were not made of right. Therefore, I say that it is of the greatest importance that this scheme should be put on a

233
thoroughly sound financial basis. But I will not, as the noble Lord has not developed his argument, go any further than that to-day.
What I should like to say to him is this. He has given an extremely critical view of our economy, but he has made very few suggestions of what he would like to do. In a great exporting country which, when we came to power had had a recent devaluation and a commodity boom arising from the Korean war, it would have been extremely unexpected if we had not had some rises in prices. If we take a more recent period, from the beginning of 1957, we find that prices in this country have risen less than in the United States of America, fractionally more than in Germany and considerably less than in France. In fact, in spite of the gloomy view he takes, we are eating, drinking and housing ourselves better than ever before.
The noble Lord was a little more solemn when he came to talk about our export trade. I quite agree with him because here we are dealing with a very critical point in our economy. It is worth remembering that the balance is inevitably very narrow. This is what we should expect and must continue to expect. Having said that, I would add that we should remember that we have doubled our exports since before the war. Of course that has been achieved largely by private enterprise. We have kept sterling an international currency, with half the international trade dealing in sterling as a basis of exchange—and the importance of that was clearly emphasised by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations yesterday afternoon.
Although we have lost considerable investments overseas, we are investing something of the order of £200 million a year overseas, mostly in the Commonwealth. I think the noble Lord has no justification for believing that we are antagonising them. Certainly that would not appear to be so from my recent visit to Australia and New Zealand. There really is no justification for that statement. Of course the New Zealanders would like a higher price for their butter; but so would the housewife like to have cheaper butter. So the noble Lord is nicely placed as to what he thinks might be the right thing to do. I believe that it is also right
234
to remember that, of all overseas investments in the Commonwealth, about 70 per cent. comes from this country, and, one way and another, we have invested overseas something of the order of £2,000 million since the war. I do not think that that is something which can be passed off lightly as insignificant. Of course the noble Lord's "league table" can be taken to show almost anything, but as a percentage of our national income we are investing overseas more money than any country except Switzerland, so I do not think we are doing so badly.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give another figure from the Seventh Report of O.E.E.C.—namely, that since before the war we have raised production per head by about 37 per cent., as against 47 per cent. in the United States and 21 per cent. in West Germany and in France. These are considerable achievements at a time and in a century when we have taken part in two world wars, in the prosecution of which we have stinted neither life nor money. I think they represent a very material recovery.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I take it that the last set of figures given by the noble Earl includes the whole period since 1945.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Of course. The Socialists were not entirely without virtue. I accept that. Perhaps I may give one or two other figures in order to put into better balance the picture presented by the noble Lord opposite. The motor car industry has doubled its production. That is not the only thing. The chemical industry has trebled since pre-war; and the production of aircraft engines and airframes is four times as valuable as it was ten years ago. Commercial vehicles stand at about double, in spite of what the noble Lord said; diesel engines at about twenty times; excavators and earth-moving equipment about five times, and radio communication and navigational aids about six times. Those are quite impressive figures. It is true that textiles are not as important as they were and that engineering products have become by far our most important export. But we are still by far the biggest textile exporters in the world—indeed nearly half the woollens and worsted goods are exported from this country. I think it is proper that we

235
should remember that, whatever difficulties we may be running into. This is my answer to the broad picture which the noble Lord has given of this country not making very much progress. There is, in fact, a very great progress taking place.
Of course, we must face quite squarely that there is one weakness which has been apparent in our post-war economy and to which the noble Lord referred. I will do so, if I may, by making a quotation from the White Paper on the economic implications of full employment. It says:
"If the prosperous economic conditions necessary to maintain full employment are exploited by trade unions and business men, price stability and full employment become incompatible. The solution lies in self-restraint in making wage claims and fixing profit margins and prices, so that total money income rises no faster than total output. In the absence of such self-restraint, it may seem that the country can make a choice—albeit a painful one—between full employment and continually rising prices, or price stability secured with some danger to the level of employment that might otherwise have been achieved. But soon looms up the grim danger that the first of these apparent alternatives will turn out to have been no alternative at all, because we may fail to secure sufficient imports to maintain full employment and our present standard of living."
Of course, the simple answer is that that warning was not adequately heeded, with the result that in September, 1957, we reached a crisis which was very closely connected with the fall in the value of the pound in this country. People overseas were not sure whether they wished to continue holding sterling. There were other factors, of course, but this was the central theme. We took very strong action at that time, and I would say to the noble Lord that I do not think there was any luck in the action we took. May I point out that Mr. Stanley Holloway goes on to say:
"With a little bit of luck, when temptation comes
You give right in",
and that is rather what I should have expected noble Lords oposite to do had they been in power in September, 1957.
But I will not go over what we did. Rather I will recall what we have achieved by what was done then. First and foremost—and I think I am putting it fairly—for nearly twelve months we have had retail price stability. Secondly, we have had an extremely favourable year in our
236
balance of payments. Our reserves have risen by about £400 million—the highest we have had for some years—and our sterling debt has fallen. It is sometimes commented that these two things always move in the same direction, but they do not always do so. They may often move in opposite directions.
The most remarkable achievement is that we have had a favourable balance in our visible trade in the first six months of this year—£137 million—which is the first time that this has happened this century; and our current trading surplus has been over £300 million. At the same time the rate of investment in the private and public sector has been higher than ever before. With great respect to the noble Lord, I believe I can say that that is a considerable achievement which cannot really be described as "floundering" or "pure misrepresentation". In the difficulties that we were in it has been a year of considerable achievement. Perhaps we could have done things in a better way or differently. We have often had discussions about different forms of economic instruments; but what we have done has certainly been extremely successful.
It is always the task of the Treasury to push against the wind, and there are two matters with which we are concerned to-day. The first is production which, I will concede to the noble Lord is running at 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. lower than at this time last year. Secondly, the level of unemployment is higher than it has been for quite a number of years. We are, of course, taking action to meet that, as I shall tell your Lordships. I would emphasise that what we want to do is to create a steady growth, built on a sound foundation and not simply to create a mushroom growth which could fade away extremely easily.
The noble Lord asked whether we are in complete control of the economy. I say frankly that no Government, except a Communist Government, is ever completely in control of the economy. We live in a free community and the success of our economy depends necessarily on the contribution which everybody makes. The task of the Government is merely to create those conditions in which the private and public sectors of the economy can prosper, but above all without again setting in motion an inflationary spiral

237
with all the adverse effects which follow. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has departed but in his attack on the bank rate he said that it was indiscriminatory and attacked a large number of people who have nothing to do with inflation, and that it would have many disastrous effects on the economy of the country. Without entering into a discussion on the bank rate, I would point out that every one of those things is far more adversely affected by inflation. Inflation has precisely those effects, and far more seriously than the bank rate, because nobody can choose inflation whereas, within certain limits, it is always possible to decide whether or not we are willing to take advantage of the possibilities offered by the bank rate. I was also rather disturbed that the noble Lord appeared to think that inflation could not be stopped. I believe that that is a very defeatist view, and I was extremely sorry to hear it expressed from the Front Benches opposite.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if the noble Earl understood me to say that—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I readily concede that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did not say it. I was referring to a speech made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took early steps to meet the wind which we see blowing now. As far back as March 20 he first started to lower the bank rate. Noble Lords will recall that at the time of the Budget the initial allowances were increased and purchase tax was substantially reduced; and noble Lords will recall that initial allowances were further increased last June. Since then the bank rate has been further reduced and there has been a removal of hire purchase restrictions, and the so-called bank squeeze, has now entirely gone. I do not know what would be said by those employed in the motor car or television industries about the necessity for them to do their work. After all, television is something that we in this country invented and I do not see why we should not have the use of it. I believe that it can be of great value as an educational medium in this country.
It is due to all these steps which have been taken that we are now in a position to do one or two things overseas, referred to yesterday by my noble Leader the Secretary of State for Commonwealth
238
Relations. The first is the extension of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank which we envisaged at New Delhi and which we hope will make a major contribution to the objective of maintaining and expanding world economy. He also referred to the line which we took at Montreal. The intention was to remove quantitative restrictions on capital goods, and we hope to press on with the removal of restrictions on consumer goods as and when we feel able to do so. Those are important steps which will help the world economy towards expansion, in which we have a real and important part to play.
I should like to say a word about employment. My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has spoken quite frankly on this subject, as I believe your Lordships will agree, and has said that, even allowing for seasonal trends, there is an increase in the October figures of unemployment. He went on to give hostages to the future by saying that he did not think the figure would rise to 3 per cent. this winter but he ventured to suggest that it might go to 2·8 per cent. But I think it was made quite clear, at the same time, that the number of unfilled vacancies, taking into account the seasonal trend, was showing a tendency to rise. I am glad to see that short-time working has fallen since May, the time of the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and is now down about 25 per cent.
In regard to children leaving school, who number something under 700,000 in this year, they were a little slow at first in finding employment, but I am glad to say that those unemployed are no more than about 30,000 at the present time—an improvement on the position a month or two ago. I am not saying that those are more than straws in the wind, but they seem to indicate that there is a slightly stronger demand for labour than there has been in some respects. I think it is a pity sometimes to regard live statistics as an unchanging mass, for statistics are something which change constantly; and I am given to understand that something like seven million job changes take place every year. One of the most important factors is mobility of labour to enable people to get from areas where employment is difficult to those where the opportunities are better. This position has been helped by two

239
steps recently taken. The first is the Distribution of Industries Act, the operation of which is now spread all over the country in areas where it is specially required, and I am given to understand that something like thirty cases are being actively considered at the present time. Secondly, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has announced certain steps to assist the movement of labour from one place to another, including the abolition of waiting time for the assistance which can be given.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Earl is saying about the employment position. I shall want to speak on this matter to-morrow and I should like to know whether he agrees with the Minister of Labour. If I understood him correctly, the Minister said at Blackpool that the increase in the unemployment figures is largely due to the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not think my right honourable friend said that. I have not the quotation, but if the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will give me the quotation I shall be only too glad to give him my comment. But I think that would he stretching the meaning, which, of course, the noble Viscount does sometimes, frankly and openly.
What I would suggest is that in a number of cases I have been very satisfied to see the way in which employment has been found. No fewer than 78,000 people left the Services last year and yet the number unemployed has gone up by only 2,500. May I give two other short examples? One concerns the Saunders-Roe Company, in the Isle of Wight, which presented quite a problem, owing to Government policy in that case involving the cancellation of an order. Five hundred people were discharged in January and February, and in June there were no more than fifty-five remaining on the register. The other example affects my own Department at Donibristle. There were 1,300 people discharged, of whom 1,000, I understand, were re-employed without the loss of a day's work. Both those examples show the efficiency with which the Ministry of Labour is working and
240
the way in which labour can be redeployed.
No one, I think, underestimates the vital importance, both from the human and from the economic point of view, of maintaining a high level of employment. That will remain our determination and our resolution. We have taken certain steps now and I am confident that they will bring their effect. But I would say this: I find myself in full agreement, and I believe it will be shown to be correct, with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—namely, that, just as with the philosophy of hedonism, if you seek employment in too bald-headed a way you will not get it. So in hedonism, if you seek pleasure with too much resolution you will not get it. I think that is a fair comparison between those two.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, did not tell us more fully what it was that he was going to do. He talked vaguely about a controlled economy. I do not know whether he has gone back to the policy which I believe used to actuate some noble Lords opposite, of an expanding economy limited by controls; I do not know whether that is the policy they work to. It may have been justified immediately after the war when there was in fact a very heavy demand. But has he now elevated that into an abiding principle of economic policy? I should be interested if someone would tell us.
I would just add—and I shall not occupy more than another minute of your Lordships' time—that noble Lords have to make up their minds whether they think we are to be an international trading community or to run in a close national economy. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seemed to think, that we have to keep exports at a high level; but I do not know how he is going to force people to buy exports, because there is no possible way of forcing people either to buy our exports or to want to hold our currency, sterling. There is only one way in which that can be done and that is by confidence—confidence in the belief that our goods are worth buying and our currency will retain its value. That is the object of the measures in the Queen's Speech which will be carried out. That is what we have in mind, and that is why I ask you to reject the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.
3.44 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, it was news to me when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, began his speech this afternoon by saying that we were not to discuss in detail the Government's pension plan. I had prepared a few remarks to make on that subject, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, shall endeavour to reserve them for another occasion. But there is one point that I should like to make, because there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion (whether intentional or unintentional I do not know) about the question of contracting out, so far as private industrial schemes could contract out of the Government scheme.
Some of the difficulties here are quite considerable. It has been said by some people that what the Government propose to do is to leave it solely at the option of the employer as to whether the people in private schemes should contract out of the Government scheme; and these people have suggested that, rather than be left with the employer, the option should rest with the individual employee on the existing pension scheme. I should like to make it quite clear, in case there is any misunderstanding in this House, that the option is not one to be left solely either to the employer or to the employee; it is, and must be, a matter for mutual agreement, as so many things are a matter for mutual agreement in industry, I am glad to say.
Existing private pension schemes would, of course, be completely disorganised if one employee wished to contract out and another employee wished not to do so; and no good employer who values the good will of his employees—and he will not remain long in industry if he does not value the good will of his employees—is going to impose unilaterally on those employees a decision against their will which so closely affects their interests. Therefore the issue is not whether the employers are going to have the last say over this matter of contracting out. We can go into the details when this promised debate comes off, but I think that that is a point which has been made in another place, on public platforms and in the Press and which should be contradicted as soon as possible.
242
My Lords, it seems to me that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was contained in one very short sentence in the October issue of the Bulletin for Industry, the economic situation review prepared by the Treasury, which has always been regarded as an impartial review. In the summary entitled "Halfway report of the year on the economy" the final sentence is:
"The economy is therefore in a better condition than for some time."
I cannot believe that anybody listening to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, can have supposed that that is the case. Indeed, his speech, if he will not mind my saying so, was a very successful exercise in making bricks without much straw.
He appeared first of all conveniently to forget the disastrous results of the devalution of the pound in the late Socialist Government's era of office, which of course took some years to work through our economy—indeed, it was five or six years before we were able to overcome its deleterious effects. And I must say, further, that one would not have expected from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that both his Party and the Government are on record as claiming it as the primary task lying in front of them after the disastrous experience of the past, to maintain the value of the pound sterling. That, of course, we in industry welcome enormously. It is quite impossible for us in industry to lay our plans ahead for the proper conduct of British trade, and especially for British trade overseas, if hanging over our heads are any risks whatever of the devaluation of the pound sterling. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has an opportunity again to speak on the economy of the country he will underline that vitally important fact. I hope also that he will go so far as to remind his own colleagues that to avoid inflation, further inflation, in this country it is absolutely essential that the rise in our own earnings—whether we be wage-earners, whether we be salary-earners, or whether we be living on dividends—as a whole must not be more than the rise in the general productivity of the nation.
When we consider the American recession of the past year, which was extremely acute in the early months of 1958, when we consider the financial difficulties of last September, and when we

243
consider the world slump (for there is no other word for it) in the prices of primary products which Lord Silkin has referred to quite accurately, affecting, as they must do, the ability of those countries to buy our manufactured goods—when we consider all these difficulties which have faced us in the world field, I think that no unprejudiced observer from overseas could do other than marvel and congratulate Britain on the remarkable stability of our commerce, employment and industry over the last year.
But I wish to turn such few remarks as I have to make to your Lordships to-day more on to the question of employment and unemployment. Considerable anxiety has been expressed, and quite naturally, about the increase in the numbers of persons registered as unemployed in this country, and Lord Silkin is perfectly correct when he says that unemployment is a personal problem as well as a national problem. I should like to refer for a moment to the figures. Of the 475,000 people unemployed on September 15, 60,000 were temporarily stopped. We can leave those out of our account for the moment. Of the remainder—the ones that are serious, of course—just under 300,000 in all, 269,000 were men and 25,000 were women.
These figures of registered unemployed are often compared in the Press and in the official publications with the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled. Those figures of notified vacancies cannot be completely correct. I was looking at the figure in the last issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette showing the number of notified vacancies in my own printing industry. The number of notified vacancies is quite small, but I happen to know of my own personal knowledge, being on the Council of that industry, that the number of real vacancies is considerably more. However, it is no good notifying the Ministry of Labour if they have nobody to send to us as skilled in that trade. Therefore, these numbers of notified vacancies are on the low side. Nevertheless, on September 10 there were just under 180,000 such vacancies, 94,000 for men and 85,000 for women. The point I want to make, my Lords, is this: that very misleading conclusions can be drawn from those figures
244
considering this matter in an overall way and for the entire country. The Ministry of Labour analyse the totals in a number of ways which would make the true position much clearer if only they would advertise it a little more. One has to bury one's head in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, which is pretty heavy reading and contains all sorts of things, before it is possible to get at the true picture.
The picture does show that the situation is very uneven from one part of the country to another. But even more significant—and this is what I want to bring very much to your Lordships' attention this afternoon—is what they call the "Occupational analysis of adult workers who are wholly unemployed". The most recent issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, that for August, 1958, which I have here, relates its figures to June 16. Of course, there has been a rise since then, but the proportions remain more or less the same. At that time, of 250,000-odd wholly unemployed men, almost 200,000 were classed as labourers and unskilled workers. Now, my Lords, this is of vital importance to all sorts and conditions of people. There were only just over 50,000 unemployed who were skilled or even semi-skilled. At the same time, the number of vacancies for skilled or semi-skilled men was many more than this. Vacancies for labourers are hardly ever issued to the Ministry.
The problem, therefore, at that time, and to-day, is primarily the problem of the unskilled labour—the labourers and those classed as "miscellaneous unskilled". This fact is one which should surely give cause for thought to all sorts of people: to those who are encouraging unskilled labour to come to this country from overseas (and I do not refer only to Jamaica and Africa) and to those who are considering what young people should do, whether they should go into blind-alley occupations and chance their luck at getting a good job later on, or whether they should be made by their parents (because nobody else can make them) to undertake some form of skilled or semiskilled training. Because the fact of the matter—and we must understand this if we are really to understand the employment situation in this country—is that ever since the war there has been, and there still is to-day, an acute shortage of

245
skilled labour, while we have too many completely unskilled labourers. These factors require study and consideration when we are discussing how to find jobs for these unskilled. The recently announced increase in public works investment is, I think, very welcome in this regard, because the largest number of unskilled men is, of course, employed in public works. But I wish to take this problem a little further with regard to training for skill, and, if I may occupy a moment or two of your Lordships' time, I want to refer not only to the past and the present but to the future.
There has been, I think, a very significant recent development in the field of industrial relations generally: I refer to the setting up of a new Industrial Training Council to supervise the training of young people going into industry—apprentices, semi-skilled training, and the like—and that has been set up by the British employers, by the Trades Union Congress and by the nationalised industries. In 1956 the Ministry of Labour took the initiative of setting up what was known as the Carr Committee, with the Parliamentary Secretary as chairman and with representatives of the trade unions and employers, to keep training under review, and especially to consider what ought to be done with regard to what is commonly known in education circles as "the bulge" in young people which is coming forward in about 1961 or 1962. This Committee made the suggestion that there was a need for some national organisation which should be charged with the specific function of keeping in mind this problem of training young people for industry, and so to get away from this mass, this deadweight, of unskilled labouring people for whom, as we more and more move into the automation and the skilled world of the future, there will be less and less work.
The Carr Committee, in their Report which was published this year, recommended that very vital steps should be taken if industry is to make the best use of the increased numbers of people who are coming out of the schools in the years that lie ahead. As soon as the Carr Committee Report had been issued the employers' organisation held a conference to consider its very valuable recommendations, and they accepted the responsi-
246
bility for industrial training as being one which was primarily a matter for the employers. They decided, with the warm co-operation of the Trades Union Congress, to set up this mixed body to which I have referred, in order to encourage industry to review their present arrangements for training, which will not be sufficient if we are to take advantage of the young people who are corning out of school shortly, to follow up the recommendations of the Carr Committee Report (there were a number of them) which were very valuable, and to act generally as a centre for collecting and disseminating all the latest ideas on training. This is of great importance, socially and nationally.
We have been suffering from a shortage of skilled labour. When this bulge of some 500,000 young people extra to the present rate of those leaving school come out of school and enter employment in the years 1961–64, it will give an opportunity, if we take hold of it with both hands, of re-equipping ourselves with young people who will make the skilled operatives of the future. But if we do not take advantage of it, we are going to build up a further discontented heap of young people with no skills, a drug on the market. I do not wish to bring sentiment into this matter, but these young people were the first fruits, if I may be allowed to put it in that way, of our young men coming back from the war. They were born between 1946 and 1948 and, more than any others, they are not the children that we ought to let down.
Our industrial set-up in this country is essentially a voluntary one, and no-one acquainted with it on either the employers' or the trade unions' side would wish to see that altered. Therefore industrial training must be part of that system and cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is the responsibility of the organisations of employers, trade unions and joint industrial councils in the various industries to co-ordinate the training of their recruits and to see to it that they make plans during these three years to take 50 per cent. more recruits than they have been taking before It is a simple job; it is not for all time, only for a short period; and provided there is the will it is a perfectly possible job. I think that the engineering industry and many others will jump at the opportunity, because they have never enough young people of this calibre to train.

247
I am sorry to go on about this training council, but to me it is very important. This council, which is composed of eight representatives of the employers and of the Trades Union Congress and representatives of the nationalised industries, is the first body ever set up by industry which has co-opted members of the Administration. Usually the Government set up a committee and ask industry to co-operate. We believe that this is much better. Industry is setting up a council to do this job, as I hope, and we are asking representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the educational services, the City Guilds and so on to come and help us with their expert knowledge. If I may say so, the council have done me the honour of making me their chairman for the first two years.
I regard this as one of the most important questions of the moment and anything that your Lordships can do to bring home to those in industry the necessity of looking to this matter, both for themselves as an enormous opportunity and as a social service, will be of real benefit to our work. Our first task is to find out exactly what industry are now doing and what plans they are making. It will be some few months before we are able, having got this information, to lay our plans and go forward; but I thought that as there was an opportunity in the debate this afternoon it would not be entirely out of order for me to mention this matter to your Lordships.
In conclusion I would say that there are most encouraging signs that the report of the Carr Committee, on which our work is based, has already reached one objective, in that it is stimulating discussion in industry up and down the country; and in particular, as I happen to know from reports we have already received, it has caused a great number of industries to begin already to re-examine the whole position of their training arrangements. We trust that our work will result in everybody who cares about these problems stimulating the training activities in industry, and I hope very much that at the end of the day our labour will not have been in vain.
4.6 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I had expected that my noble friend Lord Hall would be opening the debate for us today but I was pleased indeed when my
248
noble friend Lord Silkin stated his case to the House. He made me think of the headlines we saw in the newspapers this morning. Most of us were surprised and there were some who were startled, but those who know anything at all about unemployment have paid no heed to statements that 5 million or 6 million unemployed in America is nothing to worry us. It is the best warning to this Government that they could possibly have.
At the time I entered Parliament, about twelve months after the First World War, the then combination of Parties had a mighty majority and could have done anything they liked to do. Yet, as everybody knows, there was misery and strikes from the beginning to the end of that Parliament. So far as unemployment was concerned, matters culminated in the establishment of the "depressed areas." I mention this because I think that the Government should take note of what is happening in another country. Of course, there are people who think that several hundred thousand unemployed is neither here nor there. In another place this week the Minister of Labour solemnly said that he was sure that the number of unemployed would go up to 600,000. I have been told by a man who knows this question as well as the Minister of Labour in spite of the Minister's departmental information, and who has reason to keep in contact with it day by day and to note the effect of events upon industry, that he is sure that there will be 750.000 unemployed by the end of January.
The rapid increase of unemployment is a noticeable thing, yet we treat it as though it were inevitable. I remember the days between the First and the Second World Wars, when almost the whole of the country had what were called "pockets of unemployment." Those who want such a phrase, can have it. I know what a "pocket" was; I lived in one. I used to do my day's work in the other place and then up I went to Durham where the labour exchanges had queues standing at the front door and queues standing at the back door. It was a sight that was unforgettable. How this country got through it without any physical trouble, I do not understand. I see now the same spirit operating as operated at that time.
Let me refer to another parallel. America was years after us in coming

249
into the trough of unemployment. After the First World War we went right into it. I will not talk about the policies that led to it, but that is what happened. I remember coming from America in the early 'thirties and an American industrialist gibing at me about what he called "the dole" in this country; that they had no dole and they had no unemployment. Well, we know what happened in 1933, not many years after, when the great crash came in America. But on this occasion, after the Second World War, Labour became a majority in the Government in this country, and Labour did the right thing, as they saw it. They saw to it that industries were put into something like shape; they saw to it that decent standards were made. There is what is called the Welfare State (of which I personally am very proud), which assures a man or woman decent conditions and that he or she is not blamed for being unemployed. Labour came in, and now we have gone thirteen years without any unemployment worth mentioning. Labour gave good conditions. What does it prove? It proves that it pays a nation to give good conditions to its people; it proves that it pays a nation to educate its people well. I think it is possible that if Labour had been in power now there would not have been 600,000, and rapidly going to the million mark, unemployed.
I want to speak on how that is affecting a certain industry. Labour nationalised the mines. I wish that every Member of Parliament, and all the Members of this House particularly, could see the effect that that has had upon the population. For me, life has been worth living if only to have seen that change. I remember when men in the street in which I lived walked to eight different collieries, some of them walking eight to nine miles there and back and having to do the work in addition. Now they go on motor cycles; they go in buses; and some of them even go in cars—and I am pleased that they do. That is a desirable change, is it not? Now a difficult problem has fallen upon that industry, because oil has come in on a vast scale as a form of power. Coal, say those who are in authority, is cheaper for producing electricity than atomic energy, and will be for something, like twenty years; but I think it is possible that oil is cheaper. The question
250
for this country is: are we to use the great gift that Divine Providence has given to us? It has been so cheap; it has been so rich; it has been produced on such a great scale that we have never thought about it.
I almost feel like apologising for talking about coal, but we have to do it regularly in this House and in the other place because it is fundamental to the life of this nation. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but one thing I do want to say is this. I like to see the pride with which young men go to work now. It is like a new world. They are proud to be miners. But if the Government do not face up to the fuel problem we shall lose a lot of these young men, and some of them, as they are doing now, will go overseas. We have been able to say to some of them (and I think it is worth while telling your Lordships and the representatives of the Government this) that this is an industry in which they have a great future. We have been able to persuade them to go into that industry, and we have been proud to see their pride in it. It has made a great change in the whole outlook of the worker in that particular industry. But nowadays there is talk of unemployment in the mining industry. Some have been laid idle—not unemployed—and it would have gone on longer had it not been for the conditions prevailing at various collieries and in the industry generally. I am warning the Government that the time has arrived for a settlement of the fuel problem. Are the Government ultimately going to use coal, or are they going to keep on developing the flow of oil into this country to suit certain interests?
I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I wanted to get the point home that we shall lose some of the best material in the industry unless we reach an early settlement of this problem. If the Government want to do the thing that is right for the country, then they will not be long in arriving at a decision in regard to this fuel problem. That is all I have to say to your Lordships. I am pleased to have had the opportunity of pointing an historical parallel which this country might well take note of, because if it does not it will probably land itself in the same position as people overseas, with vast numbers of unemployed.
4.19 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I had not realised how closely I should wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for a moment or two, and I hope he will not take it amiss if I do so. He has spoken with pride of the coal miners, and I wonder if he knows with what pride they speak of him and what a great figure he is to all coal miners, not only in his own area but also in the area of South Yorkshire in which I live. I belong to a family who were once coal owners, and I assure the noble Lord that we are not ashamed of having been coal owners. Nostell Pit, which is still at my front doorstep, or on whose front door-step I live, is still known, as it was known for 200 years in my family's hands, as Harmony Pit, and I am happy to know that it is still so known.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has spoken of the danger that oil fuel and other sources of power may take over from coal. I think he will allow me to say that part of this is due to the fact that, justly or unjustly, coal and coal miners have got the name of being less reliable than they were before. Therefore, I myself believe—though I will certainly accept any contradiction from the noble Lord—that in present circumstances any future Government will be under continual pressure from industry to change over increasingly to another form of fuel. It is not, I think, the miners' fault. I know less well, though I know to some extent, the conditions under which they still live and work: it is not comfortable work though it is no longer miserable work. Indeed, if I had no miners among my friends I should have very few friends indeed in my part of Yorkshire. But I hope the noble Lord will not be offended if I make this point, because it is pertinent in this particular context.
This chapter of the debate on the Address follows most naturally, it seems to me, on yesterday's discussion, when questions of Commonwealth trade were most searchingly discussed. Nobody will feel like denying, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, stressed, that without encouraging and, where necessary, enabling Commonwealth countries to purchase from us, none of the conditions which the noble Lord himself desires and which all of us desire will be attainable in any degree. But it is worth noting to this end: that
252
the "little bit of luck" about which the Prime Minister spoke, and which many other speakers, including the noble Lord himself, have used as a phrase in subsequent debates, has been turned to practical account from the point of view of the primary producing nations within the Commonwealth, as well as from our own point of view.
The advantages that we have been enjoying, and to some extent are still enjoying, of lower prices for primary products have not been accepted selfishly and rapaciously, and certainly not, I feel I am sound in saying, at the price of ruining Commonwealth countries, as was suggested by the noble Lord. A substantial part of the profits accruing from those conditions are being ploughed back, to the benefit, for instance, of India, in the new loan, and to other countries through the decision to make credits more easily available. I am not an economist, but it is my impression that this decision would not have been possible had we not reached our present level of prosperity.
It was appropriate, I thought, that while yesterday's debate in your Lordships' House was in progress a great meeting in the Albert Hall had already started. I cannot but feel that had it been held before it might have infected noble Lords opposite with greater optimism than was revealed in some of their speeches last night. It must be to the lasting credit of the British Commonwealth, in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world, that this Commonwealth has produced a man of stature and vision such as Mr. Diefenbaker. He made it plain that, much as the Commonwealth owes him—and much more it may owe him in time to come—his own personality and imagination flower from his membership of the British Commonwealth—that membership which we all share with him. He reminded us that Commonwealth membership was something to live up to. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put down a critical Amendment suggesting, I think, that the present Government of the Mother Country are not quite living up to it. He is not, I think, impugning the Government's intentions, but he distrusts its methods.
I listened to his words with all the respect and interest which they inevitably obtain. I was unable to identify any really positive alternatives as to policy in his criticism, although his Amendment

253
implied policies which struck me, in all humility, as mistaken. For instance, he regrets "the continuing high cost of living". I studied that phrase carefully before coining into your Lordships' House this afternoon, and I was waiting for some correction of my initial impression. But are we still to understand that, because he regrets the continuing high cost of living, he wishes to see a reduction in the cost of living and that he is, in fact, a deflationist? If so, I think by saying so he might somewhat clarify this debate. I find it hard to believe that that should be his intention or his meaning. The noble Lord is better aware than I am that deflation carries greater injustices even than inflation. I prefer to think that his aim is the same as the Government's: to maintain a stable standard of living and not to allow it to fall—an aim in which this Government have been signally more successful during the past year than in any since the war.
It seems to me that the noble Lord selected from the gracious Speech certain cohesive and interdependent points of policy for criticism, and for that reason I am personally also regretful that he has decided to drop out of this debate the question of pensions. If the Government's policy is right in respect of one of these points which he is criticising, then it strengthens the rest. If it is wrong in one of these policies, it prejudices the others. The noble Lord does not say that the Government have made wrong proposals for dealing with the problems of industrial output, unemployment, the cost of living and provision for old age; he claims that the proposals made are inadequate. From that I infer that he would like to see the present proposals carried further. That is the natural inference to be drawn from the Amendment as it reads. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord ignores the dangers entailed, but he suggests that he is ready to face them. He stands for boldness and I, at least on this occasion, for prudence.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition described the performance of my noble friend Lord Goschen in his speech on Tuesday as, "Up Guards and at 'em", but it seems to me that as a result of this Amendment the noble Lord sitting beside him is prepared to charge a good deal further than my noble friend. What would his "adequate" proposals
254
be? The Government, as one of their aims, plan to increase their capital investment by £150 million. Does the noble Lord not think that is enough? What sum would he favour?—£200 million, £250 million? It must be a fairly substantial increase to justify an Amendment in these terms. If what we are aiming at is a stable value of money and a stable cost of living, the perils of creating too much money are clear. Any increase in the value of money beyond the point necessary to balance increased production is a peril which can inflict a worse than ever defeat on its own purpose. It is a matter of judgment, and I am certainly not setting my judgment against that of the noble Lord. But when he sets his against that of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wait to be convinced; and I confess that during this afternoon I have not been convinced.
Against this background, I should like to say a word or two about the Government's pension scheme, because it seems to be entirely in harmony with the general policy, and preferable to the Labour proposals in that it is quite clearly anti-inflationary. By allowing private pension schemes to continue it declines to load that huge, perpetual and increasing commitment in its entirety on the Budget. It allows instead for a great part of it to be financed by real investment, and ensures that the rising cost of this provision is financed, therefore, outside the Budget. It can hardly be argued that this precaution is anything but anti-inflationary. I shall listen with interest to what other noble Lords on the other side of the House have to say, but at the moment I am bound to affirm that the Government's proposals seem to me to take into account, far more realistically than those of the Labour Party's architects, the problems of a future Government, and in particular the problems of a future Chancellor of the Exchequer.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I hope that the coal industry having been discussed I shall be forgiven if I discuss the agricultural industry, but before doing so I would, in all humility, congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the bold and courageous steps they have taken in the past, and in particular I should like to congratulate them on their excellent sense of timing. I must,

255
before referring to the Government White Paper (Cmnd. 553) Assistance to Small Farmers, declare an interest. I am a multiple small farmer, if there is such a thing, in the north-east of Scotland. To make that a little clearer may I say that I am farming (if it will not bore your Lordships to hear the names) Cowton, Rooten, Meickle Glenton, Muchall Glenton, Glenton Croft, Pitspunkie, Rumblegood, Upper Cairn Bank. Upper Millsburn, Hillhead, Nile Croft. Haldon Croft, Westerton of Bogheadly, Lower Mills-burn, Sunnyside, Snob Croft, Blackburn, and Snob Farm: so I think that that justifies the term. Those nineteen holdings comprise in total 700 acres of arable. They are lying up in the hills and they are so marginal that I am even getting the marginal grant on one of them; and that means it is very marginal indeed.
I read with considerable interest the White Paper Assistance to Small Farmers, and I went into it to see whether, other things being equal (in my case it is rather different) any of my farms qualify for assistance and what the effect would be. I apologise for being detailed, but small farms are a detailed subject and you cannot discuss them without discussing a certain number of the details. I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
I took a 98-acre farm which I have in hand and applied the appropriate Ministry figures for man-days to various crops, and so on, in operation. The 98 acres is under 100 acres, so it qualifies on that score. This farm is farmed in the traditional manner of the north-east of Scotland, a tradition we are very proud of, and by a method we have been using for 160 years or something like that. It is farmed on a six-shift rotation, which gives a break of roughly 17 acres. There are 17 acres of turnips. That, according to the Ministry, represents 204 man-days. There are 17 acres of lea oats, at 4·5 man-days to the acre, and combined with seventeen acres of clean land oats that comes to 153 man-days. Then there are 17 acres of hay, which, multiplied by two, represents 34 man-days. Next there are 30 acres of grazing, at a quarter, making 7·5 man-days, and on that I can carry 30 head of cattle grazing—it takes all one's time but one can do it. That gives another 135 man-days, and with 15 per cent. one is well over the mark of 450.
256
But now appears a point which shows how complicated these things are. Suppose I cut out growing turnips and grow instead 17 acres of silage. The rating of silage is two man-days to the acre, which fetches that figure down to 34, and if all the other calculations remain the same that brings me down to 418 man-days, which, of course, would qualify on both scores. So the future for turnips looks a bit black!
The next point I looked at was the return of a small farmer engaged in breeding beef store cattle—and somebody has got to do that. I cast up for a typical farm of this size a budget—the cost and the income that could be received from doing it. The first thing required is a man and a boy, and the wages for them are £9 and £5 a week for fifty-two weeks in the year; that is £728. Land at 30s. an acre is £147; rates £15; insurance £50; light bill about £35. Then comes the equipment. With a tractor and the minimum number of implements—there are about twelve of them—the cost comes to a total of £2,265. Thirty breeding cattle, heifers, at £65 each, amount to £1,950; and that gives a total of £4,215. You have to get that money from somewhere and pay 6 per cent. on it, which costs £253 a year. Depreciation on the tractor at 33⅓ per cent. is £200 and the depreciation on the implements at 10 per cent. is £362 (I have also taken the cattle because they depreciate the same as anything else). Fuel amounts to £186; veterinary expenses £20; fencing £50; fertilisers, lime, less subsidy, £20, and others £206. Seeds—because you have to re-seed your areas to grass every six years—come to another £68. That gives a total outlay on that basis, which is very rough, of £2,338.
What can you get back? If you are darned lucky you will get 30 calves at £40 each, which is £1,200—and again if you are jolly lucky indeed you will sell them as weaners at £45. The subsidy is £7 each, which is another £210. You will grow on that type of land six quarters to the acre of oats at 60s.; that is another £612. That gives you a total of £2,022, which means a loss of £316. That is using figures which are really quite beyond reach; but, of course, equally those figures do not happen in point of fact. But if you are considering the case of somebody who is starting on

257
his own, those are the figures you have to take, or something like them. It is not a complete picture of how these things go, but they show that the farmer in my part of the world does not know the meaning of "feather bed."
There is another point which seems to me sometimes to be missed. The farmer's income is derived only from what he receives from the sale of the end product of his own farm. Therefore, if the farmer is breeding beef stores it is all very well to say to him, "Go into dairying; you will do better." No doubt he would, but somebody must breed beef stores, and the cattle people have never, so far as I know, been considered favourably or directly by any Government measure. I think it is about time they were considered. The cost, of course, depends on the cost of wages, which is conveniently fixed; the farmer has no say. It depends also on the cost of fertilisers, which is fixed by the gentlemen who sell fertilisers. Then the interest which he has to pay is fixed by the people who lend the money. We always hear of the efficiency of the farmer, but there are a number of things which the poor, wretched farmer cannot influence, no matter how efficient he may be. That applies in particular to the small farmer. To the big farmer none of these things matter.
If one compares a beef cow with a dairy cow, one finds that the beef cow in her life will probably produce ten calves, and if you sell those calves as weaners and get £40 apiece that gives you a figure for the life of your cow of £400. Compare that with a dairy cow crossed with a beef bull. She also will produce ten calves, and if they are sold straight away and reared by somebody else, which is often done, they will raise £20 apiece so that you will get £200 straight off for a by-product. Then in the cow's lifetime you will get from her at least 4,000 gallons of milk, and at three shillings a gallon that works out at £600. So the value of that cow is £800, or exactly double the value of the beef cow. But again the point of emphasis is that somebody has got to produce beef stores. Therefore, how that type of farmer is to be helped is a matter for consideration. I feel that the emphasis should be on the greatest possible efficiency having regard to all the circumstances affecting the branch of farming concerned, and not just theoretical efficiency.
258
The man-day calculations ignore the fact that in many places in Scotland—certainly in my part—there is no casual labour available. When the potatoes have to be lifted the schoolchildren have their holidays and get the potatoes in, because there is nobody else to do it. Labour requirements on a small farm really must be on the basis of a man-year. You cannot split a man and employ him for so long, or think that you are going to get a man for so many days in the year and then casually chuck him out. You must have the man on the farm, house him and endeavour to find him full employment. If you consider the matter from that angle you arrive at a totally different point of view. One of the difficulties in amalgamating these small farms is to secure a unit that will support either one man, or a man and a boy, or two men, as a fully employed unit. Juggling about with fences and buildings and all the rest of it is a difficult and tricky problem in regard to this matter.
I should be the first to pay tribute to the brilliant research work which is being carried out in our agricultural research stations. But one must not be too theoretical in farming. I remember a story about a time-and-motion study expert who gave a most interesting lecture on the time wasted by farmers in winter in regard to bad gates letting into turnip fields. He spoke of how a man has to stop a tractor, get off and open the gate, drive the tractor through, shut the gate and so on. This expert worked the thing out very carefully to about two places of decimals; he demonstrated how, with a properly designed steel gate, costing so much money, with interest at so much, it would be possible to save a great deal of time. It was not until the end of the lecture that it was pointed out to him that in Scotland the cattle are inside for the whole of the winter, and therefore the flakes, which are home made affairs, can be left open for the entire winter without worrying about them. That is just the sort of pitfall into which one can fall when being too theoretical.
Then there is another matter in regard to the employment side. When their sons leave school many farmers employ them on the farm and teach them farming. You have got to employ your son for the entire year, or for a long period, and you cannot be too theoretical about having man-days for crop requirements and so

259
on. You must try to work it from the unit of an unsplittable man for a year, and try to arrange the farm so that you can employ either one or two fully. I am glad to say that in my part of the world farm servants still have large families. I have one family of ten, and another with seven, coming along nicely, and they are bringing up their children in the traditional farm method and keeping them on the land. I think that is a good thing and should not be interrupted, if it possibly can be avoided.
I think that by taking the density of man-day figures suggested by the Ministry and applying them to an actual farm or farm conditions I have shown that the requirement for growing turnips is 613 man-days, which is very close indeed to a two-man unit even on the Ministry figures. Therefore, I think that the highest limit they set of 450 man-days is too low. The full employment figure for one man must be 52 weeks of 5½ days a week, including his paid holiday of a fortnight, which works out at 286 man-days for a one-man unit. A two-man unit works out at 572 days. Adding the 15 per cent, to that, we get the figure of 637 man-days for a two-man unit and 329 man-days for a one-man unit. I suggest that those figures are a far better basis to work on than those suggested in the White Paper. I hope that serious consideration can be given to this point, at any rate in our district.
Nevertheless, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the direction of their thoughts, and on the way their thoughts are going and are taking them. They place an emphasis on the business of farming and not on the subsidising of hopeless units. I believe that that is perfectly sound, and I congratulate them on that; it is quite a courageous thing to do. In my part of Scotland the last wages award may very likely have the effect that, for the first time, I think, in almost the memory of man, we shall have unemployed farm labour. The farmers just cannot make the profit or the money necessary to pay these increased wages—at all events, they are all talking that way; whether they will do so, I do not know. The farm servant is a skilled man, a hard-working, willing and cheerful chap, and a very good friend. But the money just is not
260
there. There we are. That is a matter which must be considered.
To speed up things in regard to this scheme for small farms, I suggest that it might be worth while for the Government—they have costed farms all over the country, and they have figures in regard to types of farm and everything else—to send out a sort of skeleton budget, rather like the type of thing I have talked about, to suggest to a farmer how the thing can be balanced and what improvements can be made, but leaving it to the farmer to sort out whether he wants to try it or not. If eight or ten schemes of that sort were sent out in blank to the farms, with the comment, "Here is the type of thing we have in mind", it would considerably assist in sorting out the schemes when they come back from the farmer to the Department, because the farmer, at any rate partially, would be adopting the Department's scheme and not piloting some scheme of his own which the Department would have to investigate and which would take a great deal longer to put into operation.
The last thing I want to talk about is grassland improvement. This depends largely on liming, fertilisers and ditching. Here one comes to the good old argument: When does a ditch stop being a ditch? If one has a ditch that has not been running for fifteen or twenty years, and is so overgrown that it has a twenty-foot tree growing in the middle of it, I maintain that that is no longer a ditch and that one should be entitled to claim the grant or assistance, whatever it may be, to reinstate that ditch. The Department says, "No." Their argument is that my back is broad enough to carry it without a grant, but I do not agree with them. I believe a clear definition of that matter would be most helpful. It might be said, for example, that a ditch which had not been working for ten years and had had no grant should rank for whatever grant there might be. That should be made clear, for there is at present a great deal of trouble and bad feeling on this point. Whatever the ruling may be, a ruling should be given.
Then there is the great question of the cost of maintaining ditches. Her Majesty's Government, with great wisdom, readily pay a grant for liming pastures as often as a farmer likes to do it. He can get a grant in the form of a subsidy each

261
year if he likes to lime each year, and he can also get a grant for spreading lime. It seems to me totally illogical to refuse a grant for clearing out ditches on the grounds that that is a maintenance job and has nothing to do with the main principle. It has just as much to do with maintaining and improving pasture land. It is the key point—in fact, the actual money issued by Her Majesty's Government in lime subsidies can be largely nullified and wasted through a refusal to help farmers with the much more expensive and difficult labour of clearing out ditches periodically. I suggest that there should be a maintenance grant (it need not be the full grant) for cleaning out ditches every six years. I believe that would be a very worth-while thing for Her Majesty's Government to consider.
There is something else which would be of great help in dealing with small farms. The great problem is that no two farms are alike. Her Majesty's Government cost farms all over the place—which is a very good thing. They have costed some of mine and I will give them the lot next year. Their advice is good. But why should that practice not be extended further? Why not produce a scheme, theoretical or otherwise, for the improvement of small farms, and guarantee farmers against loss—nothing more—provided that they employ the scheme on their own farms or in their own particular district. By that method we could use a great number of "guinea pig" farmers to get a good scheme at very little expense. I should like to end my remarks with the old quotation:
"Muzzle not the ox who treads out the corn."
4.54 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am quite certain that the noble Viscount who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him on agricultural matters. The nearest approach I have to agricultural matters is my week-end gardening. I noticed that the noble Viscount offered his congratulations to Her Majesty's Government on its past and present policy. I also noted that the noble Viscount is himself a farmer. My little experience of farmers is that they curse either the Government or the weather. The amount of their cursing of the Government largely depends on the state of the weather, so I should
262
imagine that Her Majesty's Government have got off rather lightly this year.
We have also heard a lot during this debate about a "bloomin' bit of luck." Yesterday I had my name down on the Order Paper for the debate on Commonwealth and colonial affairs, but unfortunately, for personal reasons, I had to withdraw. My noble friend, Lord Ogmore, who led from the Front Bench for those on this side, put the case far more ably, but at least put the case I should have tried to put. This afternoon I have had the like experience to find that my noble friend, Lord Silkin, has dealt with many of the points that I had proposed to take, particularly on the importance of the export trade.
We have heard this afternoon from my noble friend, Lord Lawson—I thought in a very eloquent and sincere manner—the old story of unemployment. The fear of unemployment is definitely abroad in this country to-day. We can have debates on unemployment within this House and they can be held also in the other place; but the debate on unemployment and production difficulties is now being held out in the streets of this country and in the homes of this country; and the future of Her Majesty's Government will depend entirely upon how they can control the growth of unemployment and bring its speedy reduction. It has been said by members of Her Majesty's Government that noble Lords and members of our Party wish to aggravate unemployment for a political end. Nothing is further from the truth than that. We express our concern on unemployment because basically this Party understands unemployment, because it has had to live with it.
Last year at just about this time this House discussed the economic situation of the country. That discussion was held at the very height of an economic crisis. The situation was so grave that Her Majesty's Government considered it fit to put down a Motion of confidence. Naturally, they obtained their majority. We heard speeches from the other side and from the Ministry, but when one compares those speeches with the correspondence and evidence that was given during the inquiry on the Budget "leak" one sees a very considerable difference. The evidence at that inquiry was that this country was on the way to doom as far

263
as trade was concerned. We are told that things have been changed. That has taken place in a matter of twelve months. Has the body of this country really recovered? Has it recovered to the degree that Her Majesty's Government wish to convey to your Lordships this afternoon?
I have spent my entire business career in the export trade. My whole energies have been in the selling of British goods. The order books of companies which I represent, of finance houses who are financing shipments, are thinner to-day than they were last year. The ships that are leaving London Port, Liverpool and Birkenhead are carrying less cargo than they did last year. My Lords, this is a very serious matter. This drop in exports is not something that is new. As I say, I can speak from my own experience. We have had a general contraction of trade during the last four years. This has been due to a number of reasons. We have had greater competition in our export markets; we have had lower commodity prices. But one of the reasons why we have felt these effects, I believe, is that we are not putting our full energies into these export markets.
I believe that this is the great challenge to this country: to go after all our export markets. We know that the Government wish to take this country into the European Free Market. I believe that that is right; but unless the export departments within our trading companies are on the alert and have the aggressive spirit, that free market, which could open a new world to us, could be our grave. Germany is fully equipped; she will jump into this market at the first opportunity. We must be strong enough, we must be competitive enough, to fight Germany in the European Market. My Lords, the challenge is there. Is the country ready to take it? Sometimes as I go around the country I have my doubts. I find that possibly not the best man is in the export department; he is in the home-trade department where the profit margin is. We must get a new outlook. It is no good depending for your export trade on your heavy engineering, on your motor car trade, on your aero engines or on your aircraft. They are very satisfactory; but what really counts is your general trade, your bread-and-butter trade, and
264
it is in that section that I feel we are weakest.
May I quote an example? Some time ago I went to a factory and was complaining bitterly about delivery. I was taken into the warehouse where goods were being packed and was told, "This is the reason why we cannot export". I looked. Everybody was very busy; the place was full up. But when I saw the trade mark it was for one of the largest multiple stores in this country. They were getting priority in delivery; the export market came second. If this country is to survive, that is not good enough. We really must go out and win these export markets. A lot will depend upon private enterprise, and I believe a lot will depend upon the Government and its leadership. We do not get the same call for exports as we did in the days of Stafford Cripps. So I would call upon the Government, as I did this time last year, to take a lead in the export drive.
I should like to make one concrete suggestion to Her Majesty's Government. I do not expect a reply to-day or tomorrow. It is on the question of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. This organisation was set up to encourage exports. It was to encourage the manufacturer and merchant to go into difficult markets—markets that were difficult because of political reasons, difficult because of financial reasons, possibly difficult for lack of information available to the merchant. It was a very good scheme, but I believe it fails on one ground. It gives basically an ordinary commercial insurance cover; it will take a risk; it will insure your exports which are reasonably gilt-edged. But if any article or any shipment to a doubtful market is presented, no. I ask the Government to look into this to see whether they can make this Department more flexible. I should like to see them reduce the premium rate, because there are many firms which today are prepared to do export business but, with a very reduced margin, are not able to go in for that trade because the premium required is high.
There is another side, which really follows on what was said a few moments ago on the question of its being a commercial insurance company. If I, as an exporter, wish to go into a difficult market like Japan, and I go to the Export Credits Guarantee Department and ask whether

265
they are prepared to insure me, I think it is wrong for them to say, "Certainly, at this rate—but what about all your other trade?" I say that I am doing very good business in Australia, and that that is perfectly safe; I am doing very good business in New Zealand and I do not need their credit there. But if I am going to insure for Japan and they say, "You must bring in your Australian and New Zealand business", and that I must insure on that level, I believe that that is wrong. I believe that that spirit is quite contrary to what we understood it to be when the Export Credits Guarantee Department was set up. I ask the Government, very sincerely, to look into this side of the question, because I believe it will play a very important part in the development of our exports.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended to speak, but I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was quite right in his speech when he attributed the unemployment rise, the unemployment figures, to the short export order book. Therefore, unless we increase our exports, that unemployment will remain or will increase. Rejuvenating the home market by taking off hire-purchase restrictions will make little difference. The export market is our life. If we lose our export markets we shall sink. I look now to Her Majesty's Government to take a lead in this trade.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am going to repeat the advice given by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, that the House should resist this Amendment. I am also going to say that I could agree with very little of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said in moving the Amendment. But, paradoxically enough, I feel very glad that he put it down, because it was certainly right that we should spend plenty of time during the debate on the humble Address in discussing this very vital subject of unemployment. Although the Motion has an end-piece dealing with social conditions, we have not really touched on that this afternoon. Only my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, I believe, mentioned it; and the only other noble Lord who strayed from the subject of unemployment was my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who, I am told, will be answered by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave to-morrow; and I hope that
266
in the meantime he will have had time to check Lord Stonehaven's sums.
Of course, my Lords, unemployment is very much in all our minds. It is as much in the minds of the noble Lords on these Benches as it is in the minds of noble Lords on other Benches. Therefore I must make one reference to some words which I think I heard correctly from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. He was talking about the state of affairs in County Durham between the wars, and he used these words (I think I have got them correctly): "We see now the very same spirit operating". If that remark is intended to mean that unemployment is regarded in a spirit of indifference by any noble Lords on these Benches, I cannot possibly take it lying down. How could the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who we know has done great things for Durham, have used those words just after listening to the eloquent speech on the education of workers made by my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton? On the other hand, let me go on to say that I agreed with a great deal of what was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who certainly knows the export business. There was very little there with which I did not agree fully.
But let me come back to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his figures. He quoted some figures showing the number of unemployed in 1955, 1956 and 1957–185,000, 238,000 and 267,000. Of course, those were the recorded figures then, but I put it to him that those were the figures for a period when we were going through gross over-employment, which has its evils and disadvantages just as much as unemployment ever has. Figures were quoted in another place two days ago to show that the unemployment figure was now 2·2 per cent. and was expected by the Government to reach a peak figure of 2·8 per cent. at the worst time next year. But if my recollection is right (and I think it is), when the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, made his original calculations in 1944 for the Welfare State the figure of 3 per cent. unemployment was assumed as a useful figure. Let us be quite clear what that figure is. It is usually called the unemployment figure, but in point of fact it is the figure, I think noble Lords will agree, of the number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit from the Ministry of Labour; and that may or may not be

267
quite the same thing. It includes transitional people—people moving from one job to another—and it includes a certain number of people who in practice are unemployable, although technically they are employable. In fact, it adds up to mean that out of that figure of people in receipt of unemployment benefit a certain number can be deducted because they are not people who could be employed although they might be entitled to the dole.
If we were to leave it at that, I should not regard the present figures or the present prospects as really alarming. But let us just see for a moment whether they tell the whole story. They do not quite tell the whole story—for two reasons. First of all, they do not tell the story of short-time working; and there is a certain amount of short-time being worked, although here again, when dealing with workers on piece-rates, I am by no means sure that the working of short-time involves an equivalent loss of productivity. From what I hear I doubt very much whether it does.
Secondly—and we have to face it—that figure of 2·2 per cent. or whatever it is now, as we all know is not spread evenly over the whole country, and there are places and industries where the figure is a good deal worse. Northern Ireland is one; the textile industry in Lancashire is another. But on this aspect of the matter I would say that, when we are dealing with the situation of the country as a whole, we must not allow our views to be too much distorted by particular happenings in particular parts of the country. I think I am right in saying that the Lancashire textile difficulties are not only due to the fact that the customer has alternative suppliers in Japan and other countries: they are caused to a great extent by a change in consumer demand. In other words, we are having exactly the same thing repeated in Lancashire to-day as took place fifty years ago, at the end of Queen Victoria's reign, when the ladies of the world decided to cease wearing lace and using antimacassars; and Lancashire must now reorganise her industry as Nottingham has done so successfully between that day and this.
There is one other point about this unemployment figure, and that is the time lag between changes in Government
268
policy (and the time lag is exactly the same whatever Government make the changes in policy) and what happens on the factory floor. Some of this rise in the figure of unemployment which is taking place now can, I think, be traced directly to the credit squeezes—the necessary credit squeezes because of our balance of payments—in September, 1957. Let us just think for a moment about what happened then in an ordinary firm. By and large, the people who had already given orders before the credit squeeze did not cancel them. They stuck to them, and those orders were executed on the factory floor at the end of 1957 and in the early months of 1958. However, what they did do when the bank rate went up to 7 per cent. was to run down their stocks, and they therefore placed fewer orders with their suppliers than they would have placed if there had been no credit squeeze. Therefore, what happened was a delayed-action result of the Government's credit squeeze—a delayed-action result of which I have no doubt whatever my noble friends in front of me were fully aware, because it does not take a wizard intellect to know that it takes a little time before a decision to restrict activities is actually felt on the factory floor.
If that appreciation is right, and if, as we know, there has been an upward trend in certain industries, particularly in the consumer industries, since earlier this year, I think it is a fair assumption that the improvement is already being reflected on the factory floor and that, as time goes on, it will continue in greater degree if the Government policy is right, as I believe it is. Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that the consumer brakes have now been taken off and the machine has been put into gear again; and only this morning we read in one of the financial papers that furniture makers are receiving a rush of orders. So far, so good. It looks as if the furniture industry, at any rate, is benefiting from the Government's policy.
What I have been saying in these last few moments has really been directed to the problem of home consumption, because home consumption and exports are two rather different things, especially when looked at from the point of view of how far the Government can influence one and how far it can influence the other. In the sector of home consumption, the

269
Government can influence matters to a very great degree indeed. If they take certain steps to stimulate production, those steps will certainly be felt in industry. For instance, to take an oversimplified case, they might decide to give all civil servants a free motor car—I do not think that they would; but in any case it would be highly inflationary, and so they could not do it. I simply give this example, an over-simplified one, to make the point of how much any Government are in control of home industry in these days.
The main restriction on the Government's activities must surely be the need to encourage an expansionist policy and at the same time to avoid inflation caused by rising prices and wages. That is a matter in which the Government's powers are very much conditioned by the amount of support they get from both sides of industry, from employers and workers. To put it another way, if employers and workers really mean to maintain the value of money and co-operate with the Government, then we can have expansion without inflation. And I am quite sure that we can.
I want to look for one moment at the export position. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just told us, that is a far more complex matter and one not nearly so much within the power of the Government to affect, for good or for evil, especially if one considers the limitations that any Government are under because of G.A.T.T. It is not an easy matter. The noble Lord was right when he said that order books are much slimmer than they were a year ago. I think that applies not only to capital goods but also to consumer goods. The Canadians, who in the ordinary case would be buyers on a large scale, have had a poor year, and some Canadian firms are running at a turnover down to as low as 50 per cent. of their turnover of 1957. Australia and New Zealand have had a rough year, partly, though not entirely, because of their relatively low wool crop. The noble Lord mentioned commodities. In Rhodesia, copper went down to £160 a ton in the spring though it is now back to £250, which in itself ought to stimulate exports to Rhodesia and I hope that it will. The recession, if there has been one, in the United States has in its turn caused United States manufacturing firms to show the keenest possible competition
270
with British exporting firms for orders in the world markets.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned the strides which are being made in increased productivity by Western Germany and Japan. These countries started from scratch, which is what the figures he quoted meant—a rise in Japanese exports of 132 per cent. over a given period and a rise of Western German exports of 88 per cent. over the same period. Everybody knew that since we could not keep Western Germany and Japan indefinitely in the status of enemy countries, they would have to return to the manufacturing world. And so they have. We must meet the threat of that competition with our eyes open. None the less, it would be wrong to suppose that there was nothing the Government could do. The Government could do a great deal—any Government could—to help exports.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Viscount will not mind my putting this point to him. The increase to which I was referring was from 1953 and not from the end of the War.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. On the other hand, the real controls came off both Western Germany and Japan only in about 1951, and from 1945 to 1951 both countries were still completely controlled, either by N.A.T.O. countries or by the Americans in the case of Japan. Therefore, that was a dead period and there could not have been any expansion until the date about which we have been talking. That is why it went so fast when it got started.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that both these countries, when they started to come into the export markets, were operating with completely new machinery, a condition which, as we know, particularly in our textile industry in Lancashire, does not apply in this country?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I agree entirely with what the noble Lord has just said. As I say, there is much the Government could do to help those who are prepared to help themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, talked about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I think your Lordships will know that a great deal of evidence was given both to

271
the Radcliffe and to the Speed Committees by different organisations on the same point, and I think that it is fairly common knowledge that a great many of the recommendations of those Committees have already been adopted or are in process of adoption.
Noble Lords who read the newspapers this morning will have seen the step taken in regard to the aircraft industry by which the credit period is to be extended by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to seven years instead of five. That is good hearing. It is absolutely true that if we do not give the required credit terms to other people, those countries which give such credit terms will get the orders and the exports. That will be the royal road to unemployment in certain industries, both capital industries and consumer industries, which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, understands better than I do. There are certain markets which have the record of never having paid properly for anything they have been given, and one has to decide how far one can play down those markets or how far one can maintain the finance required, and, if one does play them down, how far one can risk unemployment. That is a matter which only the Government of the day can decide, as they have sufficient information from all sources to be able to reach a decision. I am sure that the European Free Trade Area, if it eventuates, as I hope it will, will have a good effect on our exports. I am sure that in certain directions it may be necessary to resort to barter agreements, though there it may be difficult if those agreements involve primary products, as some of those talked about now do, because we should have to decide whether those primary products could be fitted in without detriment to British farming.
There is one other matter on which I think the Government could help industry, because, after all, when it comes to goods for export in most cases the home trade is our shop window. We get other shop windows every now and then, like the Brussels Exhibition, and I should like to say here—and I am sure that everybody else would say the same—how successful we were in our two pavilions at the Exhibition. In my experience it was the first time I had come away without saying how frightful the Government's
272
effort was. All of it was good, whether it was the prestige pavilion or the industrial pavilion or the kiosks where British beer was sold. But we cannot have windows like that all the time, and the permanent shop window for British goods is home industry, and I include the nationalised industries. Therefore, if the Government can frown on such local authorities as the one which, as recently reported in the newspapers, bought Hungarian baths, and on such contractors as the one who specified the use of imported timber for the fence of an arterial roadway, they would be doing a good job of work.
One of the advantages of nationalisation in this country is that the industries are sometimes split, as is the case with the railway industry. The nationalised part is concerned solely with home trade, and the private enterprise part alone is concerned with exports. As the converse of that, one sees the extremely interesting organisation which has been set up in France between the French nationalised railways and the French railway industry called Sofrerail, in which the nationalised industry is taking part with their private engineering firms in pushing the engineering products and the railway material in the export world. I mention that point because it is an example of what is presumably Government-sponsored effort which might well be worth while looking at here.
But it is no good pretending that this is not a vital subject; and it is no good taking up the attitude that we are out of the wood and that the matter does not require the most careful attention, not only by the Government but also by both sides of industry. I am sure that the Government and their advisers understand the position quite clearly—to-day's news about export credits goes to show that. I am equally certain that we now possess a machine to deal with the economic conditions and economic difficulties which is streets ahead of, and far more efficient than, any machine (if there was such a machine) which existed in the times of which the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has spoken. If we follow the lines that the Government have laid down, and if, as I say, we realise that this is a matter in which we all have our varying share of responsibility, I, for one, have no doubt that we shall steer past the

273
rocks. Therefore, I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Silkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before six o'clock.