Sitting of 10 December 1959

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

    Imports from Eastern Europe
    Mr. Bullardasked the President of the Board of Trade when the next revision of quotas under the trade agreement with Bulgaria will take place; and whether he will obtain a reduction of the quota in the case of fruit pulp.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Negotiations with Bulgaria about trade arrangements for 1960–61 are due to take place in February next. In advance of these negotiations I cannot say what level of import quotas will be fixed.
    Mr. Bullard: When the time comes to fix the quotas, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the grave dislocation which pulp imports cause to the soft fruit industry of this country?
    Mr. Erroll: I will certainly remember what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Bullardasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that goods included in quotas under trade agreements made with countries in Eastern Europe are not imported into the United Kingdom through another country to which no quota agreements apply.
    Mr. Erroll: These quota restrictions are applied to goods which originate in the countries concerned, whether or not they are consigned to the United Kingdom from those countries. Evasion of the restrictions by a false declaration of origin is an offence under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.
    Mr. Bullard: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that there is a widespread belief amongst growers and merchants that last year a great deal of pulp from Bulgaria came through Holland, and that this was outside the amount of the quota and added to the dislocation which the quota itself had caused?
    Mr. Erroll: The Government have no evidence of evasion of the regulations, but if the growers can support their beliefs with some facts, we shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Bullardasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken, when arranging quotas for various classes of goods under trade agreements with countries in Eastern Europe, to see that the circumstances of production and sale within the country concerned are not such as might require action to be taken under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957.
    Mr. Erroll: Any industry which considers that it is being injured by the dumping of a product from Eastern Europe or from any other exporting country may apply to the Board of Trade for the imposition of an antidumping duty. No detailed inquiries are undertaken until such an application has been received.
    Mr. Bullard: Is not it proper that the Board of Trade should have this matter in mind when conducting negotiations with those countries? Is not it nonsensical for us to negotiate a trade agreement with a foreign country that involves bringing in produce which might be produced under conditions of very low labour payment, and might involve the State concerned in a loss, and which, therefore, would amount to a subsidised export?
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. Under the terms of the anti-dumping legislation, it is for the party which considers itself to be suffering material injury to make an application to the Board of Trade.

    Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Acts
    Miss Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to amend the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Acts, 1948 and

    713
    1953, in order to obtain powers to ensure that concerns upon which the Monopolies Commission has reported shall require his consent for any changes in the level of their prices and profits.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.
    Miss Lee: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how we can reconcile the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal for a reduction in prices with the fact that some monopolies—I have particularly in mind the British Oxygen Company—were condemned by the majority of the Monopolies Commission, who asked that prices should be controlled? The Government reject that. They reject also the minority report of Mr. Alan Birch and Mr. Heywood that this industry should be publicly owned. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I received an impertinent reply from the President of the Board of Trade on 3rd November when, against the background of a 50 per cent. increase in the price of this commodity following the report of the Commission, all the right hon. Gentleman could say was that he saw no iniquity in higher profits?
    Mr. Erroll: We do not think that legislation would be the right way to achieve the object which the hon. Lady has in mind.
    Miss Lee: Will the Minister try to help the House in this respect? Does he deny that British Oxygen was publicly condemned for profiteering, that in the two years following that condemnation prices went up by 50 per cent., that the Government rejected both the minority and majority reports of the Commission, and has nothing to say in defence of the consumer?
    Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. Satisfactory arrangements were informally agreed with the British Oxygen Company. I think the hon. Lady has another question on the Order Paper about profits.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If there is any question of fresh legislation on this subject, would my hon. Friend consider taking powers to advise monopolies on their position, because so far, provided a monopoly is found, there is very little that the Board of Trade can do about it?
    Mr. Erroll: There are remedies under Section 10 of the 1948 Act

    British Oxygen Company
    Miss Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to see that undertakings given by the British Oxygen Company in March, 1958, in regard to prices and level of profits, have been carried out.
    Mr. Erroll: No undertaking was sought from or given by the British Oxygen Company regarding the level of its prices and profits. The company has fulfilled its undertakings to publish price scales and to charge customers, without discrimination, on the basis of these scales.
    Miss Lee: Do I hear aright? Are we once again to be told that no undertaking about the prices or profits of this company has been asked for or given?
    Mr. Erroll: The company has made no general increase in its prices for oxygen and acetylene since 1957, and we consider that the agreement which we obtained from the company is satisfactory. Furthermore, I point out that part of the profits of this company stem from its operations on other things and in overseas territories.
    Mr. Jay: As the Monopolies Commission found that this company indulged in monopoly practices, and as the Commission made several positive recommendations, is it not the job of the Board of Trade to see that those recommendations are implemented? Can the Minister of State say whether his Department has positive evidence that the recommendations are not being implemented?
    Mr. Erroll: We agreed with the company that it should publish its price scales and charge customers without discrimination, two very important matters mentioned in the Monopoly Commission's Report. We think that those are the most important, and we understand that they are being adhered to.
    Mr. Webster: Does not my hon. Friend agree that a very large proportion of this company's increase in profits has come from overseas trade? Is not a director of the company in close touch with the Board of Trade to ensure compliance with the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission?
    Miss Lee: On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the fact that the President of the Board of Trade does not know what has been going on in this company for the last ten years, or does not care, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: I repeat my request that when they are giving notice of their intention to raise matters on the Adjournment, hon. Members should confine themselves to the traditional formula.

    United States Publications (Import)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, as a result of the removal of the restrictions on United States imports, including printed matter, arrangements have been made to dump a large quantity of cheap pornographic novels in this country; and what steps he is proposing to take in the matter.
    Mr. Oliverasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with the removal of restrictions on United States imports to the United Kingdom, his attention has been drawn to the dumping on to the British market of cut-price sex and horror publications; and whether he will cause investigation to be made with a view to prohibiting this importation.
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to prevent dumping of paper-backed books and other literature from the United States of America, in view of the recent increase in these imports.
    Mr. Erroll: It is open to the publishing industry in this country, if it considers that it is being materially injured by the dumping of any printed matter, to apply to the Board of Trade for the imposition of an anti-dumping duty.
    Imported publications, whether dumped or not, which are indecent or obscene, are liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.
    The importation of pictorial publications harmful to children and young persons is prohibited by the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1955.
    Mr. Fletcher: That may be an accurate statement of the law, but is not the
    716
    Minister of State aware that arrangements have been made by various dealers, notably in Whitechapel, Brixton and Leicester, and elsewhere, to import, if they have not already done so, millions of cheap, American, pornographic publications? Is it Government policy to do nothing about that and to encourage the importation in large quantities of pornographic literature which must be harmful?
    Mr. Erroll: The Government are not encouraging the importation of pornographic literature. I have described the adequate powers which the Government possess to prevent it coming into the country. While, according the hon. Member, I may have merely described the law, the fact is that the law is effective.
    Mr. Oliver: Does not the Minister of State appreciate that representations have already been made to his Department about one aspect of the matter over which he has control—dumping at cut prices? I appreciate that indecent and horror comics are matters for another Department, but will not the Minister at least take the lead in dealing with the dumping aspect of the matter?
    Mr. Erroll: If an application is made to the Board of Trade under antidumping legislation, it will be considered.
    Mr. Oliver: Who has to make the application when representations have already been made to the hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Erroll: The application must be made by those persons or firms who consider that material damage is being done to their activities by the importation.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Fletcher) has just made a curious observation about certain people in Brixton who are, he alleges, about to import pornographic literature. Is there any means of re-establishing the credit of those anonymous persons, if they have been unjustly attacked?
    Mr. Speaker: Not by point of order.

    Czechoslovakia (Trade Arrangements and Bonded Debts)
    Mr. du Cannasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will withdraw British participation in the

    717
    forthcoming trade talks in Prague pending a resumption of interest payments due to British shareholders in respect of two Czechoslovak State Loans of 1922. the City of Prague Loan of 1922, and the Skoda Works Trust Mortgage Debentures.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will fix an early date for the trade talks with the Czechoslovakian authorities in order to secure maximum advantages for British exporters threatened with West German competition in this market.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade why trade talks with the Czechoslovak Government have not yet begun; and if he will propose an early date for their commencement.
    Mr. Erroll: We have suggested to the Czechoslovak authorities that the trade arrangement, which expires at the end of this month, should be extended until the end of April. I hope that it will be possible during this time to reach agreement about the future of the trade arrangement.
    As regards the bonded debts, I would refer to the Answer given on 7th December by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. du Cann: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Czechoslovakian authorities that we regard a breach of faith in a matter of this sort extremely seriously? Will he give an undertaking that the British Government will not enter into fresh agreements until this matter is cleared up, so that we can restore that ancient and happy confidence which has existed between our two countries?
    Mr. Erroll: I would rather not say any more while we are discussing with the Czechoslovakian Government how the matter of the bonded debt can best be tackled.
    Sir L. Plummer: While the Czechoslovakian Government may have acted extremely oddly in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman see to it that if in the intervening period of four months while the trade pact is continued agreement is not reached, the period of extension will be even further extended so that we can bring British influence to bear on them and succeed in getting a trade pact which is in our interests as well as theirs?
    Mr. Erroll: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I prefer not to say anything about a possible extension beyond the period of four months.
    Mr. Swingler: Was it not made clear when the existing agreement was negotiated that financial relations regarding the old loans for which the Czechoslovakian Government had some responsibility would be negotiated separately from the question of trade? Has not the Czechoslovakian Government offered to negotiate on the loans mentioned in the Question, and what is the obstacle to proceeding to trade talks?
    Mr. Erroll: All that they have offered to do is to discuss the matter with us, and they made that offer only after they had defaulted on the loans.

    Imports from China
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the decision to deliberalise imports from China, while liberalising imports from other countries with whom we have a less favourable balance of trade.
    Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 12th November.
    Mr. Allaun: Has not the open general licence list been drastically curtailed, with the result that the import of new Chinese products has been deterred? Why does not the new President of the Board of Trade leave the situation as it is instead of worsening it, since there is a widespread feeling in British industry that opportunities for expanding exports of British engineering and other products are being lost because China trades on the bilateral principle?
    Mr. Erroll: About three-quarters of our imports from China, mainly raw materials and basic foodstuffs, would continue to enter freely without restriction. The goods affected by quotas amounted to about £2 million last year, and the quota would now provide for imports of about £4 million, so I do not see that there is any ground for suggesting that there is restriction.

    Machine-Tool Industry
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now discussed with machine-tool manufacturers

    719
    the affairs of their industry; and what steps he proposes to take as a result of these discussions to improve the efficiency of the industry.
    Mr. Erroll: As my right hon. Friend said in answer to the right hon. Member's Question on 26th November, responsibility for the efficiency of the industry rests with the industry itself. At a meeting of the Machine Tool Advisory Council held on 2nd December at which my right hon. Friend presided, the industry welcomed a decision that a committee should be set up to report to the Council on certain aspects of methods of production.
    Mr. Jay: Has not the Report from the D.S.I.R. to the Government shown that a major part of the British machine tool industry is falling seriously behind the American, German and Russian industries? As this is of major importance for the future of the country, is it not a responsibility of the Board of Trade to take action about it? Can the Minister say what his Department will do when these consultations have taken place?
    Mr. Erroll: We thought that it would be best for the Committee to study the matter and let us know what it thinks.
    Mr. Jay: May we be assured that, when this further committee has reported, the Board of Trade will take some action?
    Mr. Erroll: Initially, the action will be to study the report.
    Mr. Edelmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the steady decline of skilled manpower in the machine-tool industry; and what contribution he will make towards revitalising the industry and promoting its expansion.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. Skilled and other workers are not distinguished in the figures of employment in the industry collected by the Ministry of Labour, but I have no reason to think that the increase which is taking place in total employment in the industry does not apply to skilled workers. There has also been a notable increase in new orders.
    Mr. Edelman: Is it a fact that since 1957 the number of workers in the industry has declined from 120,000 to
    720
    111,000? Further, is not it a fact that, despite what the Minister has said, the number of orders in hand has declined by half since 1957, and that the number of export orders in hand has declined by one third? Why is there so much secrecy about this vitally important industry? Did not the D.S.I.R. recommend that there should be centralisation of research to prevent this industry falling still further behind technically compared with its competitors?
    Mr. Erroll: I have already dealt with the D.S.I.R. Report in answering an earlier Question. I understand that new orders in the second quarter of 1959 were 22 per cent. above the level for the same period in 1958, while export orders were £4·8 million, or 32 per cent., above the corresponding period of last year.
    Mr. Edelman: May I ask the Minister to recheck those figures? I received my figures from his Department and they show that in July, 1957, £89 million worth of orders were in hand, and in August,1959, there were only £49 million.
    Mr. Erroll: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I had better look at each other's figures.

    Trade with Roumania
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade the present position regarding the conclusion of a trade agreement with Roumania; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Erroll: There have been preliminary discussions with the Roumanian authorities in London about the possibilities of a trade arrangement with Roumania.
    Mr. Harris: Can the Minister say whether there is any prospect of a trade agreement being reached fairly soon in view of the fact that discussions have now been dragging on for some years and have got somewhat mixed up with various financial settlements, in the course of which the West Germans have been walking in and seizing as large a part as they can of this small but worthwhile market?
    Mr. Erroll: We want to establish the basis of negotiations for a financial settlement first.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my hon. Friend agree that for some years the Roumanians have been trying to get these formal discussions and that we, for our part, have been refusing to have them?
    Mr. Erroll: Certainly not.

    Factory, Kilwinning
    Mr. Manuelasked the President of the Board of Trade the total cost of providing the factory at the Industrial Estate, Kilwinning.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to disclose particulars of the cost of individual factories.
    Mr. Manuel: The Minister of State is aware that the site clearance and servicing of this factory cost about £81,000. All that I have asked for is the cost of the provision of a Government factory that employs only a few people. I think that the House has a right to know how much money the Government have spent in providing a Government factory which has been let. Is the Minister of State aware that I was curbed in trying to secure this information on a previous occasion? I have now broadened the Question in order to try to get the figure I want. I hope that there will be some reciprocal action by the Minister.
    Mr. Erroll: I am always sorry when it is not possible to give information which hon. Members desire, but there are good reasons, established by precedent over a number of years, for not giving the details and the cost of individual factories. I will be glad to explain the matter to the hon. Gentleman if he so wishes.

    Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to be in a position to give to the House a list of those firms, and the amounts paid to each, who receive compensation for scrapping of machinery under the terms of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, and have given their consent to publication of this information.
    Mr. Erroll: This would necessitate an individual approach to about 500 firms, and, especially as they are fully entitled to withhold their consent, I do not think
    722
    that it would justify the considerable labour involved.
    Mr. Thornton: May I ask the Minister whether the whole list will be subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee? Does not the Minister view with considerable concern the fact that large sums of public money are to be paid, and are being paid, to private persons and firms without any public check? Is not this a serious matter? I appreciate the limitations imposed on the Minister by the 1947 Act, but did not that Act envisage the collecting of information in respect of private business, rather than the concealing of payments of large sums from public sources? Will not the Minister take steps to amend the 1947 Act?
    Mr. Erroll: It is not only the 1947 Act. We are also following the precedent of the Spinning Subsidy Act, 1948, which precluded the disclosure of information relating to amounts payable. As regards the rôle of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, I would require notice of that question.
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prevent a practice developing, as indicated in details sent to him by the hon. Member for Farnworth, of persons or firms who have qualified for compensation for scrapping machinery under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, starting business again in the same type of manufacturing business with secondhand machinery purchased since the Cotton Industry Bill was introduced.
    Mr. Erroll: I have asked the Cotton Board to look into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Thornton: Is the Minister aware that there is a danger of this becoming a racket which would undermine the whole purpose of the Government to make the industry smaller, more compact and efficient? Is it not a public scandal that firms should be paid for scrapping old and second-hand machinery and then use the money to reequip themselves with older secondhand machinery and make a profit out of the transaction at the expense of the public purse?
    Mr. Erroll: Only if the facts are as the hon. Member has stated. We are looking into the case and I will let the hon. Member know. In any event, it is encouraging to know that there are firms with sufficient confidence in the industry to be ready to reinvest their compensation in it.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Has the Minister studied the letter sent to the Department by J. and E. B. Riley Ltd. giving evidence that this kind of thing is happening? Is he aware that in my constituency three mills are closing down and it is understood that that kind of thing is taking place there, that people intend to use the compensation money to reopen in another place under another name?
    Mr. Erroll: I will look at the letter which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Mr. Jay: Is it legally possible under this Act for a firm, which has been paid money in return for closing down some machinery, to scrap the machinery and then to use the money to buy other machinery and to start up again?
    Mr. Erroll: We want to look into the circumstances of the case which has been put forward before expressing an opinion.
    Mr. Jay: Surely the Minister is familiar with the workings of his own Act? Can he tell us now whether this is legally possible under the Act?
    Mr. Erroll: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we do not give ad hoc legal opinions from this Box.
    Mr. Thorntonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in the operation of the reorganisation schemes under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.
    Mr. Erroll: Eight hundred and eighty-one applications for compensation under these schemes were received by the Cotton Board from firms in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections. My right hon. Friend understands from the Cotton Board that it has nearly completed its examination of some 150 applications and expects to make the first compensation payments very shortly.
    Mr. Thornton: Is it not time we had a more comprehensive report from the Minister on the operation of this Act?
    724
    According to the statement of the Prime Minister, £50 million or £60 million of public money is to be poured into Lancashire. In view of that, has not the House a right to have some more detailed information about how the scheme is progressing?
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is visiting Lancashire today and tomorrow. On his return I shall draw his attention to the point put by the hon. Member.

    Jute Works, Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received official notification of the closure at the end of the year of two Dundee jute works; and whether financial assistance will be available to any approved firm to provide alternative employment in the industrial premises to be closed.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend has been notified of the proposed closures. It is open to any firm wishing to set up or expand in Dundee to apply for financial assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for these closures was the uncertainty that the Government created in the jute industry? As these jute factories have been closed through Government action, will the Minister take vigorous action to provide alternative employment for those being thrown out of work?
    Mr. Erroll: Although I hate to say it, I understand from Press reports that the main reason was something to do with the need to pay death duties. I understand that most of the 173 former employees will have no difficulty in finding themselves alternative work in the jute industry.

    Imported Jute Goods
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has recently received concerning a further reduction in Government control of imported jute goods; from what organisation they came; and what reply he has made.
    Mr. Erroll: Both the United Kingdom Jute Goods Association and the Indian

    725
    Jute Mills Association have represented that the mark-up on cloth imported by the Jute Control should be reduced. I am considering these representations.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that during the period of his considerations there will be acute anxiety throughout the whole City of Dundee? Will he confirm that the proposals from the Jute Goods Association involve a substantial immediate cut in Government control of jute and the virtual abolition of control within a period of twelve months? Will he at the earliest possible moment give an unequivocal assurance that he intends to maintain the present level of jute control in Dundee?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that the Government's record will assure people in Dundee that we will not do anything drastic.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that the Government's record does the reverse? Is that all he can say to relieve the acute anxieties of both employers and workers in Dundee?
    Mr. Erroll: I do not think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will do anything to reduce those anxieties.

    Inter-Commonwealth Trade
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect the Outer Seven Agreement will have on inter-Commonwealth trade; and what representations he received, from other members of the Commonwealth, which assisted him in coming to this agreement.
    Mr. Erroll: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 3rd December.
    Mr. Russell: I read that reply. Would my hon. Friend tell me whether any concessions were made by Commonwealth countries to make this agreement with the Outer Seven possible?
    Mr. Erroll: Very little, because most of the goods concerned in the E.F.T.A. Convention are not those which affect Commonwealth Preference arrangements.

    Motor Industry (Expansion)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will
    726
    make a statement on the Government's future plans for the expansion and location of the motor industry.
    Mr. Erroll: It is not for the Government to plan the expansion of the motor industry. The Board of Trade is in close touch with those companies which are considering the possibility of expansion.
    Mr. Edelman: Has not the Prime Minister had discussions with Lord Rootes about this matter? Is not this a matter of major industrial strategy affecting a large number of people? I support anything which will alleviate unemployment in Scotland, but is not this a matter which should be discussed not with manufacturers only, but also with the trade unions concerned? Is the Minister aware of the anxiety in the Midlands about the general approach of the Government to this question, and will he make a further statement?
    Mr. Erroll: I am not aware of who the Prime Minister sees from time to time, so I cannot say whether he has recently seen Lord Rootes. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by making a further statement at the moment.
    Mr. Ross: Although the Minister rightly states that the Government do not accept responsibility in relation to the planning of the industry, he will, I hope, give us an assurance that the Government accept their obligations in relation to the distribution of industry. I hope that the Minister will not forget the problem of unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Erroll: I am very glad to be able to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Question dealt with expansion, and that is not our job. Assisting in securing the right location is very much our business.
    Mr. Jay: Surely the location of future plants in the industry relates to the planning of the expansion. Does the hon. Member agree that, although it is natural for representatives from the Midlands to put the case of their area, there are other parts of the country, notably Scotland—
    Mr. Watkins: What about Wales?
    Mr. Jay: —Wales and the North-East Coast which, on merits, have a stronger claim?
    Mr. Erroll: The motor industry will doubtless discuss its plans at the appropriate time with my right hon. Friend. That will be the time when we shall be able to discuss problems of location.

    Bankruptcies
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms engaged in industry have been declared bankrupt in the period from January, 1955, to the last available date.
    Mr. Erroll: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why should the hon. Gentleman be so reticent about these figures? Are they so staggering? Do they indicate the failure that exists in private enterprise industrial firms? Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me some information?
    Mr. Erroll: I was very tempted to read out the figures, because they are very good ones, but I did not want to bore the House with them. If the House would like them, however, I should be very glad to give them.
    Mr. Shinwell: If there are such a lot of figures, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that something is seriously wrong with private enterprise in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Erroll: No. Between 1955 and 1958 the figures have fallen from 130 to 117.
    Following is the Answer:
    The figures for the period in question of compulsory liquidations of companies which were engaged in industry are the following:

    1955

    …

    …

    …

    130

    1956

    …

    …

    …

    109

    1957

    …

    …

    …

    104

    1958

    …

    …

    …

    117

    1959 (to date)

    …

    …

    …

    90*

    *This figure is subject to confirmation.

    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons and companies engaged in agriculture have been declared bankrupt in the period from January, 1955, to the last available date.
    Mr. Erroll: As the Answer contains tables of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was the hon. Gentleman fair to the House when he gave the figures? Does not he know that these are not the actual figures of bankruptcies in industry? Will he say why we should continue to subsidise the farming industry, in spite of bankruptcies? Where do these subsidies go?
    Mr. Erroll: The figures in the last Question relate to the compulsory liquidations of companies and the figures in the present Question relate to compulsory liquidations of companies engaged in agriculture and bankruptcies of persons engaged in agriculture. In both cases the figures show a most encouraging trend.
    Following is the Answer:

    Compulsory liquidations of companies engaged in agriculture

    Bankruptcies of persons engaged in agriculture

    1955

    …

    nil

    1955

    …

    201

    1956

    …

    10

    1956

    …

    190

    1957

    …

    4

    1957

    …

    200

    1958

    …

    6

    1958

    …

    165

    1959 (to date)

    …

    2

    1959 (to date)

    …

    141

    22

    897

    Exports to Czechoslovakia
    Sir L. Plummerasked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is now being given to enable British firms to secure contracts in Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Erroll: All the normal services of the Department are available to firms who export to Czechoslovakia.
    Sir L. Plummer: Does the Minister appreciate that the normal services of the Department are inadequate to meet the situation? The West Germans are exporting to Czechoslovakia goods worth five times as much as the total British exports. Is it not time his Department considered what extra steps should be taken to meet this quite fierce German competition in a market in which we should be doing better?
    Mr. Erroll: The volume of our exports to Czechoslovakia is limited by the quotas that we are able to secure from the Czechs under the trade arrangements. We want to see this trade expand and hope that in the coming discussions we shall be able to secure bigger quotas.
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade the principal exports to Czechoslovakia; and the total value of all exports in the last 12-month period for which figures are available.
    Mr. Erroll: United Kingdom exports to Czechoslovakia consist principally of machinery, non-ferrous metals, chemicals, wool and textiles. In the twelve months ending October, 1959, the value of our exports to Czechoslovakia totalled £4·9 million.
    Dr. Stross: Did not this figure of £4·9 million show an increase on the year before of roughly 20 per cent., which is very welcome, but is not it a very insignificant sum compared with the exports from Western Germany which were mentioned in an earlier supplementary question? Is not it absurd that we cannot do more trade than we are doing today?
    Mr. Erroll: We very much hope that the Czechs will read what the hon. Gentleman has said. We should like to expand our exports to Czechoslovakia if they will give us the quotas to enable us to do so.
    Dr. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to increase trade between Great Britain and Czechoslovakia; and what increase in exports to Czechoslovakia he expects will be achieved in the next year.
    Mr. Erroll: The part which the Government can play in promoting any increase of trade with Czechoslovakia is primarily in the negotiation of quotas for our exports. As I said in reply to Questions by other hon. Members, I hope that we shall shortly be able to begin talks with the Czech authorities about the future of our trade arrangement with them. I cannot make any estimate of the increase in trade which will be achieved next year. This will depend partly on the outcome of these talks.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that those countries which have planned economies tend to prepare for all their needs at about this time of the year, will the Minister bear in mind that the talks should be resumed immediately if possible and that, with reference to the question of quotas, he should remember
    730
    that the Czechs make no secret of the fact that they prefer to do more trade with us than with Western Germany?
    Mr. Erroll: We have also to remember that they have defaulted on certain of their bonded debts.
    Dr. Stross: As negotiations are under discussion and as, in relation to the £9 million originally borrowed, they have paid back £18 million already, will the hon. Gentleman bear what I have said in mind?

    H. Jasper and Company
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the report by Mr. Faulks, Q.C., on the affairs of H. Jasper and Company.
    Mr. Erroll: I cannot say. Some of the matters referred to in the report are sub judice.
    Mr. Lipton: When the certain legal proceedings which may impinge upon it are disposed of and are no longer sub judice, will the Government undertake to publish this report, which we are all sure is very well prepared and most informative?
    Mr. Erroll: I should not be prepared to give any such undertaking at present.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was Jasper a private company or a nationalised concern?
    Mr. Erroll: I suggest that the hon. Member goes along to Bush House and pays his shilling.

    Manufactured Goods (Exports)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade the British share of the world's exports of manufactured goods in the third quarter of 1959; and how this compares with the corresponding figures for 1950 and 1955.
    Mr. Erroll: The United Kingdom's share of exports of manufactured goods from the main manufacturing countries was 25·6 per cent. in 1950, 19·7 per cent. in 1955 and 16·8 per cent. in the third quarter of 1959.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that while this disgraceful drop has been going on in the British share of world manufactured goods exports the West German share has increased from about

    731
    7 per cent., to 19·3 per cent., and has therefore now overtaken our share, and that other competitors are rapidly overhauling us, including the Japanese? Is it not time the Government stopped telling everybody how good everything is and began to do something about capital investment and increasing our export drive?
    Mr. Erroll: The point is that our exports are doing very well. It is just a question whether one takes percentages, as does the hon. Gentleman, or the total figures, which I will now give to the House. Our exports totalled £2,160 million in 1950; £2,872 million in 1955 and, over the first ten months of 1959, they are running at an annual rate of about £3,277 million.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not evident that under a Conservative Government the volume of our exports has been far better than was anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government, who said, in 1951, that we had to expect that in the following year our exports would only just pay for our imports? Is it not clear that with a continuation of that Government our share of exports would have declined disastrously?
    Mr. Wyatt: Does not the Minister realise how dangerous this complacency is, in which he regards a continuing fall in our share of world exports as not mattering at all? When the West Germans have Overtaken us and the Japanese are beginning to overtake us does he really think that it is quite all right?
    Mr. Erroll: It is not a case of whether I think it is quite all right. The purpose of exporting is to get export earnings to cover our commitments, and not to achieve some percentage, higher or lower, of world exports.
    Mr. Jay: Can we be given these figures in terms of the volume of goods?
    Mr. Erroll: I should be glad to do that if the right hon. Gentleman would put down a Question.

    Government-financed Factories
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade in what parts of Development Areas the Government are
    732
    now willing to build Government-financed factories; and what proportion of the population of Great Britain lives in these areas.
    Mr. Erroll: We are willing to consider applications for new factory building in those parts of the Development Areas where there is high and persistent unemployment, and where D.A.T.A.C. facilities are available. These include about 7 per cent. of the insured population of Great Britain.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Minister do what his right hon. Friend has already done several times this year in answer to Questions, namely, tell us those parts of the Development Areas, individually, in respect of which he is prepared to meet these applications?
    Mr. Erroll: Previous Answers have already listed a number of places, and I do not want to weary the House by repeating them.

    Distribution of Industry Act, 1945
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade how many grants or loans under Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, have been made in the present year; what is the total value; and how much has gone to each Development Area.
    Mr. Erroll: I understand from the Departments concerned that five grants have been approved. Two of these total £46,000: the amounts of the other three have not yet been fixed. Three of these grants are for services in North Lancashire, one in South Wales and one in Scotland.

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Oramasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to restore to the Monopolies Commission the number of members and the power to work in separate groups of members, which it had before the passing of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.
    Mr. Oram: Is there not a very long list of subjects which have been suggested for investigation by the Monopolies Commission? In relation to the

    733
    task that lies ahead, is not progress very slow? If the Government refuse to take the action suggested in the Question, what action do they propose to take in order to catch up with the work still requiring to be done?
    Mr. Erroll: I think that the work is proceeding satisfactorily. Further possible candidates for selection are kept under constant review.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I was told a few weeks ago that by the time the report on the tobacco industry—which is now proceeding—was finished, four years would have elapsed? Does he consider that to be a satisfactory state of affairs? Will he not once again think over the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend?
    Mr. Erroll: That suggestion would not speed up the time it takes to investigate a particular industry. This is a long and complicated inquiry, and it takes a very long time for the whole matter to be investigated properly.

    Chipboard, Plywood and Woodboard
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the value of chipboard, plywood, and other types of woodboard produced in Western Germany during 1958 amounted to £58,165,000, whether he will give comparable figures for Great Britain; and what steps he contemplates to ensure the development and expansion of such forest-product-using industries in this country, despite the increased competition resulting from the Stockholm Agreement.
    Mr. Erroll: No exactly comparable figure is available for Great Britain, but it is estimated that the quantity of chipboard, plywood and other types of woodboard produced in Western Germany in 1958 was about 760,000 tons while the corresponding quantity for Great Britain was 140,000 tons. For all types of woodboard the demand here greatly exceeds the present productive capacity, and no action on the part of my right hon. Friend appears to be called for.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that abroad this is a rapidly expanding industry, and that it is desirable that we should have a bigger share of it?
    Mr. Erroll: I should have thought this presented a first-class opportunity for free enterprise in this country.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade the present position with regard to negotiations designed to associate Finland with the European Free Trade Association; and whether he will ensure that, in connection with those negotiations, nothing will be agreed which will handicap the development of the chipboard industry in Great Britain, in so far as such development is essential to provide an adequate market for the rapidly increasing output of thinnings from British forests.
    Mr. Erroll: The Finnish Government is, I understand, at present considering what proposals it may wish to make for Finnish participation in the arrangements planned by the European Free Trade Association. With regard to the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend is aware of the interest which the chipboard industry would have in any negotiations that may take place.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware of the increasing difficulty of disposing of home-grown timber, particularly thinnings, partly as a result of the expenditure of public money by the Forestry Commission, and is it not desirable to have an outlet for this timber?
    Mr. Erroll: We hope that the expanding chipboard industry in this country will be able to take up the increased output of thinnings.

    Newsprint
    Mr. Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that newsprint, which cost £10 a ton before the war, now costs £58 10s., and that this increased cost is artificially maintained by price controls operated by newsprint producers; and whether, in these circumstances, he will impose price control.
    Mr. Erroll: I understand that, comparing like with like, the rise in the price of newsprint has not been as great as suggested by the hon. Member. The Answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The hon. Member is no doubt aware that an agreement on the price of newsprint has been registered

    735
    under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, and will in due course, be examined before the Restrictive Practices Court.
    Mr. Lipton: Meanwhile, will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that we have only three newsprint mills in this country, Bowaters, Reeds and Dickinsons; that the price per ton of newsprint from each of these firms is exactly the same and that that seems to indicate the operation of a price ring, which we hope will be investigated as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Erroll: Newsprint can be imported freely from other countries so that it is up to the domestic suppliers to make their prices as best they can to face up to competition from overseas.

    Dagenham Chamber of Commerce
    Mr. Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that delays of twenty-four hours are frequently caused to rush shipments by the difficulty of getting necessary documents to the London Chamber of Commerce; and whether he will, in order to assist United Kingdom export trade, authorise the Dagenham Chamber of Commerce to certify certificates of origin and invoices for countries within the International Convention of 1923.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. I have looked into the circumstances of this case and it is not one in which we can depart from our general policy of designating chambers of commerce to issue certificates of origin only if they are affiliated to the Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
    Mr. Parker: Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that in respect of a place thirty-four miles from London, and therefore from the headquarters of the London Chamber of Commerce, the London Chamber should not take any steps to investigate before giving its certificate of origin to see whether the requirements are complied with? Is he aware that the Dagenham Chamber, which is outside the national organisation, does do that, and when certificates of origin are given is it not much more desirable that there should be an investigation to judge if the requirements are met?
    Mr. Erroll: This is a difficult matter for the Board of Trade. The Department has to draw a line somewhere. I suggest that the best course would be for the Dagenham Chamber of Commerce to apply for membership of the A.B.C.C.

    Laminated Timber
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ensure that the sixth set of standards for timber engineering now being drafted will ensure fair competition for British firms producing laminated timber in competition with continental firms.
    Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend is presumably referring to the work which has been done by the Timber Development Association on recommended standards for structural glued laminated timber. The Timber Development Association is an independent trade body, and my right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the recommendations it makes.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Timber Development Association is backed by the Government? That being so, cannot he make representations to the association that the present set of standards are being so stringently drawn, compared with the Continental standards, that it makes it uneconomic for British firms to compete? To give an example, is my hon. Friend aware that a large firm in my constituency, which was to be the second in Scotland to develop laminated timber, is now considering withdrawing from this project although it has built a large factory extension?
    Mr. Erroll: That is a matter for the association. The Government grant is for research work and the production of these standards is not part of the research work carried out by the Timber Development Association

    Dustbins
    Mr. R. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that recent quotations from six firms for the supply of 500 dustbins to local authorities in the West Midlands were all exactly 33s. 6d. each, an increase of 8s. 6d. on each bin on twelve months previously; and whether he will refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Erroll: If these tenders result from a price agreement, that is a matter for the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements and not for the Monopolies Commission. If the hon. Member will give the Registrar particulars of the tenders, I have no doubt that he will look into the matter to see if any agreement exists which ought to be in the register.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank the Minister for that reply and I shall be very happy to supply the information. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that a 25 per cent. increase in one year can be charged? Further, would he agree that this increase has nothing to do with the law of supply and demand, but is purely an administrative decision made by a very sinister ring?
    Mr. Erroll: Anyone is free to make dustbins in this country. It is open to anyone else to submit tenders if requested to do so by the local authorities concerned.

    Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton (Use)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made, in consultation with the local authorities concerned, towards finding alternative uses for the site and buildings of the Swynnerton Royal Ordnance Factory.
    Mr. Erroll: Possible alternative uses of the factory, including those in conjunction with the local authorities concerned, are still being examined.
    Mr. Swingler: These talks have been dragging on for a very long time. Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman's Department to do something to speed up its consideration in view of the fact that the need for new employment in North Staffordshire is getting no less urgent?
    Mr. Erroll: As a matter of fact, the need for employment in North Staffordshire is not so urgent as it was. The figure in November was 1·8 per cent., which is lower than that for Great Britain as a whole. The decontamination of a former filling factory is taking place and the site is being got ready. I am as sorry as the hon. Gentleman that the discussions and investigations are taking so long.

    Anglo-Russian Trade
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent Scotland has benefited, or will benefit, from the trade agreement he recently signed in Moscow.
    Mr. Erroll: The increased trade provided for in the Five-Year Trade Agreement should be of benefit to the economy of the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and Scottish industry will benefit directly to the extent that it can win Soviet contracts. A number of quotas in the subsidiary agreement on consumer goods, which was more recently signed in London, may be of special interest to Scotland. These include fish, floor coverings, textiles and spirits.

    New Industry, Sunderland
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract new industry to Sunderland, in view of the increase of 803 in the number of unemployed in November.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is continuing to try to interest industrialists in Sunderland, and our regional office is co-operating with the local authority in seeking new sites in the area suitable for industrial development.
    Mr. Willey: Whilst appreciating the recent visit of the Minister of Labour to Sunderland, may I ask the Minister of State if he is aware that in Sunderland we are nevertheless feeling particularly neglected and that the unemployment position appears to be rapidly deteriorating? Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of his right hon. Friend to this and ask him to consider also visiting Sunderland?
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend was just as disappointed as I was that the Answer today could not be more forthcoming.

    Shipbuilding Industry, Tyneside
    Mr. McKayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some marine engineering firms on Tyneside have not received orders for propulsion machinery for a period of two years, that soon many of the workers in the industry will be unemployed, that other trades on Tyneside have a large

    739
    percentage of unemployment, and that orders for the shipbuilding industry are also running down; and if he will investigate the conditions existing in the shipbuilding, engineering, and allied trades to see what can be done to prevent large-scale unemployment on Tyneside.
    Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is aware of the increase in unemployment on Tyneside, and in particular in Jarrow and South Shields. The Board of Trade will continue to do what it can to bring new industry to the area.
    Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that, according to the Monthly Digest, there has been an increase from 31,200 to 43,100, or 38 per cent., in unemployment in the Northern Region? Is he aware that in the Tyneside area about 1,000 employees are working only four days a week and that another company will be dismissing men to the extent of one-third of its staff in a few months' time? It is a serious situation. Will the Minister take particular notice of the Tyneside?
    Mr. Erroll: I have also noticed that Vickers-Armstrong have received an order for a new passenger liner of 22,000 tons, and that will help employment there.
    Mr. Short: Cannot we impress the Government—we have tried hard enough—with the seriousness of the unemployment position in shipbuilding and ship-repairing on the Tyne? Will they not put forward a policy to deal with shipping? Will they make an announcement on the replacement of the two Cunarders?
    Mr. Erroll: Those supplementary questions should be addressed to Ministers other than those of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Donnelly.
    Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before Question No. 45 is answered, would it be in order for me to interject, "God forbid"?
    Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order for the hon. Member to do so.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. In reference to Question No. 44, is it not customary when local matters are being discussed to allow hon.
    740
    Members on this side of the House who represent the area to ask supplementary questions?
    Mr. Speaker: The House knows with what anxiety I try to get a reasonable number of Questions answered. For that reason—I hope without any appearance of discourtesy—I have to rely on hon. Members who want to know something putting Questions on the Order Paper.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (TELEVISION)
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the possibility of a limited daily period of televising the proceedings of the House of Commons comparable to the existing reports on sound radio; and whether he will order an inquiry into the practicalities of such a proposal.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Examination of this and related proposals is in progress and I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Account is being taken of the practical aspects in the inquiries which are being made.
  Mr. Donnelly: I did not quite hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I understand that an inquiry is in progress. Is that right?
  The Prime Minister: I shall repeat my Answer:
  "Examination of this and related proposals is in progress and I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Account is being taken of the practical aspects in the inquiries which are being made."
  Sir T. Moore: I still say, "God forbid".
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Donnelly.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: I called Mr. Donnelly.
  Mr. Donnelly: If I might come between God and the House for a second, may I ask the Prime Minister what form the inquiries are taking?
  The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House informed the House, we are receiving different views and are considering this matter. I

  741
  hope it will be possible soon to make a statement, but it is quite clear that there are different points of view in the House and I think the Government would be very ill-advised to reach any decision except through a general discussion of what was the broad view of the House.
  Mr. Peyton: Before the inquiry goes too far, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people regard the suggestion as a very bad one? Will he also bear in mind the very strong possibility that the public might not find our debates as exciting as they expect?
  The Prime Minister: That is just it. Some people think it is a good idea and others think it is a bad one. The problem is to weigh the balance of opinion, and that is another question altogether from that to which the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) referred, the technical problems, which also require consideration.
  Mr. Gaitskell: As this obviously is a matter which concerns the House of Commons as a whole, is there not something to be said for clarifying the situation by the appointment of a Select Committee to go into the practical aspects of the matter, the experience of other countries and arguments for and against?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider that. Certainly it affects the House as a whole; it also affects the long-suffering public.
  Mr. Morris: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it would have been an invaluable experience for the people of this country to have seen on television the end of the debate about the policy of apartheid at three minutes to ten on Monday evening, the terrible display and shouting—started by the Government—and the part played by the Prime Minister himself?
  The Prime Minister: It would be quite interesting for the public to see all sorts of things we do, but what lessons they would learn I hesitate to lay down.

  HOUSING AND SCHOOLS
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister if he will set up an inter-Departmental committee to devise a long-term plan for the provision of
  742
  healthy homes and adequate social and educational facilities, based upon the most recent survey of land utilisation and the latest scientific advice on domestic appliances, hygiene, and the promotion of good health.
  The Prime Minister: Over the last eight years we have had great success in building healthy homes and schools. We are continuing to do so, and I see no reason at this stage to set up an inter-departmental committee to help us.
  Mr. Swingler: I appreciate that the Prime Minister is not able to keep a close scrutiny on all Departments at all times, but is not he aware that many people are gravely perturbed about the position? Is he aware that in the past five years there has been a 50 per cent. drop in the number of municipal houses under construction; that the slum clearance programme in many areas is making very slow progress, and that a large number of people are complaining about lack of social amenities on new housing estates? Should not he pay attention to this and set up a committee to inquire into it?
  The Prime Minister: No. I think the actual figures show the extraordinary success in the last eight years of the house-building programme. The number of completions is far above anything dreamed of under previous Administrations. Whether an inter-Departmental committee having to take into account all these various considerations would assist or not is, I think, a matter of judgment. In my experience, such a committee would not be likely to assist in the work.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not the halving of the council house-building programme, with all the suffering involved, due to the drastic rise in interest rates? May I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider sympathetically the provision of cheap housing loans to local authorities?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite another question. I am asked whether an inter-Departmental committee to consider
  "the most recent survey of land utilisation and the latest scientific advice on domestic appliances, hygiene, and the promotion of good health",

  743
  is likely to assist in our task. I am bound to say, from some experience, that I do not think such a committee, whatever other subjects might be discussed, would be of very great practical importance.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Would it not be better to give the local authorities more authority to build council houses by reducing interest rates and increasing subsidies?
  The Prime Minister: It would be better to go on building at a rate which has far exceeded anything under any previous Administration.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In the extremely unlikely event of the right hon. Gentleman being out of order, I should not be able to hear him if there were so much noise.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as usual, his facts are wrong and that we are now building far fewer council houses than were built under the Labour Government?
  The Prime Minister: The total production of houses of all kinds is higher than ever it was under any period of Socialist administration. By an act of policy it is thought right—and I believe that it is the view of the country—that the work of local authorities should now be directed mainly to the problem of slum clearance.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BIGGS-DAVISION: To ask the Prime Minister what preparations are to be made for the celebration of the tercentenary of the restoration of the monarchy in the person of King Charles the Second.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT: To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government has in mind to celebrate the tercentenary of the landing of King Charles the Second at Dover, leading to the restoration of the monarchy.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. In view of the high constitutional importance of Questions Nos. 47 and 48,
744
cannot the Prime Minister be given permission to answer them, Mr. Speaker? Will he bear in mind the character of the merry Monarch and suspend the Street Offences Act?
Mr. Speaker: The suspension of the Street Offences Act does not concern the rules of order of the House. I have received no request from the Prime Minister to be permitted to answer those Questions.
The Prime Minister: If the Questions are not deferred, I agree that an Answer should be given. I have given a good deal of thought to the matter. I did not think it right to ask for special permission to answer now. I think that it is out of order for me to do so at this stage. I think it better to wait until the Answer appears later. In any event, the hon. Member has been very successful; he has put his supplementary without the Questions being asked.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Debate on European Free Trade Association, on a Government Motion.
TUESDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Air Corporations Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Report of Supplementary Estimates.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Post Office (United Kingdom and Iceland) Agreement.
WEDNESDAY, 16TH DECEMBER—Consideration of the Motion to approve the Local Government General Grant (Increase) Order.
Afterwards, there will be an opportunity for a debate on the Opposition Motion relating to Telephone Tapping.
THURSDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—It is proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., that Questions be taken until 12 noon, and that Mr. Speaker be

745
empowered to adjourn the House at 5 o'clock without putting any Question.
We then adjourn for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 26th January.
Mr. Gaitskell: When is it proposed to take the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment?
Mr. Butler: We have not finally decided, but it will be on either Tuesday or Wednesday.
Mr. Gaitskell: What has happened about the proposed debate on accommodation, which was to have been a full-day debate? Since it has apparently been squeezed out of next week, can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that we shall have that debate immediately we return after Christmas?
Mr. Butler: There is no question of squeezing out the debate. We were quite ready to have the debate on accommodation on Wednesday, but the Opposition then put down a Motion on telephone tapping, and it is right to take that Motion. We still offered half a day on accommodation, but that was not agreeable to the Opposition. We have in every respect attempted to meet the wishes of the Opposition. As the Opposition did not want half a day on accommodation, we must have a day on it some time after the House returns.
Mr. Gaitskell: Could we not have had it in place of Monday's debate?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The issue of Monday's debate is one of supreme importance to the economic future of the country, and I think that that debate should be held.
Mr. Shinwell: Why has not the right hon. Gentleman provided time for a debate on a Motion on the Order Paper which relates to the provision of certain weapons to West Germany? Is he aware that 108 Members have appended their signature to this Motion? How are the views of private Members to be presented to the House unless an opportunity is given to debate Motions which are placed on the Order Paper from both sides of the House?
[That this House regrets the supply to Western Germany by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and with the full
746
consent of Her Majesty's Government, of tactical atomic weapons and missiles of nuclear capability; believes that this policy will foreclose debate on some of the most vital issues to be discussed at the delayed Summit Conference; and, therefore, urges Her Majesty's Government not to continue this policy until the Summit Conference has been held.]
Mr. Butler: I am aware of the importance of the Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but there simply has not been time to fit in a debate upon it before the Christmas Recess.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, instead of discussing accommodation, I should prefer to discuss the shipbuilding orders which have been given to Tyneside?
Mr. Butler: I will bear that in mind.
Mr. Mellish: Would the Leader of the House be good enough to answer two questions? First, what is the present position in the discussions which, I gather, have been going on about public accountability in the nationalised industries, so far as the House is concerned?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let us know when he will pay attention personally to the important Bill in Standing Committee upstairs, the Betting and Gaming Bill, and will attend there himself, so that we may have his guidance and help?
Mr. Butler: I made it clear on the Floor of the House that I should be unable to attend the Standing Committee upstairs, where I am most ably represented by my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, himself a man of considerable stature and experience in these matters, and by my hon. Friends the other junior Ministers. I am perfectly well satisfied of the ability of my right hon. and hon. Friends to negotiate in a friendly manner with the critics of the Bill a way through the Committee stage. I shall be available for the latter stages and I shall be available for consultation all the time.
There is no solution at present to the vexed question of accountability. The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has been set up again, but this does not fall literally within its purview. While certain conversations have taken place, we have not yet reached a solution.
Lord Balniel: Will my right hon. Friend consider allocating time for the debate on the Younghusband Report on Social Service Workers soon after the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Butler: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the fact that the Thor missiles are being made operational at 15 minutes' notice, will the Leader of the House seek an early opportunity for a debate on civil defence?
Mr. Butler: Coinciding with that fact, the accuracy of which I must attribute to the hon. Member, we have a considerable easing of tension in the international situation. I think that we should mark both those points before we decide on what our debate should be on that subject.
Mr. C. Pannell: Before the debate on accommodation, will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of introducing legislation to take this House into public ownership? Does he appreciate that there is an increasing view on both sides of the House that the next thing to be nationalised is the House of Commons, and that we rather suffer in this place from a very mixed and tangled economy?
Mr. Butler: Having read the Stokes Report, I am aware of the proposals that there should be Commissioners of Parliament and a different organisation of the Palace of Westminster. This raises issues rather outside our purview. It is one of the topics which we can discuss when we debate accommodation. I do not think that there will be universal agreement with the hon. Member, although the merits of his case can certainly be canvassed; but I think that there is general agreement that there is some need for improving our accommodation.
Mr. Wyatt: Will the Leader of the House find time either before Christmas or immediately after our return to debate the demand made by the British Transport Commission that it should have immediate permission to pull down the Gothic arch and the Great Hall of Euston Station, despite the fact that this was the first railway station ever built in any capital city and that it is listed as an historical monument?
Mr. Butler: That is one of the problems of the nationalised industries to which we should pay attention.
Mr. George Craddock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will try to provide time to consider two Motions on the Order Paper, one in my own name and the names of 81 of my hon. Friends, and the other in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? This is a matter which concerns the position of juries. Would he be good enough to provide the necessary time for a debate before the Christmas break?
[That this House deplores the direction given to a jury at Nottingham Assizes on 25th November by Mr. Justice Stable, who said: "I will leave this court in 10 minutes, and if by that time you have not arrived at a conclusion you will be kept locked up here all night and we will resume when I get back tomorrow morning at 11.45 a.m.", believing that such pressure exercised upon any jury is calculated to undermine the faith of the nation in our courts of justice.]
[That this House reaffirms its belief that the sound administration of justice rests upon the proper discharge of their duties by juries whose independence and integrity is impervious to pressure from judges, however strong minded, and who bear in mind that it is for them alone to decide in their own time the guilt or innocence of accused persons.]
Mr. Butler: There is no hope of providing time before Christmas. I have the Motions before me, and I am ready to discuss the matter with the hon. Member if he so desires.
Mr. D. Price: In view of the mouse of a debate which we had on the new post of the Minister for Science last Monday, would my right hon. Friend undertake to give Government time after Christmas for a full-scale debate on the Government's scientific policy, with particular reference to the annual report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy?
Mr. Butler: I think that the more we can discuss the matter the better. I will endeavour to improve the stature of the mammal to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that there has been considerable criticism of the proposal to spend £l¼ million on No. 10 Downing Street and adjacent buildings? Will the House have the opportunity to discuss this before the Government are unequivocably committed to this expenditure?
Mr. Butler: I am sure that nobody is at all keen to see any undue disturbance at No. 10 Downing Street, but this is a matter which has been for long canvassed, and which my right hon. Friend has discussed with the Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter which is, I believe, necessary in the long-term interest of these buildings. At the moment, I do not see any chance of discussing it in the House, but I will certainly pay attention to the representations of the hon. Member.
Mr. Ross: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we shall be dealing next week with the Money Resolution on the important Measure which the Government have introduced to nationalise shipping in the Highlands and Islands? Will this be dealt with on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week? This is a very important issue, and dear to the hearts of hon. Members opposite, I am sure.
Mr. Butler: It cannot come before the House until it has finished its course through the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Swingler: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), does the Leader of the House realise that many hon. Members are seriously concerned about the revelations that the Government are now considering joint Anglo-German co-operation in the production of nuclear weapons, and that a series of decisions appears to have been taken in N.A.T.O. which creates a new military situation? Surely, we should have some time to discuss this. Would the Leader of the House assure us that as soon as we return after the Christmas Recess we shall have an opportunity of discussing the subjects raised in the Motion on nuclear arms for Western Germany?
Mr. Butler: I cannot discuss the actual merits of the proposal in answer to business questions, but I will certainly bring
750
the points expressed by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friends principally involved.
Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a look at the Motion which I put down for the removal of a magistrate from the Wokingham Bench, about which the Prime Minister said that he would have a talk with the right hon. Gentleman, and which he himself said last week he would look at? Can he now give an undertaking that he will find an hour or two, after the House resumes after the Christmas Recess, for a debate on this Motion?
[That this House takes note that, on 19th October last at Wokingham Juvenile Court, Mr. Leonard Hackett, J.P., addressed an accused person in the following terms: "What you richly deserve is such a thorough thrashing that you would be senseless for about forty-eight hours. Very unfortunately this court has no power, and no other court has any power, to order you to be so punished. However, I have no doubt that if you continue in your present way of life this punishment you will receive, and it will not be ordered by a court of law but by other men in whose society you will find yourself"; and this House is therefore of the opinion that Mr. Hackett should be removed from the list of magistrates.]
Mr. Butler: I cannot add further to the answers given on this subject up to date.
Mr. Short: As old-age pensioners are so tightly budgeted, and as we are told that they have never had it so good, will the Government give some time to the House next week to consider the Motion on the Order Paper which advocates Christmas bonuses for old-age pensioners?
[That this House requests Her Majesty's Government to make arrangements for each retirement pensioner to be paid a bonus of five pounds during Christmas week and that this payment be disregarded in assessing National Assistance allowances.]
Mr. Butler: Except for the possible opportunities on the Motion for the Adjournment, I do not see how we can provide an opportunity for such a debate.
Mr. Allaun: Will the Leader of the House tell us why the Christmas Recess this year has been extended to six weeks all but two days? Does not this 40-day period contrast with 30, 30, and 31 days in the previous three years? Does he not think that this is tending to bring the House into disrepute, when there is already plenty of anti-Parliamentary feeling about? So that we should have adequate time to debate the problems of the homeless, the unemployed and the aged, will he consider bringing us back, not on 26th January, but a week earlier?
Mr. Butler: I think that it is quite within the bounds of reason that we should have this interval. I do not think that, necessarily, legislation alone brings about an improvement. I think that we could well do with this interval. We came back purposely very soon after the General Election, adhering to the date announced before the election, and I do not think that we have lost very much Parliamentary time. Therefore, I do not think that we could respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we shall wish to discuss this matter when dealing with the Motion for the Christmas Adjournment?
Mr. Butler: Having had some experience of these matters, I have foreseen this, before the right hon. Gentleman so wisely rose to put it.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government in recent years to tackle the growing problem of traffic congestion in the urban areas; and calls upon the Government to prepare, without delay, a comprehensive plan to meet a rapidly deteriorating situation
I must ask the House to grant its traditional indulgence to a Member in the position in which I find myself, and I think that I can do no better than quote the words which you, Mr. Speaker, used in the House of Lords six weeks ago when you had been elected Speaker. Then, you said:
"With regard to myself, I pray that if, in discharge of my duties, I shall inadvertently fall into any error, it may be imputed to myself alone, and not to Her Majesty's most faithful Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st October, 1959; Vol. 219, c. 8.]
With the substitution of the word "Opposition", that is the way in which I feel this afternoon
This is a new subject to me, and I am very conscious of the fact that I shall not bring to it the expertise of other hon. Members who will be speaking in the debate. But I should like to begin by saying a word or two about the subject and a particular problem which arises, just because I am new at it. I have often complained in the past about the facilities for research arrangements available for Members of Parliament in this House. I have never been more conscious of this than in the last few weeks, when I have been trying to get a grip of some of the elements of this problem of transport. The House of Commons Library, and its staff, within their enforced limits, extend every courtesy and help that are available to it to hon. Members. But it is still true that all the information and research facilities that are required are in the hands very largely of the pressure groups.
One of the problems of transport, so it seems to me as a newcomer, is that almost every pressure group in the country is well equipped with its facts, but that the Member who comes to it to try to consider it without any special interest of that kind is somewhat handicapped. Indeed, yesterday, with many

753
other hon. Members, I went to see a film in the Grand Committee Room, a colour film put out by the Roads Campaign Council. I do not say one word against the Council, because it has provided me with a lot of material which I would not otherwise have had. The film must have cost the Council at least £15,000, and this money would have been made available to it as a contribution from the business firms which subscribe to the Road Campaign Council, and would be allowed as Income Tax relief. It is a very poor thing that Members of Parliament should be less well equipped to cope with this problem than are the pressure groups which exist.
I hope that I am also being non-controversial in saying that urban congestion is a problem which we all recognise to exist in the most critical form in all our cities. It is by no means a new problem. As long ago as 1846 a leading article in a London newspaper said:
"All our principal thoroughfares have become too small for the enormous stream of traffic poured through them."
It is now certainly true that, as a result of the sixteen years from 1939 to 1955, when there was virtually no possibility of major road building between cities or inside them, the congestion has become acute. The financial cost of congestion is, no doubt, very well known to the House. The figures have been given many times before. It is estimated by the Road Research Laboratory that no less than £500 million a year is the cost of congestion—not only the direct cost, but also the cost in working time lost because of delays going to and from work. The Laboratory also estimates that the cost is growing at 14 per cent. a year.
I hope that I carry the Minister with me in my first point, that this is a crisis in one sense, but not in another sense. It is the result of a predictable trend of events which has been taking place steadily since the advent of motor traffic. There has been a virtually constant increase since 1946—a compound interest increase of 8·2 per cent. a year. Although, from 1939 to 1955, it was not possible to do major road building, the improvements in technique in those years enabled the growing volume of traffic to pass without much reduction in speed until about 1953. We are now considering a trend of con-
754
gestion which has been developing steadily since 1953. Indeed, the London Transport Executive, in its annual reports, has given regular warnings. In 1957, it said:
"This reliance on individual transport is threatening to choke the streets of the principal cities."
This year, Sir John Elliot used the phrase:
"London is slowly but surely throttling itself."
This is not something which should have taken the Government by surprise. It is something with which they could, and should, have been fully familiar. The first part of the Opposition's Motion regrets that the Government have failed to come to terms with the problem. Their policy, such as it was, is available to those who care to study it—the progressive imposition of restriction, upon waiting in the streets of London and upon loading; the progressive introduction of new techniques for controlling traffic; some minor improvements in road building; and, in recent years, since 1955, some major projects in our great cities.
It is part of our charge that over those eight years of growing congestion there has been a degree of Ministerial complacency which is proved by the consequences with which we now find ourselves faced. In 1952, when the present Secretary of State for Scotland was Minister of Transport, we were told that "long-term plans existed." In 1953, when the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was Minister of Transport, we were told that he regarded it as of "immediate urgency." In 1957, the present Minister of Defence told us, when describing the waiting restrictions, that they were "only part of a comprehensive plan." As recently as May of this year, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), who was then at the Ministry of Transport, used these words in the debate on traffic congestion:
"… I feel that we can confidently say that the Government have this very difficult problem completely in hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 634.]
The first part of our charge, therefore, is that there has been complacency by the Government. We do not blame the Government for the increase in traffic but, just as we blame Canute for failing

755
to see what was about to hit him, so we blame successive Ministers of Transport for failing to take necessary action.
We come now to the arrival of the present Minister. I should like to join in the congratulations on his appointment. His first word on urban congestion was when he came to the House and said:
"I have decided to introduce an emergency plan …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 560.]
Why was it an emergency? Was there no plan in the Ministry when the right hon. Gentleman arrived there? Had not the present Minister of Defence prepared any plans for Christmas? Why did the right hon. Gentleman think that the plans which were prepared were no good? Was it, as I rather suspect, not the plan of the present Minister, but this was the best that they could manage from the files at the Ministry, and it had to go through?
I follow the careful way in which the Minister keeps in touch with the public. I have obtained from the Library a gaily coloured little Christmas card of a leaflet which begins like this:
"Traffic must be kept moving in the West End this Christmas. Mr. Ernest Marples … has a plan to achieve this".
This is the form which is made available to the motorist. If one wants to know what the plan is, one should attend the Minister's Press conferences. I do not myself attend the right hon. Gentleman's Press conferences, but I read in The Times of 8th December that he had described an example of the problem, namely, the all-day parker.
The Times motoring correspondent, in reporting the Press conference, said:
"Mr. Marples gave an example of the immunity these all-day parkers have enjoyed … when he described how his manicurist, who parked her old car regularly near Piccadilly, complained to him one day that some other motorist had taken 'her place'".
The little human touch which the Minister uses to keep in touch with the public, and to make the problem familiar to the mass of the people, is something which I can only admire.
But this is really just a continuation of the old plan, which is to keep the all-day parker progressively out of Central London. There is no one on this side of the House who believes that a man
756
owning a motor car has the right to occupy a valuable piece of the Queen's highway in London all day at no cost to himself. We are not critical of the Pink Zone. It is a development of existing Ministry of Transport policy. But it has totally failed to solve the major problem.
Our Motion is based upon three criticisms of the Minister. First, this was a predictable trend which could have been observed and which, had it been observed, should have led to a greater urgency by the right hon Gentleman and his predecessors. Secondly, the Ministry, in its planning, was working on totally inadequate forecasts of the growth of traffic. Indeed, I am told that Circular 727 is still in force, in which local authorities are told to prepare for a volume of traffic only 75 per cent. above the 1954 volume, whereas already traffic is well over 40 per cent. up and by 1962 will reach 80 per cent. and exceed the ultimate limit. Thirdly, we accept what the Minister himself said about his predecessors, namely, that when he got on the spot there was already an emergency. Whatever other hon. Members opposite do, we hope that the Minister will be with us in the Division Lobby, since we accept his view that this is an emergency situation
I come now to the very glorious Amendment tabled by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Transport. It seeks to leave out all the words from "House" to the end and to add:
"while acknowledging the progress made by Her Majesty's Government in improving and constructing roads throughout the country, draws attention to the growing volume of traffic for which provision must be made and pledges its support for all practical measures to meet the problem."
It is a very charming Amendment. I shall go through it, because I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be voting for it and I want to give them the full facts on which to base their judgment tonight. I have done a simple calculation of the Government's road building programme and compared it with the number of vehicles which have come on the roads in a comparable period. We are very often given figures by British Road Federation Ltd. to show how

757
many vehicles there are for every yard of road. I wish to take another figure, not given by the Federation, and compare the number of cars which have come on the roads during the last seven years with the number of miles of roads which the Government have built.
The answer is that there are 3 million new vehicles and 291 miles of new road. Therefore, the Government have achieved the distinction of building 6 inches of road for every new vehicle which has come on to the roads since
1952. This is a magnificent achievement, because it condemns the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, not as Ministers of Transport but as inadequate
parking attendants. They could not provide enough roads even to hold all the vehicles that have come on to the roads since 1952.
I have often heard that the Minister of Defence wanted to be compared with one of the great Roman road builders, so this morning I took the trouble to study a little about Roman Britain. I discovered that in those days there were about 20,000 Roman vehicles—that is inclusive of horsemen, cavalry and chariots —and that, had the Romans maintained the same relationship between new roads and vehicles, they would have left behind them when they went from this country 2½ miles of Watling Street. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, and I recommend hon. Members opposite to think about that when they go into the Division Lobby tonight.
The second part of the Amendment is the best of all, in a way, because it draws attention to the growth of traffic. It is like a game of "Simon says"; it is as though one would not notice the growth of the traffic if it were not included in the Amendment tabled by the right hon. Gentlemen. Finally, it pledges support for what it calls "practical measures." That is really the key of the whole debate, and from now on I hope to concentrate on the future, because today we are arguing about the practical measures necessary to solve this problem, and we have said in our Motion that what we want is a comprehensive plan.
This has been asked for in the past. In 1955, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), asked the present Minister of
758
Pensions and National Insurance whether he would:
"… set an expert Committee to prepare a long-term plan for the relief of traffic congestion in the London area."
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"No, Sir."
Pressed by my hon. Friend, he said:
"I am inclined to think that plans are in adequate supply and I propose to proceed from them to measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1084.]
We complain that those measures never came out, and they never came out because, in the present situation, it is impossible for the present Minister to solve the problem unless he gets some help from the House.
I want now to deal with three major problems of urban congestion, as I see them, and to try to suggest how best they can be tackled. The first problem is what I call—and I hope that it is not controversial—that of immediate chaos in our great cities. It applies to the provincial cities as much as to London. The only reason one concentrates on London, or mentions London more, perhaps, than other cities is partly that its problem is so much greater than that of other cities that it acquires a difference in kind as well as of degree. Secondly, of course, the Minister is the traffic authority for London, so it is right that we should hold him to account. He is described as the, traffic authority, whatever that may mean, and many of the plans he begins in London are applied later to other cities.
After looking at the number of authorities that exist, it seems really quite impossible to continue with the present divided control. It has very often been said in the past, but there are, I think, 1,285 different highway authorities in the country. There are many police authorities. There are no fewer than seven police authorities in the London area, for which the Minister is responsible. He has to deal with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in dealing with those police authorities. He has contacts, of course, on the planning side with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. He has to deal with the Board of Trade on questions of office building, and he has also to deal with the public transport authorities, the British Transport Commission and the

759
London Transport Executive. When we take all this diversion of authority it seems to me to be totally impossible for the Minister to solve the problem.
There are also committees, and I will run through them very quickly. In addition to the local authorities concerned, there is the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which has done good work, the London Travel Committee, the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, a wonderful committee known as the Stopping Places Advisory Committee, and a Committee on London Roads.
In Landon, only one thing is lacking, and that is a central authority to bring order out of chaos. The first recommendation that I make to the Minister on this question of immediate chaos is that he should immediately, even if it involves legislation, take the power to deal with the London traffic crisis. I believe that this can be done only by appointing a commissioner for Metropolitan transport. I use the word "transport" deliberately so as to cover not only traffic, but other methods of locomotion as well. He should be a person of such ability, force and power as to compare with Lord Trenchard when he was made Commissioner of Police.
It seems that we must give him authority to cut across all the present confusion. Of course, it will require legislation and, of course, it will be complicated. There will be the temptation to say that this matter must await the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London—as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said—but with the traffic growing as it is—and remembering the time it takes for the reports of Royal Commissions to be prepared, considered and implemented—it certainly seems that much more rapid action is required. I therefore recommend that the executive authority to be given to this commissioner for Metropolitan transport should include the following functions.
First, he should be the prime authority for traffic engineering. The Minister knows very well that this country has been behind in traffic engineering in the past. Traffic engineering is a matter of great expert knowledge, and it is studied
760
and developed very well in the United States. Without traffic engineering, and without a proper road census, it is not possible to provide the machinery for rapid improvement of existing roads. In fact, it has been estimated that £500,000 would be required for an inquiry alone into the state of London traffic. I hope that this would be the first executive responsibility, of the commissioner for Metropolitan transport.
The second thing would be to give this commissioner executive traffic control, which would allow him, without delay, to impose one-way working, to impose clearways in London, to control parking, to install parking meters, to have lanes painted on the road and to make use of the powers now vested in various authorities—to bring them together and to act rapidly. That would be his second function—
Mr. Frank Tomney (Hammersmith, North): And to deal with property.
Mr. Benn: I will come to that.
Thirdly, we must recognise that the machinery for the enforcement of traffic restrictions in London is at present absurd. One reason why the Pink Zone has not been as successful as it might is that the police have neither the towing vehicles nor the men to enforce the limited restrictions imposed. Therefore, if we are to make any sense out of the situation we have to insist that the traffic-warden procedure be adopted immediately; and that the traffic wardens be brought under the authority of the commissioner for Metropolitan transport.
Incidentally, I hope that we will not use the expression "traffic warden". It is singularly unattractive. It is a mixture of shelter marshal and game warden. I would like them to be called the London motor patrol—something with a little flair about it that would attract men of the right type to serve. Naturally, we do not want to break the links with the police. We should have the police acting as non-commissioned officers in the London motor patrol.
Fourth, the responsibility of the commissioner of Metropolitan transport should provide—I will not say full control, but limited control over the London Transport Executive in the

761
planning of its schedules. One thing that has held the Traffic Advisory Committee back has been the failure of the Minister to take power to compel the London Transport buses to run the sort of shuttle services that are necessary to get what is required. I very much hope that the commissioner would have the authority to co-ordinate.
Next, the commissioner should have authority himself, with a budget, to finance small improvements. The system of financing road development is quite unsatisfactory. We have the classified roads, with the different grant percentages that are attracted. Then we have the small borough with an unclassified road with congestion that may back on to the main road, but, because the main congestion occurs outside the limits of the borough the local authority is not prepared, out of ratepayers' money, to finance the necessary changes quickly enough to get the traffic moving. That is all quite unnecessary, and ought to be corrected by the commissioner out of his budget.
Finally, I come to the last but very difficult function of the commissioner of Metropolitan transport. We must have another look at the whole subject of staggered working hours. The report on crush-hour in London suggests that 33 per cent. of the morning entry takes place in a quarter of an hour, and, in the evening, 20 per cent. takes place between 5.15 and 5.45. It is the problem of badly spaced entry and exit into and out of our great cities which compels the British Transport Commission to keep a larger amount of rolling stock in operation than would be necessary if rush-hour travel was better spaced, and it is one of the major factors leading the Commission into economic difficulty.
A committee was set up to investigate the staggering of hours and certain recommendations have been made, but, as far as I can gather, in the first year, only 145 firms co-operated, 21,500 people being affected. If the Observer is correct in its report of May this year, only 2 per cent. still of the office workers in London are in organised staggering arrangements. Thirty per cent. are still discharged on the dot of 5.30.
It seems to me that far greater efforts must be made to make sure that staggering arrangements are established. The
762
Labour Party staggers from Transport House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—wait for it—the Communist Party staggers from King Street, but Marples, Ridgway & Partners discharge their people at 5.30 on the dot, and so does Macmillan the publisher. I saw in one of the newspapers today that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) had been made managing director of Guinness. I wondered whether Messrs. Guinness staggered. I find that they do, though whether Guinness staggered because they have as managing director an ex-Minister of Transport, or because they want, by example, to encourage further use of their product, I do not know.
One thing is quite certain. We shall not have a proper measure of staggering unless some compulsion is applied. It is very difficult to compel staggering. One cannot arrest a man in a bowler hat on the ground that he has arrived 15 minutes too early, and tell him to go back to Surbiton or he will be in trouble. One cannot apply Wolfenden methods to the keen office worker. One cannot drive him off the streets. It can be done only by saying quite simply to those who employ office workers in London that we are very sorry but, if they insist on discharging their workers at 5.30, they will have to pay a tax for employing people in London, but the tax will be immediately discharged if they co-operate with the staggered hours committee. We should have no desire to make use of the tax as a revenueraising mechanism, but we must say that the social cost, the cost to London Transport and the cost in the tempers and health of people in the Metropolis is so gravely affected by simultaneous discharge at 5.30 each evening that, if people do not co-operate, they must accept some pressure upon them to join in.
It may be that, once the Minister or the commissioner shows keenness to get on with the job, staggering will become much more widespread. I think that most of the trouble is caused by the conservatism of people who feel that it would be difficult to stagger their hours, there would be objections, and so forth. On the other hand, when one thinks of the consequences of the way people now come into their work and leave, there

763
can, I think, be no doubt that staggering would actually ease the burden and would be popular, provided that there was some real impetus to put it into full effect.
It is my opinion, obviously, that the traffic commissoner in London should have his counterpart in every urban area and conurbation in the country. It is quite impossible to arrange things differently in Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester or anywhere else. What is required everywhere is an arrangement for the integration of the whole transport programme in an endeavour to solve the problems there just as we have them in London.
The effect of course—let us face it—will not be to solve the problem of congestion. It will merely guarantee maximum capacity on existing roads and will provide the statistics on which it will be possible to calculate future developments. That is the first problem, the problem of immediate chaos. The comprehensive plan we suggest calls for executive authority vested in the Ministry to get on with the job.
The second matter is transport investment. I use the expression "transport investment" deliberately, and I do not say "road programme" because I believe that we shall make a tragic mistake if we think of road investment as being separate from other "transport investment" and we do not try to plan the whole scheme as one. There is a fundamental imbalance in our expenditure on road transport which is reflected in the fact—I have no doubt that the Minister has calculated these figures himself, but I have checked them—that, over the last seven years, £2,400 million has been spent on new vehicles and £3,920 million has been spent on petrol and licensing, making a total of more than £6,000 million on buying vehicles and using them, whereas only £295 million has been spent on new roads—a mere one-twentieth of the total.
We have here one of the dilemmas and absurdities of the present situation. The community appears not to be willing— at least, the Government do not give it the chance to be willing—to devote what is required to its basic transport investment. According to the figures given —I suppose they are correct—the United
764
Kingdom spends 0·66 per cent. of its gross national product on roads, compared with 3·15 per cent. in Western Germany. We on this side of the House regularly criticised the Government for their under-investment and for sacrificing the future for present enjoyment. We believe that there is no more remarkable example of their attitude than the failure to provide the transport investment which is required.
Today, of course, the Minister will make a big announcement about road expenditure. We know that. We know that in the Tory election programme there was a promise of double the previous amount and, obviously, the Minister, being a "go-getter", as I think his Parliamentary Secretary called him the other day in the House of Commons, will not miss the chance of announcing immediately the doubling—or perhaps more—of the investment programme. But, when he comes forward with these figures with which to dazzle the Press Gallery tomorrow, I hope that he will look at the matter more widely and consider it in terms of our total transport needs.
I hope that it will not be thought that, in saying this, I am trying to write down the importance of road investment. I am not. London has had its plan, prepared under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Guildford, which provides for £6 million or £10 million—probably it needs much more—per year to iron out its difficulties. Bristol wants to build its inner ring road. This plan is being held up and there is great waste as a consequence. Birmingham is asking for £37 million to be invested, so we understand.
What we say is that, before major projects for motorways, particularly urban motorways, are considered, the investment programme should he discussed in co-ordination with the British Transport Commission and, in London, the London Transport Executive. For instance, the Victoria tube scheme—here again, we hope for an announcement—would be not only cheaper by about half compared with an urban motorway, but it also would give us a much better return on our money. Every town planner now agrees that the urban motorway is not the answer to the transport problem in the cities. It is not possible to provide roads

765
to allow everyone who works in our great cities to come in by car. There is a limit to what can be done. If one has unplanned urban motorway development, one may well attract traffic which a city cannot hold.
Now is the time to do in this country what is already recognised to be important in the United States, namely, to revive public transport and give it its proper status in the life of the cities. This is not—I am sure the Minister will agree—a matter of economics alone. It is not that people cease to use London Transport services and go on the roads because it is cheaper. It is much more expensive to motor in London than to travel by London Transport. The R.A.C. has published figures showing that it costs 7d. or 8d. per mile for a small motor car to move about.
Of course, very many of the cars in London are carried on business expenses. If someone can charge his road movements in London to the firm, and the Treasury will then give back a half of the cost, it does not matter much to the man who uses his car instead of using London Transport. What is required is a big investment programme designed to help all our transport needs, not just to help the motorist. We must bring the economic costs into line with the true social costs of what we do.
The third great problem concerns the whole future of our cities. We are discussing nothing less than that. If one likes, one can regard our roads as beautiful and quaint, an attraction for the tourists. The Board of Trade finances the British Travel Association. I have no doubt that some hon. Members have picked up in the Library a booklet called "Seeing Britain by Road", the opening sentence of which reads:
"Unlike highways in other countries, which are concerned only with tracing the shortest distance between one point and another British roads are never impatient. They might, indeed, have been designed for the holidaymaker, for they amble through the countryside as though they enjoyed the delightful and varied scenery through which they pass … making here a sweep to avoid a cottage garden and there a bend to peep at a pleasing view."
That is the Government-financed analysis of seven years' road building programme by the Minister of Defence. If that does not convince hon. Members opposite to Come into the Lobby with us tonight, with our modest regrets and helpful
766
aspirations for the future, I do not know what will.
We must also recognise that our debate today is one of the series that we have had about the future of our cities. The revolution in transport affects everything that we do and the way that we live. Motor traffic can kill cities in three ways. It can kill them by congesting the cities so that no one can move about in them. It can kill them by consuming the cities with great ribbons of concrete in the middle of them, driving everyone out. It can kill them by deserting the cities for rural shopping centres and for other forms of life, leaving the cities as ghost towns of the future.
Today, we are discussing one of the major issues of planning. We are not discussing whether there has been bad co-ordination or not. Here we have a problem of actual conflict between two things that we believe in. For example, there is zoning; we believe that we should divide industry from the places where people live, but if we divide them we may create a transport problem which we may not be able to solve. This is not a problem of co-ordination, but a problem of reconciling different views and different solutions for different problems. If we have a green belt it may have the same effect. If we allow London Airport to develop as it is doing, we may create an entirely new magnet and centre of attraction without ever planning the way in which it will work.
If we allow office building to go on in the middle of London absolutely unchecked, as it has done in the last few years, it will become totally impossible to meet the transport needs of the Metropolis. As the Minister knows, 44 million sq. ft. of new office accommodation has been provided in London during the last ten years, which is very nearly as much as the total factory floor space in Scotland and Wales for a comparable period. The magnet of London has been allowed to go on unchecked by anyone—and I agree that the Minister's powers are very limited—but it is likely to affect us very greatly.
It is true that sites and building costs are very much greater in London, up to £2,500 per office worker against £1,000 outside. There are all sorts of economic motives. Ministries have sent some

767
civil servants out of London. This is a major problem with which we have to deal. Just as the rivers and ports in the early days determined where the early human settlements were to be and the railways spaced our industrial towns throughout the country, so the great new motorways, airports and traffic grids will determine where we shall live, what we shall do and the sort of conditions in which our children will be brought up.
The right hon. Gentleman the father of the House made a famous speech in this House in 1943 when he moved to set up a Select Committee to rebuild this Chamber. He said:
"We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
We have an exact parallel in our roads today. I believe that the real greatness of a community is tested by one thing more than any other. It is when it decides that its future is more real for it than its present or its past—and when it has the courage to forgo its present desires to meet the needs of the future.
By this test we shall require the Minister to act as he plans his road programme. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his task and I hope that when he performs it he will never forget that he is not working only for the woman on the bus tomorrow, although she is very important, not working only for the man with a car and a vote in the next election, although he is very important, too. but that he owes it to the future to hand on a heritage that is both useful and beautiful.
4.25 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"while acknowledging the progress made by Her Majesty's Government in improving and constructing roads throughout the country, draws attention to the growing volume of traffic for which provision must be made and pledges its support for all practical measures to meet the problem".
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on his first major speech as leader for the Opposition on transport matters. He made it in a most charming way, and
768
he was constructive. He has taken unto himself the hereditary qualities of his father, and his speech will give great pleasure to those who have listened to his father in this House. I was particularly grateful for the liggh-hearted yet constructive way in which he made his speech. If he continues to make speeches like that, I can promise him that I shall steal all his bright ideas and claim credit for them.
The only thing that disturbed me was not the manicurist who has a car which costs £7 10s. standing on ground worth £10,000, but the official policy which the hon. Gentleman put forward of taxing firms to compel them to close at a certain time. That does put our freedom in jeopardy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be gone into very carefully after this debate. It is a startling change of policy on the part of the Opposition to enforce its views in this way on the community. I might tell him that I left Marples Ridgway in 1951 and that when I was there they left at 8.30 at night and not at 5.30.
The hon. Gentleman made three points which I should like to deal with first. Referring to the increase in motor cars, he said that this was a perfectly predictable trend of events since the end of the war, that it should not have taken the Government by surprise and that the forecasts had been inadequate.
In London, we are dealing with a city hundreds of years old. The greatest chance for planning came when the new towns were started by the party opposite when it was in power. I remember Mr. Silkin, now Lord Silkin, moving the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill on 29th January, 1947, when he said that the Bill
"… is the most comprehensive and far-reaching planning Measure which has ever been placed before this House. … Already the world is looking eagerly to this country to see how we intend to solve the problem. … When this Bill becomes law, we shall have created an instrument of which we can be justly proud; we shall have begun a new era in the life of this country …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 947 and 987.]
How did the party opposite solve the problem? It planned for motor cars ten years ago. This was how the Labour Party planned. In the early days, it was estimated that the future demand would

769
be in the range of 8 to 14 garages per 100 standard houses in the London new towns—eight garages to 100 houses. The party opposite made a mistake. It should have been 92 houses with garages and eight without. That was the party which now condemns the Government for their action. Hon. Members opposite should have looked ten years ahead. For Cwmbran and Peterlee, the figures were not 8 to 14 but 5 to 9, which is even less. Therefore, of all the hopeless miscalculation ever to be made in the history of planning, I am bound to say that, in spite of all the charm of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, it was made by the party opposite.
If hon. Members opposite do not believe that, let them read the Fabian pamphlet, "What shall we do about the roads?" After all, hon. Members opposite must believe a Fabian pamphlet. They have talked about a comprehensive plan. They had one known as the Barnes plan. This is what the Fabian pamphlet says, and it is not a Tory pamphlet:
"It was envisaged that arrears of maintenance having been made good, 'a comprehensive reconstruction of the principal national routes' would begin in 1951, which would include the building of some motorways … The economic crisis of 1947 intervened, authorisations fell to less than a tenth of expected amounts, and the Barnes Plan shrivelled away"
The pamphlet went on to say:
"A Special Roads Act was passed in 1949 to enable motorways and other traffic-restricted roads to be built. But building did not begin. Improved economic conditions have since, however, allowed Conservative Governments to get substantial construction under way. In 1953 a plan envisaging Exchequer expenditure of £50 million was announced, and this has been incorporated in successive expanded programmes."
It goes on to say:
"Altogether, a transformation in our highway system is taking place of very considerable proportions and expenditure is gaining momentum."
Mr. Donald Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman is accusing the Labour Party of not foreseeing events. Is he not aware that the very Barnes plan of which he is speaking planned an expenditure of £750 million and that we are still trying to reach that target?
Mr. Marples: It is no use planning unless one puts it into effect. The party opposite did not do anything. All that it spent on roads was an average of
770
£2·7 million a year. What is the good of a blueprint in the Library of the House of Commons if the roads are not built?
Mr. Benn: No major roads were built from 1939 to 1955, a period of 16 years, during ten of which the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), was Prime Minister, and during six of which Lord Attlee was Prime Minister. There was no further road building by the Conservative Government from 1951 until 1955, thus confirming the priorities of Lord Attlee when he was Premier.
Mr. Marples: The real difficulty in the 1945 Parliament, of which I was a Member, was that the party opposite spent too much time nationalising instead of constructing. I propose to deal with the hon. Member's constructive points. He made many, some of which we shall adopt.
I have been in my present office less than two months. Therefore, the House would not expect any comprehensive statement from me. What I thought I would do was to give the House an indication of my first reactions on coming to the job, in just the same way as the hon. Member has done. Provided that anything I say is not held as committing me, I would like to be frank with the House about what I have in mind. Then, I would like to invite the views of the House on the topics I introduce today. That will enable me to take them into account when the final plans are prepared. That is probably the most constructive thing I can do.
I have divided the problem into two, the long term and the short term. I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East: what is to happen in the fourth quarter of this century and the first quarter of next century? Where are we going? In 1960, there will be 5½ million private cars. In 1975, it is estimated that there will be 13½ million private cars. That is a geat deal.
I agree with the hon. Member also about the number of people coming into London. Ninety-four per cent. of them come by public transport and 6 per cent. by private car. Imagine what it would be like if those two were reversed. Therefore, whatever happens, we must not allow public transport in the heart

771
of London to become disintegrated and go to pieces. If it does, it will be like Los Angeles, which has a population smaller than London's and which stretches 130 miles. If London were to be planned on the same scale as Los Angeles, it would stretch from here to the Lake District. We cannot do that and have great slabs of concrete, as the hon. Member said, dividing the heart of the community.
The problem was put best by the Architects' Journal, which said:
"Is Motropolis, the motorised city, to be dominated and destroyed by the motor, or is it to be the city in which civilised man lives a civilised life, using the motor vehicle sensibly and economically as a tool for mobility?"
I agree wholeheartedly. It worries me a great deal.
This is not merely a road engineering problem. It is not merely the construction of roads or offstreet car parking. It is a design for living in the fourth quarter of this century. We must come to terms with the motor car without letting it destroy our way of life. We cannot allow it to grind the amenities out of existence. I have read a number of books on this subject. In one, which I consider to be the best, the author said that he was humbled by the size and scope of the problem. I am, too.
I have been thinking on these lines, and I ask hon. Members during the course of the debate to give me their views on these thoughts. Should we have a long-term study group, fulltime, with no executive responsibility, to go not merely into the road programme, but to consist of architects and town planners, embracing both roads and amenities, to see which way we are going and how we can come to terms with this problem? I believe that something like that should be set up before it is too late and disaster overtakes us, as it has done some of the American cities. I ask hon. Members for their views about this.
Another reason for this is that road accidents, which the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East did not mention, are absolutely frightening. They sicken me. I do not think that an ultimate solution will be arrived at until the pedestrian is segregated from the vehicle; there is what is known in the jargon as a vehicle/pedestrian conflict, or something like
772
that. There were few cars when I was born, but during my lifetime, in the last fifty years, 8 million persons have been injured on the roads and a quarter of a million killed. In the next 50 years, at the present rate and without any increase, 15 million persons will be injured and 300,000 killed. The point is that the casualties are increasing. They are not staying at the same rate.
In October this year, total casualties were 17 per cent. greater than in October, 1958. The corresponding increase in traffic was only 11 per cent. If the casualties go on at that rate, everybody could expect to be a casualty at least once in his lifetime. That is all the more reason for starting at a reasonably early date some sort of study group to consider which way we are going. The more violent the controversy, both outside and inside, the greater the clash of minds on this issue, the better it will be for the ultimate plan.
Having mentioned that, let me come to the short term. Before dealing with urban congestion, I should like to mention a point which arises out of building roads between towns. It is relatively easy to construct a motorway or to improve a trunk road, because access to,the site can be obtained easily, the builder is not interrupted and results are reasonably spectacular, with the bypasses and the wide carriageways. This is distinct from the urban congestion of towns.
The limiting factors, however, are not only money, the resources of industry and the technical plans. Another limiting factor is the limitations that Parliament has imposed, and deliberately so, upon the Minister of Transport and the authorities to safeguard the rights of the individual. The House may have been right to do that—it probably was—but hon. Members cannot have those limitations and expect excessive speed from the Minister of Transport. They can have it which way they like, but they cannot have it both ways. The House must make up its mind which way it wants it.
I now come to one other point on which, I hope, the House will forgive me, because this is my maiden speech too. As soon as anybody is hurt in transport, an immense scream goes up from the party who is hurt, perhaps rightly. Until I came to this Department, I thought I knew the meaning

773
of the words "vested interest". The father of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East may remember this, but I am told that in the 1906 election, when protection or free trade was the issue, there was a music-hall song called "The Manufacturer's Lament". It was a Liberal song which ran as follows:
"My interest must not be neglected.
What I produce must be protected.
With that exception, we all agree
That everything should be duty free."
That is what happens with vested interests in transport. I had made up my mind that, whatever happens, I shall be unpopular. I had to make that decision and it has been made.
Another point is that, as soon as a constituency case arises, hon. Members write asking to see me personally. They will not see anybody else; they must see me. The case may be about a pedestrian crossing in their constituency. Members of the other place and leaders of industry ask to see me. Frankly, if I were to agree to all interviews, I should be busy every working day and every hour of the working day. I should never get any policy framed. I would ask the hon. Members in the early months of this administration, for their indulgence in this matter. If they write to me, I promise to do my best, but I ask them not to insist that they should see me, at any rate in the early months. I do not do this because I do not want to work. but because I want to work on policy and to achieve something.
Mr. Arthur Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has been dealing with some of his difficulties. One of the difficulties he mentioned was the result of legislation passed by this House entailing a long process before a road can be actually started. Hon. Members— and I am one of them—have asked previous Ministers of Transport whether they can prepare the plans in the Ministry earlier. For instance, we have asked for the line of a new motorway to be fixed. If the right hon. Gentleman could get ahead with his own planning, even though three years may pass before the road was built, it would be helpful.
Mr. Marples: That took place in the case of the London-Yorkshire motorway. The line was fixed and then everyone said that it should be altered. That is where delay ocurs. We are looking into the
774
matter now to see whether we can streamline the procedure without, at the same time, leading to loss of justice to the individual.
I now come to the problem of urban congestion. It is no good going fast between towns unless one knows what will happen when one gets there. At present, we in this country have more cars per mile than any other country in the world, and the situation will get worse. We must try to maintain compactness at the same time as increasing our mobility. There are two brutal truths that must be known. First, the present road system is bound to be inadequate to meet the needs of everybody. Secondly, radical changes in our cities will take a longish time and will involve great expense. Projects like the Hyde Park underpass and the Hammersmith fly-over will take a long time and will cost money, but we will press on.
I should now like to deal with the better use of existing roads, about which the hon. Member had some ideas. Everyone must sacrifice something if order is to replace chaos and discipline is to replace anarchy. Some of the ideas that the hon. Member mentioned, such as those which are part of traffic engineering, are not new. I should like to add to the list of the hon. Gentleman.
First, in a given city, such as London, a survey should be made of the roads, and the first object should be to ensure that traffic can flow freely. If there is any space left, it should be given to kerbside parking, loading, and so on. The motorist must know where he stands. It is simply no good having vague signs which he does not understand. Nothing causes more confusion to the motorist than bad signs. I should like to see the roads and kerbs painted so that every person knows what would happen in every square inch of the road. It is like playing snakes and ladders—on square 1 a person knows he can park, on square 2 he knows he can load, and on square 3 he knows that he must keep moving.
The day of the long-term parker who comes to London, or any other big city, and leaves his car in the road for eight hours or more is virtually over. The long-term parker has no right to strangle the area in which he earns his livehihood. There will have to be off-street car parking. I am negotiating with British Railways to ensure that on the periphery of

775
London and other places adequate car parks are provided so that people can come to the periphery and then come into the centre by public transport. Any spaces at the kerb-side should be used by the short-term parker. The best way to ensure that is to use parking meters. I would rather eight people used a given space for one hour than one person used it for eight hours.
I now come to enforcement. This is not my province but that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The police enforce the restrictions and the rules, but I believe that without enforcement which is swift and salutary no progress will be made. I do not say this against the majority of motorists. In the majority of cases, if a motorist knows what to do he will do it, but one selfish motorist makes everyone else selfish. I have a friend in the West End who wanted to help me with regard to the Pink Zone. He paid £3 a week to park his car in order to help me. He told me so. On the first day, the space outside his house was empty. On the second day, an old car was parked there, and it was parked there for the next five days, eight hours a day. My friend said to me, "Why should I pay £3 a week so that that car can be parked free?" It is like Gresham's Law. One bad motorist drives out all the good ones. We must therefore have enforcement.
I should like the views of the House on this matter, because there is controversy. Should we have traffic wardens? The hon. Member obviously has been looking at television. At one time, I thought he wanted to call them the highway patrol. Should we have traffic wardens? Some people object to them, others do not, but there are two points which I should like the House to consider when hon. Members put forward their views on this subject. First, in local authorities, who look after the parking meters we virtually have traffic wardens. A ticket is issued and a person has to pay 10s. if he parks longer than the prescribed time. That has been started by local authorities in respect of offences at parking meters. But, for the man who double banks his car and causes a traffic jam, there are no traffic wardens. He must be brought up in court for obstruction. This process may take six months and, finally, the man may be fined a small sum. I do not propose
776
to make any announcement on this, as was forecast in the Press. I first want the views of the House on traffic wardens. Unless a Minister can take this House with him, he will not be successful.
Local authorities operate the ticket system. The question is, should the police operate it? In one Continental country, when a person is given a ticket for the first time he goes to the police station and pays £1 and the offence is noted in the book. For the second offence, he is fined £3. He is allowed three offences in the year. For the third offence, the fine is £8, and then he has to go to court. I wrote asking how effective this system was. I was told that it was extremely effective—no one ever parked in the wrong place. [Interruption.] I forget the country. I must look after foreign policy as well as transport policy.
I agree with the hon. Member that paint should be used on our roads in order to get more lane discipline. At the moment, vehicles straddle all over the place in a most alarming fashion. It may be that on the inside of the kerb we should have a special lane for scooters and motor cycles. We have a great number of them in this country, although they are not used so extensively in America. I agree that we should consider places like Tottenham Court Road, Gower Street, the Embankment, the Strand, Wigmore Street and Oxford Street to see whether one-way traffic can take the place of two-way traffic. I think that the number of permissible right turns should be reduced. In the Old Kent Road, congestion was reduced effectively by filtering the traffic off to the left, turning it right and right again and then making it come across the main crossing. I advise hon. Members to consider that.
More through-ways out of London should be made. From here to Wembley, on the Cromwell Road, and so on, through-ways should be marked in a distinctive manner, perhaps with a yellow line down the centre, so that people would know that between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. no car should park on the through-way.
We should have more of what is called "tidal flow". At Waterloo Bridge at night one finds, at the most, two lanes of traffic struggling to go southwards

777
over the bridge. There is a row of cars parked on the nearside and a row of lamp standards in the centre. Waterloo Bridge was not built as a car park but as an artery to go to the South of London. Therefore, I suggest that the car park should go, that the lamp standards in the middle should go, and that there should be five traffic lanes—four devoted to southbound traffic in the evening and four devoted to northbound traffic in the morning.
As for loading, everyone has to make a contribution. It must be so, as it has been in the Pink Zone, which has been extremely successful considering the difficulties which the police have in keeping the roads clear. Loading must be restricted. It is no good traders saying that they cannot accept it. They must play their own part like everybody else in getting the maximum utilisation out of our roads. They and the chambers of trade can write to me if they like, and I will listen sympathetically, but it is my job to be as fair as possible.
The U-turns in the middle of the street ought to be stopped. Therefore—and this is not a thought but a definite order which will be going out—all vehicles, including taxis, will be stopped from making U-turns in the main roads of the Pink Zone. This will apply when they are on the move. When taxis are stationary in the centre of the road it is a different matter; but when they are moving U-turns will be stopped within the next few days.
After mentioning these ideas, I ought to remind the House that Goethe said, "Thought is easy, but action is difficult"; and I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was right. I have looked at some of the cases at the Ministry, and it is extremely difficult to get something done. There are 28 Metropolitan boroughs, all of which are elected to look after their ratepayers. They are not elected to look after through-traffic. They are too small. For instance, Holborn is two-thirds of a square mile. And they are too slow. Their committees meet every so often, and so do the local councils.
The reason why local authorities do not act quickly is that their terms of reference are wrong. There is a case I have in mind in connection with a High Street. I will not mention the local
778
authority concerned, because I would not wish to embarrass it. We have been arguing about this case since April last. There is loading and congestion, and yet nothing happens because the authority wants a 75 per cent. grant towards the total cost, which we cannot give and because the police cannot provide and operate flashing bollards. There is the case of improving traffic flow over a bridge; again, there are two local authorities on the north side and one on the south and the L.C.C. in the middle, and if any hon. Member can come to an agreement with that bunch he is a very much better man than I am.
There was the case of a very congested place which came up last July, before my time in the Ministry. Traffic signal control with a diversion for right turns would have eased the matter considerably, but it could not be done because one pedestrian crossing had to be moved and one councillor objected. In the council's minutes, I found that one councillor objected to a certain scheme because another councillor would have had two pedestrian crossings in his ward and the objecting councillor would not have had one in his. One simply cannot run a system on that basis.
Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not casting any reflection on the London local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is."] What he is indicating is that the set-up of London and the local authority system historically prevents the co-ordination of these plans. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is driven to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, SouthEast (Mr. Benn) that there must be some central authority for the whole area.
Mr. Marples: I am glad to have that support from an unusual quarter. I am not blaming the local authorities but the terms of reference within which they are working. They have been acting within these terms, but the terms are wrong. In the evidence given by the Ministry of Transport to the Royal Commission on Local Government, it is stated on page 176, paragraph 42, that there should be a central traffic authority which could go so far—and it is high time that this was done—as to co-ordinate street works and the associated traffic diversions.

779
Local authorities at the moment open up roads without regard to the traffic.
Here is a suggestion on which I should like the views of the House as to whether it would support the Government. Suppose that the Ministry of Transport, pending the Royal Commission's report dealing with this matter—because we cannot wait for that—takes charge, as it were, of an area slightly larger than the Pink Zone for a limited period of time as an experiment. Suppose that it sets up a traffic engineering unit to act fast. It would, of course, use the local authorities as far as possible, because their existing organisation is good for carrying out these works and I am grateful to them for the work that they have done.
The principle I think should be that this would be an experiment for a limited time, say a couple of years or so. We could concentrate on a manageable area and make some impact on it. If we could tackle the hardest problem of all, which would be that area, we could perhaps set an example which might be followed in other urban districts. I am going to meet the various authorities concerned to discuss this, but it would help greatly if hon. Members would give us their views on it.
Mr. Mellish: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make clear what he has in mind in such an area, so that we can help him? Has it anything to do with planning and reconstruction of the zone? Does he say that the Minister should have these overall powers? I ask him to let us know more about it, because we want to help.
Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I would remind him that paragraph 42 of my Ministry's evidence to the Royal Commission, to which I have referred, speaks of making regulations governing moving or stationary traffic, the erection of signs to give effect to regulations, and other traffic signs; the siting of bus stops, taxi ranks, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, street lamps, guard rails, and so on, the provision of off-street parking accommodation, and the co-ordination of street works and associated traffic diversions. In other words, it would be to try to do the job which the traffic department does in a city in the United States. I will let the
780
hon. Member have a copy of the evidence for examination before he winds up the debate.
Mr. Mellish: Let us get this point quite clear. Does this mean that the Ministry of Transport would have overall powers of direction to the police and the local authorities concerned? Is the right hon. Gentleman asking for this for experimental purposes? We would like to know so that we can argue the case.
Mr. Marples: I want the co-operation of the local authorities, with the final decision, if necessary, to be made by a central traffic authority, but not overruling the police, because they do not come under the Ministry of Transport. I want to conduct an experiment. If it failed, we would admit failure and abandon it straight away. If we do not move quickly now we shall soon be in a jam.
Mr. Mellish: We understand that so many people now object to various things that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is held up in making its decisions. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wants to take overall control of a much larger zone in respect of matters which have nothing to do with planning or reconstruction but merely with off-street parking and so on. Would the Minister visualise a person acting as his agent, with overall control over that area and in complete charge, apart from the co-operation of those concerned? If co-operation broke down, would the Minister say, "I will make the final decision because this belongs to me"?
Mr. Marples: I would not say "belongs to me". It never will. It belongs to the local authority. I should like the views of the House on the matter. I think that the Minister of Transport should set up a department of traffic engineering to apply traffic engineering principles to an area in London which is a composite whole. The department would take powers, if necessary, though I hope it would act in cooperation with the local authority. But the Department would look at the whole problem as a through-traffic problem instead of a parochial problem. It could not take over the powers of the police. If hon. Members have suggestions to make I hope that they will make them, because I should like to listen to them.

781
The Pink Zone has been a success, though limited in a way. The reason why it has been a success is that the police have worked extremely hard. I should like to congratulate them and to thank them for the efforts they have made on behalf of Londoners in this Christmas period. Many more people have been able to shop in comfort this Christmas than could do so last year, and the police have been extremely helpful. Where they have been helpful is in this way. Their central control headquarters are immediately informed when a traffic jam takes place. They send to the spot policemen on motor cycles who direct the traffic and a squad to tow away cars causing the jam. It is rather like logs coming down a river. Suddenly the flow stops. One log in the middle is causing the jam. It is removed and then the flow of logs continues freely.
The Motion
"regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government … to tackle the growing problem of traffic congestion in the urban areas."
I maintain that this selective towing away of cars has certainly been effective, and no one is better qualified than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to testify to its effectiveness because his car was towed away. He causes the jam, but when the Government take his car away so that hundreds of other cars can flow freely he puts down a Motion of censure on the Government. We find that the next person on the list is the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). His car has been towed away, too. So here we get the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader strangling London's traffic, the Government take remedial measures and then getting censured because those measures have not been effective enough.
The public preaching of the two right hon. Gentleman is "The greatest good for the greatest number," but the private thinking in a motor car is, "I'm all right Jack." There is no doubt at all that Dr. Johnson was right when he said that we cannot pry into the hearts of men but that their actions are open to observation.
I hope that after his good humoured and constructive speech the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East will repent and
782
will not divide the House. I really hope so. The record of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is bad and I think that this Government's record is good. This is an immense task, and I would like to conclude with these words. I find it the most stimulating problem that I have ever encountered. I shall want all the help I can get from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the public. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not divide the House because I think that we have put up a reasonable case. Therefore, it is with confidence that I commend to the House the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend.
5.4 p.m.
Mr. Frank Tomney: The two speeches to which we have just listened, the one by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the other by the Minister of Transport, have both, in their style and presentation, been serious contributions to the solving of the difficulties which face the nation in regard to the growing complexities of the traffic problem.
I think that in his speech the Minister realised quite seriously the enormous job he has to do in coping with one of Britain's major social problems. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East was enjoyed by the whole House, and I hope that the ideas which he put forward will be seriously looked at in an effort to find a solution to this problem which aggravates pedestrians, motorists, public transport drivers, the police and everyone who has occasion to use the roads.
This is a threefold problem. It is a planning problem, an architectural problem and, above all, an economic problem. We cannot divorce the effects of a rapid increase in the output of the motor car industry from the problems which that has brought by way of congested roads in Great Britain. Nevertheless, in our economic struggle we cannot deny to the motor car industry the freedom to export to the limit of its capacity. Its output has brought this problem home to our own doorstep.
The rising standards of living of our people and their demand for new consumer goods are things which none of us would like to deny or should deny to

783
them. It is up to everyone to lead as full a life as possible, and consumer goods and motor cars contribute to that end. Society would be wrong to take away from people that facility.
Before I answer some of the Minister's points and reply to some of his suggestions, I think the House would do well to have a look at the size of the problem with which we are faced. I propose to deal first with the road programme and with the net tax yield from all sources in regard to the motor car industry. I had the same problem as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East in making my researches. It is difficult to find in the Library independent, accurate figures, without supporting either one body or another, in order to give the House a true picture of the position. Therefore, I have taken my facts and figures from various sources and have tried to strike a mean average.
One figure which we cannot deny is the total yield from all sources of motor taxation, which comes to the staggering figure of £560 million. That is 10 per cent. of the national revenue of the country, and yet, in this day and age, the total amount of money that we are spending from all sources on the provision of new roads, road widening, straightening of bottlenecks, safety measures and so forth totals only about £133 million. This is in relation to an industry which, on an investment basis, is growing by no less than £70 million a year, is employing 2 million people and is exporting £300 million worth of its products every year as against an import bill of only £10 million.
It is interesting to look at the number of private cars produced in Great Britain in 1958. No fewer than 1,050,000 were produced, and, in addition, 15,000 buses and 300,000 commercial vehicles were produced. We exported 487,000 cars and 112,000 commercial vehicles. This gives some idea of the problem. We have to maintain our export market by virtue of the health of the industry and to provide at home the means of transportation on our road system to which the public is entitled. Even the Ministry's forecasts on this problem have been knocked sideways on several occasions.
It is interesting to note, for instance, that in 1914 the London General Omni-
784
bus Company scheduled for its vehicles a road speed limit of 8½ miles on hour. In 1959 we are in London down to an average of 8¼ miles an hour. Even the Ministry's figures for 1954 forecast a 75 per cent. increase over 20 years and yet by 1958 the vehicles had increased by 50 per cent. and it is forecast that by 1967 there may be 16 million vehicles on the roads.
Can anyone imagine what that will mean? At the present time there is one vehicle for every 42 yards of road. Unless the country is to come to a standstill, action on the lines outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East and by the Minister will have to be taken. It may mean radical thinking by local authorities, by vested interests, by people who own property, by planning experts, about what has to be done and the manner in which it has to be done—with all due respect for individual rights and liberties—in order to iron out the problem so that traffic can be kept flowing.
We are exporting no less than 40 per cent. of our vehicles, but if we are to maintain our position in the face of growing competition, especially in view of the Common Market, we shall have to take action to maintain our mean average figures. As the Minister said, we are up against stiff foreign competition for overseas markets particularly from Germany, operating, in the main, a more modern industry than ours and enjoying a better transport system. For instance, I understand that in Germany there are 1,500 miles of true motorways available—that is, those approached either by fly-overs or by special underpasses—and 1,000 miles are planned in the next ten years, whereas throughout the whole of Great Britain there are, as far as I can gather, only 160 miles of true motorways at present. This gives some idea of the problem which must be tackled and which emerges even more as one studies the statistics involved.
One thing which is holding up local authorities more than anything else in regard to planning is the provision of money by the Ministry through an annual Vote and an annual budget. If the local authorities, working on the basis of an annual budget coming from Westminster, are only able to make plans in the current year for which the money

785
will be available, it is easy to see their difficulties in planning for five or more years ahead. So something should be done through the Treasury, in agreement with the local authorities, to provide advances for road construction for at least a five-year programme, with planning permission in advance, so that local authorities can co-ordinate with the transport planners and present an advance programme of planning which will produce order in the present disordered system. At the present time, registered vehicles are coming on to the roads at the rate of no fewer than 900,000 a year with a total registration figure of 8½ million.
Now I wish to devote a little time to the problem of property acquisition for road widening. The Minister rightly said that he had no idea until he entered the Department of the amount of vested interests concerned in the construction of roads, road widening and clearance for road purposes and the difficulties encountered by people entering on this work. It is true that ratepayers with a low rateable value take a different view. They say it is not their responsibility to provide motorists with motor ways through their town at their expense. It is true that Class 1 roads attract from the Ministry of Transport a 75 per cent. grant, but, even so, most authorities are finding the provision of 25 per cent. a heavy burden on their rate. The question arises whether the Treasury, in view of the large yield from motor taxation of £564 million, can any longer deny the local authorities their measure of justice by refusing to take over this burden completely. It would mean, in effect, that the five-year plan of which I have spoken could be agreed at the source by the Treasury providing all the money.
I will take a typical town as an example of the present position. I live in Watford, which is an old-fashioned market town and has a main roadway running though it only 17 feet wide, the pavements of which are about 6 feet wide. Multiple shops have taken possession of the old property and have rebuilt on the existing building line because of the high value, and the problem of the local corporation is that it cannot buy out these people because it cannot afford to pay compensation. The town was built after the advent of the
786
railway, which cut it in two, so it is L-shaped with only one way in and out. The multiple shops I have mentioned have rebuilt in the areas of expanding new towns such as Hemel Hempstead, Boreham Wood and Oxhey, drawing £x million from public funds and public highways which are too narrow for the job and yet refusing to build farther back from the building line, and the borough council cannot afford the millions of pounds which would be necessary to buy them out.
Somehow these problems must be dealt with by the Minister. Talks should start with the legal advisers of the Treasury, the property companies, the conveyancing solicitors and all those connected with property which abuts in urban areas and prevents the fast and easy flow of traffic, because until we examine these problems there will be no end to the complications which will pile up. Let us face it. In the rural areas between the towns the traffic flows, though not as fast as it should, but when we get to the towns there are bottlenecks and the traffic is strangled.
I can travel from my home in Watford to Park Lane in 35 minutes, but it takes me longer to get from Park Lane to the House of Commons. This gives some idea of the extent of the problem. When I was a boy we used to spend our Sunday mornings on the street corners of our town in Lancashire backing car numbers. For instance, we would back No. 5 of the digit figure. We could get under-over for a penny even odds, and we could get 7–1 on any given number. In those days cars used to come along every ten or twenty minutes, but nowadays one can stand on any motorway and can get cross-eyed trying to count them; they go by so fast.
This gives an idea of the problem. We have got ourselves into this difficulty because, although it could not have been foreseen twenty years ago, as my hon. Friend said, it could have been foreseen ten years ago. Year by year there has been a rising tax yield. It was Lloyd George who first raided the Road Fund and successive Chancellors, including the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), Chamberlain, Snowden, Chamberlain again, and Cripps in 1947. have all come to the Fund for money for different purposes not connected with public roads and all with different

787
excuses. At one time the right hon. Member for Woodford advanced as a reason why he was asking for the money that it was to protect the railways from road competition. The late Stafford Cripps said, when he put forward a proposal to increase the tax by 9d., that he had to check the demand on foreign exchange. But they all had the same object in view—they wanted the money for something else. Let the House face that, and use the funds now available for the purpose for which they are provided. The motorist pays a lot in general taxation, especially if he buys a new car, the price of which includes Purchase Tax, and he does not get a fair deal from the money flowing into the Treasury.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will agree that this money should be used for the purposes for which it is collected and will tackle the problem with the local authorities. I know all the difficulties about canvassing, about property being sacred and about invested capital, but something must be done in agreement with the local authorities to control the position by acquiring property, paying reasonable compensation if necessary, in order to provide access to towns for traffic which wants to get there.
The other subjects which the right hon. Gentleman raised are worthy of the consideration which he asked the House to give them. As a London Member I am mostly concerned with London. Combing all the sources of statistics I could find, I discovered that no fewer than about 1,020,000 commuters travel into and out of London every day by public transport. It is estimated that another 70,000 travel daily by private car.
That state of affairs has a twofold effect on our system. Our roads are choked, making very great difficulties for the public transport system which is thus unable to use the streets to the full. Easy access and agress are denied, so that public transport is unable to provide the public with the sort of service which it ought to have. If the Minister is prepared to continue and expand his Pink Zone plan, at least during peak hours, and set up a special corps of
788
traffic marshals, or highway patrols, or whatever they are to be called, will he also arrange for police on motor cycles to be available to ensure that convoys of buses can get through the traffic easily?
I did not take too kindly to the proposal for staggering hours which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East put forward. In this country we have become accustomed to fixed hours of work. With the spread of urbanisation to districts outside London where more and more people are buying houses, the staggering of hours would present many difficulties. Let us take my own case as an example.
Before I became a Member, I used to rise at the unholy hour of a quarter past five, leaving home at a quarter to six. I had to walk to the station to catch a connection to the local junction from which I caught a connection to London. In those circumstances, I would not take kindly to being wakened earlier than a quarter past five, nor to being held back at the other end from getting home as quickly as possible. There is a limit to what can be done with the staggering of hours and I do not think that the public will take kindly to suggestions of that sort. Whatever other remedy is found, I do not think that that is a starter in our present industrial system.
I want now to refer to the general programme for road improvement and road building. I live near the Watford section of the M.1 and I saw that road being constructed. I was amazed by the amount of machinery involved. I am told that at one time there was no less than £5 million worth of specialised machinery on the job. I came to the conclusion that I had seen the ultimate in automation and mechanisation applicable to road construction, but what I saw in the building of the M.1 had to be seen to be believed. Thousands of feet of roadway were built mechanically, trains on rails laying concrete, and so on. Time and motion study was applied to the work of truck drivers bringing sand and ballast. Such a technique could be used on roads between towns, but the major problem arises in the towns themselves because of drains, sewers, electricity and gas mains.
A programme to co-ordinate the servicing of such mains should be

789
worked out so that we do not have a road taken up and laid down one week and then taken up the next week. Time and again that sort of thing gives rise to comment in the newspapers and astonishes the general public. Surely we are able to co-ordinate these matters much more closely. That co-ordination can be brought about. The Minister has asked for special powers, for a super traffic commissioner. I do not believe that such a man is available. If he were he would be worth his weight in gold, but goodness knows where we shall find such a man. If such a man can be found, then, despite all the difficulties— and there are many—he must be vested with the control of executive powers.
The Minister spoke of on-the-spot fines for motoring offences instead of taking offending motorists through the complicated network of the police courts, a process which sometimes takes six months and which seems to be the major item in the working time of policemen, judges, magistrates and so on. On-the-spot fines could be imposed on motorists for speeding and parking offences, although perhaps dangerous driving should always be a criminal offence and subject to the full rigours of the law. I suggest that after a man has been fined four times for such small offences he should be liable to lose his licence. If he does not learn after being caught three times, he is beyond being taught.
We will not get a proper system of transport unless we fully consider one of the nation's most valuable assets—its railway system. I know that the railways have been starved of capital development for almost the whole life of the system. Originally, engines were expected to last, and did last, for fifty years. There were no plans for reinvestment or re-employment of capital on the sort of scale which we should have had. The system spread throughout the country from 1830, and the problems involved were not properly appreciated.
However, with the help of research officers, economists and industrialists, surely we can now find out what proportion of the nation's traffic should be carried by rail. For example, surely heavy bulk liquids, heavy steel joists and heavy minerals should go by rail. Such a decision is not beyond our capacity. I know the advantage to industry of being able to send goods straight
790
from the workshop to the port, but our road system was not designed for that traffic. The industries concerned, the Ministers concerned, the shipping companies and the British Transport Commission must find ways of encouraging transport by rail for those goods which ought to be carried by rail. Until that comes about, we shall never have a completely integrated transport system which the country ought to demand and which we as legislators should see it gets.
We have had arguments about the denationalisation of road transport, but we have now seen what follows from denationalisation. It is time that hon. Members opposite did some rethinking about what they have done to the transport system and to industrialists by permitting road transport to attract traffic away from the railways. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot raise taxation, through Purchase Tax and licence duties, and then deny private motorists the amenities to which they are rightly entitled, at the same time offering industries facilities for which motorists pay. The Minister must do something to put back on to the railways the large volume of goods that should rightly and justifiably be carried by them.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: In rising to speak for the first time in this House I ask the House to extend to me the customary indulgence which forms such a courteous part of its many gracious traditions.
I am grateful for the opportunity of taking part in this debate for two reasons. First, it is a subject that has exercised my mind since I left the United States of America in 1952. For about three years before leaving America I was able to witness at first hand the resolute manner in which the Americans tackled the irksome problem of urban traffic congestion. During this summer I was able to spend two months there and I saw some of the results of their endeavours.
My second reason—and, in a way, this is more important to me—is that the constituency which I have the honour to represent, Holborn and St. Pancras, South, faces this problem in its most

791
acute form. I think that most hon. Members are familiar with my constituency, especially those who come from the North. The main-line termini of St. Pancras, Euston, and Kings Cross are the gateways to the very heart of London. I cannot claim, certainly on this occasion, that he who is tired of Holborn and St. Pancras, South is tired of life, but I do claim that within the boundaries of my constituency one will find as rich a microcosm of London life and human endeavour as one will find anywhere else.
It has its railwaymen, its university men and women, its doctors and nurses at some of our most famous hospitals, its lawyers at the Inns of Court, its traders and retailers both large and small, its publishers, its office workers, its famous restaurateurs and hoteliers, not to mention the diverse racial groups which live there. It is a shocking indictment of this automobile age that this cosmopolitan area should find the very fabric of its life rent and in danger of being torn asunder by the traffic which clogs its streets.
For a short period of its history, I am glad to say, the St. Pancras part of my constituency was known as the "Red Flag borough". The Minister of Transport will appreciate, therefore, that some of my constituents are somewhat sensitive to their being included in what is now called a "Pink Zone". It is a harsh privilege, but, harsh though that privilege be, it has helped to speed the flow of traffic in that part of London to the extent that most of my constituents are grateful to my right hon. Friend. For a man who spends a lot of his time using a bicycle as a method of transport it is remarkable how sensitive my right hon. Friend is to the interests of motorists.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Pink Zone is not a long-term solution. Indeed, those who work in the Pink Zone and are waiting for a solution can be pardoned for believing that it is hardly a solution at all. Off-street parking is virtually non-existent. My constituents come to me and say, "Where can we put our vehicles? We cannot put them outside our homes, or our places of work". Those of my constituents who live cheek by jowl with the Pink Zone have found that they are little
792
better off so far as parking is concerned because people who have been in the habit of parking in the Pink Zone have crowded into the areas just outside.
I am sure that no one would wish to destroy what vestige remains of my constituency's residential character. From a social and economic point of view that would be untenable. Every great city demands that at least part of its heart should be residential. Where else can people live whose livelihood is tied up with the essential functions of Central London with its valuable hospital services, the General Post Office sorting offices, its hospitals, its railways, its newspapers, and, indeed, some of its entertainment? How else is the great University of London to find accommodation for its thousands of students if the residential property is slowly chipped away? It seems to me that we have a social responsibility to maintain the character of this vitally important part of London.
With that background in mind I should like to touch on two aspects of urban traffic congestion which, I believe, offer some hope to those who must live in the centre of this great city. First, there was the very welcome speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government at Kew, on 17th November, when he said that he was determined to bring to an end the concentration of all new office employment in London. It is well known that as fast as the residential population of London has decreased over the past few years the daytime working population has increased at the staggering rate of about 15,000 a year, so great has been the increase in office building.
The vast army of commuters has contributed as much as anything to the traffic congestion which at present afflicts the centre of London. I remember the time when I was almost as new a member of the London County Council as I am of this House. Along with others I suggested that one way of mitigating the effects of office building was to set aside the top few floors of such office buildings and use them for residential purposes, or, better still, building a few flats instead.
On that occasion my friends and I had the book thrown at us, the book in question being the County of London Development Plan. We were told that

793
what we had suggested was a muddled form of mixed development. We had committed heresy. We were told that what we had suggested ran counter not only to the principles of the County of London Development Plan, but the County of London Plan of 1943, its illustrious and distinguished sire.
When the County of London Development Plan received approval, in 1955, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), reduced the London County Council's plans for increasing the area allocated to office building, and insisted that certain portions should remain residential. Without wishing to be over-controversial, or to take advantage of the courtesy already afforded to me by the House, may I express the hope that in their strictures on the Government hon. Gentlemen opposite will bear in mind the past attitude of the London County Council and the past performance of my right hon. Friend.
To be quite fair, the London County Council, along with other institutions, is capable of benefiting from its experience and in the summer of 1957, two years later, it changed its attitude and reduced the bulk of buildings for office purposes and introduced the concept of mixed uses in the Central London zone.
To people who lived in Central London, particularly in my constituency, it seemed that that decision came rather late in the day. The damage had already been clone. Too many office blocks had been put up and too many commuters had come in with their own transport to clog the area. However, I believe that if this new policy is prosecuted as vigorously as the old one there is still some hope of achieving an effective salvage operation.
I now come to the second aspect of the problem of urban congestion. The crux of the matter obviously lies in the fact that there are far more vehicles than there are parking spaces. My right hon. Friend has invited us to say whether we think that the introduction of parking meters would serve a useful purpose. I am convinced that they would fulfil a very useful purpose indeed, and I am glad to see that plans for them are in an advanced stage of development in my constituency.
794
In what way can they help? It is a mistake to believe that they can ever solve the problem of too many cars for too few spaces, except in the negative way of deterring people from bringing their cars into the area. The function that I should like to see them fulfil— and this is what I believe is their real function—is to provide tailor-made parking, precisely suited to the needs of the area they serve; that is to say, they should take into account the busy-ness of the thoroughfare in question, on the one hand, and the specific demands of the motorist, on the other.
Perhaps I may be allowed to illustrate my point with one example from outside my constituency. I refer to the area surrounding Harley Street, and I choose it because it is well known to all hon. Members. Many people who go there do so to see their doctor or dentist for half an hour or one hour. If parking meters were introduced into that street or its environs, to obtain the maximum turnover those meters would have to have a time limit of between 40 minutes and one hour.
To be given the opportunity of parking for two hours would surely be too much of a temptation to those people whose real purpose in going into the Harley Street area is not to see their doctor or dentist, but merely to park their cars with the object of going into the nearby shopping areas and the big stores in Wigmore Street and Oxford Street. Whether meters should be put in that street, on either or both sides, is another point, which I cannot go into now.
If parking meters offer one way of coping with the problem, many of us are still convinced that if the overall parking problem is to be solved we must provide for the legitimate needs of the long-term parker, whose future lies off the street, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. The Report of the Advisory Committee on London Roads—the Nugent Committee—has estimated that about 50,000 vehicles are parked daily in the streets of London, and that about 30,000 of that number are long-term parkers. The L.C.C. members on that Committee have estimated that if those cars are to be got off the streets and into garages it could involve a capital investment of £45 million.

795
Who is to pay this princely sum? The majority of the Nugent Committee thought that off-street parking facilities could be provided by local authorities out of the rates and the revenue from parking meters, combined with help from private enterprise, but the L.C.C. members of the Committee thought differently. They were of the opinion that the Government should provide financial support, at least in the initial stages. They argued that we could not prevent indiscriminate free parking on the highways until at least some garages had been built, and that during the initial period, while an area was being completely covered with a network of multi-storey garages prior to the full enforcement of parking restrictions, those garages which had first been built might be only half used, as I believe is the case with some of the private garages which already exist in London. The L.C.C. members felt that, in consequence, if they were only half full they could not hope to be self-supporting; hence their feeling that there should be a further measure of assistance from the Government.
I ask myself what is to be done, because someone must break this spell of inaction. I was interested to have called to my attention the other day the manner in which this problem has been tackled in Baltimore. I note that the city authorities there have given financial assistance for the construction of multi-storey garages in an attempt to get the cars off the streets. They have done it by advancing 85 per cent. of the cost on a long-term loan at a low interest rate of 3½ per cent. for twenty years, the money coming from the city authority's staff pension fund. This sounds a most interesting and intriguing idea. As for the fee paid by the motorists using one of these garages, I feel that a balance must be struck between making it so cheap that it only encourages more motorists to come into London and so expensive that the motorists will refuse to co-operate.
It is with those thoughts that I conclude my remarks. I will deny myself the pleasure of a peroration, because I have no wish to detain the House any further. It only remains for me to thank hon. Members for having listened to me with patience.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Popplewell: In my fifteen years' experience in the House this is the first time I have had the pleasure of extending the usual courtesies to a maiden speaker. This pleasure, so long deferred, is a real one, and I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). His broadcasting experience has given him a confidence which is not usually found among Members when they first address this assembly. His very confident manner, the weight and eloquence of his speech, his knowledge of the subject, and the energy with which he spoke, cause me to believe that the House will look forward to his making many more contributions to our debates in the future. He has acquitted himself well, and he can take comfort in that fact.
Having uttered those pleasantries, I regret that I cannot extend the same pleasantries to the new Minister of Transport. We listened to an interesting and well-delivered speech that was weighty in parts—a speech that we would expect from the present Minister. With one or two exceptions, however, it was a very disappointing effort. What picture did he put before us of the powers that this new and dynamic Minister would take to do something effective to solve the transport problem? He talked about a design for living with transport, but in spite of this he never touched upon the real transport problems which face the nation. He merely attempted to outline the need for some architectural thinking in road development, and then went on to talk about the terrible toll of accidents, to which I shall refer later.
For many years the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office have shown a shameful neglect of the situation underlying the growing toll of accidents. He suggested that there might be a case for the establishment of some kind of commissioner, with certain overall responsibilities, and I think that the idea of traffic engineers is a good one. But the Minister did not give us any indication of his line of thought about how the real problem would be tackled. We all know that on nearly every road the traffic suffers from severe anginal pains and that acute thrombosis is developing. In the cities and urban areas conditions are such that traffic movement stops

797
entirely for a period from time to time; and we have all experienced the inconvenience that that causes.
I thought it regrettable that the Minister did not say how he proposes to deal with this matter. Probably he finds himself in a difficult position, because this state of affairs is an example of the free-for-all Tory policy. We see the pouring out of motor vehicles, but the roads are not yet there to accommodate them, and our cities are completely unprepared for their advent. I am sorry that the Minister did not tell us that there would be any change in this policy. That is the reason why we have moved our Motion, in which we draw attention to the growing volume of traffic, and the Government have moved an Amendment drawing attention to the growing volume of traffic for which some provision must be made. But the provisions which the Minister has indicated he will make are mere palliatives.
Year by year we see this traffic problem increasing and in recent years it has been accentuated to a remarkable degree. Successive Ministers of Transport in Conservative Governments, and hon. Members opposite, have talked and talked about this problem, but they have done little to solve it. Our efforts at road development have been pitiably small. It is no use the Minister trying to ride off this problem, as he and his predecessors have done, by asking what was done by a Labour Government between 1945 and 1951. We might as well ask what Gladstone did in 1870. The circumstances are entirely different.
We heard a lot of "ballyhoo" about the Prime Minister opening the Preston by-pass. We have heard a lot of talk from the former Minister of Transport who is now the Minister of Defence. We are used to hearing that from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will do a better job at the Ministry of Defence than he did at the Ministry of Transport, because as Minister of Transport I think that he was the biggest liability which that Department has had. We certainly hope that the present Minister will have a better record, and I say that freely and frankly, making no apology for doing so.
We heard a lot of "ballyhoo" from the previous Minister about the London-Yorkshire motorway which it was said
798
would be the last word in motorways. But what happened? It was truncated, and ended, ultimately, as the London— Birmingham motorway. Had the civil engineers been given the opportunity they could have gone ahead and done a really useful job in quick time. It was the inertia of the Government which prevented that road from becoming the London—Yorkshire motorway and caused it to be stopped at Birmingham. Not sufficient preparation was made in the planning of the further stage.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Has the hon. Gentleman studied the story of the London-Yorkshire motorway which I gave during an Adjournment debate about three weeks ago? Does he realise that our problem regarding the second part of that motorway was not caused by inertia on the part of the Government, but the difficulty of obtaining a line through, on the one hand, good agricultural land, and, on the other, a natural beauty spot, from the local authorities and from the great number of vested interests, which, as was said by my right hon. Friend, were concerned in the matter?
Mr. Popplewell: I have studied that carefully. Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the length of time which elapsed before this matter was solved? Ultimately, it had to be solved and now the line is agreed. Why could not that have been done years ago? There have been three bites at the cherry because the Minister was shilly-shallying and could not make up his mind.
Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It was not because the Minister was shilly-shallying. If there was any shilly-shallying, it occurred in Leicestershire, where people could not make up their minds what line they wanted. Eventually, we managed to get a compromise line suggested by the county council.
Mr. Popplewell: The compromise line suggested by the county council was offered many months earlier. The Parliamentary Secretary should look up the history again, when he will find where there has been shilly-shallying.
If London wants to tackle its road problem, what happens? There is a lapse of at least five years from the initial

799
discussions until any tangible development is observed. Take the case of my own city, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. At present, we are having discussions with the Minister. About two years ago we put up a scheme for a roundabout in City Road and Pilgrim Street. What happened? We got a compulsory purchase order. In 1958, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) a compulsory purchase order was made. An inquiry was held last June and we are still awaiting a reply from the Minister. "Dame Rumour" informs me that the right hon. Gentleman may have told a deputation from Newcastle something about the matter this morning. If that be so, I hope that he will tell me something about it on Monday next.
Here we have delay and procrastination. Some years ago, when the right hon. Member for Bedford, Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was the Minister of Transport, he came to my constituency to look at Scotswood Bridge, a terrible contraption across which only one line of traffic can proceed. Nothing weighing over eight tons can cross over it, and the result is that traffic must travel for miles to avoid the bridge when getting from the south bank to the north bank of the Tyne. The three local authorities concerned have been pressing for something to be done. They asked the Minister to meet a deputation as long ago as last August and we are still awaiting a reply. One could go on giving chapter and verse to indicate the inertia of the Government and their failure to get on with the job.
The Government talk about expenditure on major roads. From 1954 to 1958 the expenditure on major roads and new improvements by the Government, amounted to approximately £12,300,000 a year. In the period 1958–59 they suddenly woke up and said that expenditure would be £40 million a year. Because the General Election was then somewhere in the offing they stepped up that figure and said that for 1959–60 and onwards not less than £60 million a year would be spent. I think that my figures are correct.
Why has that not been done previously? The problem has been known. There has been this "throm-
800
bosis" I have been talking about, which has been developing month after month, yet nothing done. We welcome the approach of the Minister if he really intends to make a start on this problem, but he did not indicate that to the degree I should have liked. It is the old, old Tory story—do not do anything until you are forced, and then do too little and far too late.
Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham): That is why we won the election?
Mr. Popplewell: It was not the Tories who won the election.
Mr. Burden: Who was it?
Mr. Popplewell: Do not start that one. I know that you have got the cheek to do anything and the cheek to drape election campaign tables with the Union Jack.
Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member to accuse you of cheek?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I do not think that the hon. Member was referring to me.
Mr. Popplewell: Why is this £60 million programme so modest? It is not nearly of the magnitude required to meet the real needs of the nation. The growth of our motor traffic is terrific. Since 1952, the number of vehicles on the road has increased from about 4½ million to about 8 million. We encourage our motor industry to increase production and it is doing a wonderful job. It is pouring out more and more cars, but we want our people to be able to enjoy using those cars. We want to see as many families as possible owning cars. We want to be sure that they can get enjoyment out of owning them and not have to park in the backyard. When they go to the coast they do not want to have to go round in circles to find somewhere to park. When they come into towns they do not want to go round and round to find parking places.
The Government are showing little or no initiative in encouraging local authorities in this matter. Pink zones are not the complete answer unless there are garages within them. The present Pink Zone in London takes up a large part

801
of common land for parking those cars, which, of necessity, must be for only a temporary period. I suggest that the Government might approach the oil companies. They might approach motor manufacturing companies and ask what contribution they can make to assist in the problem. It is difficult to make a garage an economic unit unless the charges are very high.
In addition to the tremendous growth of private cars on the roads, there is a tremendous growth of heavy goods traffic on the roads. There has been a complete change over in the pattern of freight haulage. In 1922, 18 million tons of goods freight traffic was carried on the roads and 23 million tons was carried by rail. Today, the figures are completely reversed. About 23 million tons of freight traffic is carried on the roads and only 18,400,000 tons is carried on the railways. What a ridiculous situation we are in. Everyone acknowledges that the nation must have a railway system, but the free-for-all policy of the Government has encouraged the stifling of the railway system. That has been accentuated by their policy of denationalisation of road haulage, which has assisted in strangling the railway system.
Mr. Burden: May I ask the hon. Member to give serious consideration to that point? If he does so, I think that he will realise that if the Government insisted that merchandise should be carried by rail there would have to be on-loading first, off-loading at the end of the journey, and on-loading to another distribution agent. That would increase the cost of imports and the effect on exports would be absolutely disastrous.
Mr. Popplewell: The evidence when there was a fully integrated system was remarkable. I shall not be led off on that tangent, but probably we may cross swords on it in a future debate.
I want to pinpoint a part of the argument more narrowly. A vehicle of 2½ tons unladen weight can carry about 5 tons and a vehicle with an unladen weight of 5 tons can carry about 12 tons, 15 tons or 20 tons and we find a tremendous growth of this type of traffic on arterial roads. That is bringing about such congestion on Class A roads that it is almost impossible to pass convoys of heavy traffic.
802
The Minister says that we must make a contribution with a view to clearing this bottleneck. A contribution could be made if heavy goods were carried on the railway system, which, at present, is losing £89 million. We are told that our road system is costing the nation £500 million. If there cannot be any adjustment on a voluntary basis, surely that indicates the need for co-ordination by other means.
What is taking place in the off-street parking areas under the Pink Zone scheme? Victoria Square is a little square which is paved in the centre. When I went into it the other day I found a double line of cars parked so that residents in the square could not get to their front doors by taxi or private car. There is chaos and congestion galore The Minister must "get cracking" quickly on this problem of off-street parking.
The Minister rightly mentioned the accident rate. In 1952, there were 150,000 road accidents and in 1958 there were 299,000. In fact, the number has doubled in five years. The total number of casualties since the end of the war is about 3 million. This is terrible. It is a greater death rate and incidence of accidents than occurred even during the war. Up to now, the Ministry has been complacent about it. We hope that the new Minister will show some drive and energy. At one time the Ministry used to organise Safety Weeks and similar programmes, but, quite frankly, these were soft-pedalled by the last Minister of Transport. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. That is true.
We wish the new Minister well. We know that he has energy and drive and that he will use them to reduce this terrible accident rate. In my opinion, the only way to do it is by following some of the advice which I have given in my speech. It is not just a question of dealing with parking, or preparing parking schemes here and there. It is a question of regulating the traffic on the roads.
We wish the Minister well in his suggestion that there should be more traffic engineers. I wish that our universities had shown more energy in this respect, for only Durham and Birmingham have provided two Chairs

803
for Traffic Engineering. America pays a lot of attention to this aspect of the problem. I hope that the Minister will give direction and guidance about it because, through their study of traffic flow and traffic needs, these traffic engineers can play a big part in planning the lay-out of a city and devising the network of road systems which is so necessary.
These are some of the problems, and we challenge the Government because we believe that they have failed to solve them. That is the reason for the wording of our Motion. We think that the terms of the Government's Amendment beg the question. If they spoke their true thoughts, many right hon. and hon. Members opposite would agree with me.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Molson: This debate has been inaugurated by two speeches from the Front Benches which have been refreshing in their imagination and constructive approach. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on the whole manner and substance of his speech. It augurs well for the future if we are to have the help and the co-opertaion of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends in introducing some of the ideas which he put forward and which I think will commend themselves to all who have made a study of transport.
He began by complaining about the inadequacy of the research resources available to hon. Members. His own speech clearly demonstrated that he stood in no need of further help in his research. It is remarkable that, in the short time he has been responsible for dealing with this matter, he has mastered the subject so well. The helpful suggestions which he made, however, come from his own thought.
His research into history was not quite so profound. Let me remind him of the true story about Canute. Canute was not a vainglorious and conceited man. Rather, he was a modest and pious Christian. When some courtiers, wishing to flatter him, said that even the winds and waves obeyed him, he sat by the sea and bade them not to wet his feet—and then demonstrated to his courtiers that he, too, was only human.
804
The hon. Member perhaps fell into a similar error in the censures which he passed upon previous Ministers of Transport. I served at the Ministry for three and a quarter years and under three Ministers. Indeed, I served there longer than any member of this party since 1951. We were conscious of the problems which were arising, but until quite recently Ministers of Transport were not supported by public opinion and by the House in taking the measures which were needed. It is only now, when London is on the verge of being stopped by chaos, that in this debate I have heard for the first time hon. Members on both sides of the House expressing their willingness to support the Minister if he takes drastic action.
Let me begin by saying a few words about long-term policy. I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend said about a study group. If he has not already done so, I ask him to read a most remarkable article in the Architects Journal of October. This makes it plain that this is not merely a traffic matter but a matter of the planning and construction of our cities in the future. My right hon. Friend will have to secure the co-operation not only of the Minister of Housing and Local Government but also of all the local authorities in the country. Until recently there was far too little co-operation. Indeed, I may claim that it was at my suggestion that the present Minister of Defence appointed a study group consisting of representatives partly of the Ministry of Transport and partly of the London County Council. I imagined that I should preside over it, but it fell to the lot of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) to do so. The Report which this group produced, although I do not agree with all its recommendations, is a contribution of the utmost value to the study of urban traffic problems.
I am sure that the improvement of London and other urban roads should take priority, if there is a need to establish priorities, over the building of motorways and the improvement of speedways between the cities, because it is no good travelling much faster from Birmingham to London if, when we arrive in London, we find that the congestion is even worse than it was before the new motorway was built.
Mr. Victor Yates: Or in Birmingham.
Mr. Molson: Indeed, in Birmingham too.
I am glad that both the Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East referred to the importance of staggering working hours. There will be a little difficulty in securing the co-operation of everybody in bringing about this staggering. We have done our best, and I should like to pay tribute to one gentleman outside the House, a member of the Labour Party, Alderman FitzGerald. He presided over a committee, gave a great deal of time and used his powers of persuasion and tact in order to bring about an extension of the staggering of the hours of work. That contributes not only to a reduction in traffic congestion and tends to bring about a reduction in traffic costs but also adds greatly to the comfort of travellers and reduces the fatigue in those who are starting or ending a long day's work. We must do all we can, I am sure, to bring about the staggering of hours, but I notice that there was a substantial difference of opinion between the ideas of the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) as to how this should be done.
I come to what my right hon. Friend called the short-term remedy and to what we did when I was at the Ministry.
If I talk about "us", I do not mean to be egotistical, because the work done while I was in the Department was done by my right hon. Friends, but I was the link of continuity during the period of office of three different Ministers of Transport. If to some extent I appear to be justifying what was done by us, it is not primarily in order to justify what we did, but rather to point out the difficulties which prevented us from being as successful as we had hoped we should be. It may be that my right hon. Friend will be able to gain some experience from that.
There is no doubt, and everybody who has spoken today has agreed, that the main cause of the problem of the thrombosis in London traffic is the motor commuters who flow in as a tide in the morning, leave their cars encumbering
806
the streets during the day, and flow out as a tide again in the evening. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that the day of the long-term parker is over. We wanted to bring it to an end a long time ago.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: Why did not the hon. Gentleman do so?
Mr. Molson: I will give the reason and tell the hon. Gentleman what we tried to do about it, and why we failed.
A very distinguished representative of the motoring community, a man whose name is a household word, once said to me that he had been watching this procession of motor cars arriving in the mornings, with perhaps four or five out of six cars containing only a single person. He said, "Much as I stand for the rights of motorists, that is a thing which I cannot seek to justify." Of course, they clutter up the streets all day with their parked cars. It is a great misfortune for us that when the internal combustion engine is left alone, unlike the horse, it does not become bored and meander off down the street, or take fright and suddenly run away. If internal combustion engines were like that, we should not have this problem. They did not have it in Victorian times, because those who had to go about in a cart had to provide somebody to hold the horse while it was waiting.
Will it be said, perhaps by some of my hon. Friends on this side that the expansionist economy which we put forward at the last election precludes us from imposing restrictions upon the parking of cars in order to discourage the commuter from using his own car to come into London? I want to give just a few figures—some have already been given—because I think that they show that no other course of action is either realistic or possible.
At present, only 7 per cent.—my right hon. Friend said 6 per cent.—of the commuters coming into London use cars. There are a million commuters who use public transport. There are 70,000 commuters who use private cars. It is intolerable that the whole of the traffic of London should be held up by 70,000 people who prefer to use their own cars and who are not prepared to put their cars into garages. Let us make no mistake. It is not the case that all the garages are full at the present time.

807
We have to consider the likelihood of an increase in incomes. Only one in eight of the population at present owns a car. Supposing that this is doubled, as we hope it will in the years to come. Cars will also become cheaper, and, unfortunately, they are also likely to become larger. There is no end to the demands that may be created for parking in the centre of London if facilities are provided—and we must always remember that it takes about 15 times as much road space for a commuter to come into London in his own car as if he comes by public transport. A colossal cost would be involved.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), in his most interesting maiden speech, reminded us, it would cost £45 million to provide the off-the-street parking accommodation for even the 30,000 long parkers of today. When we consider the future, that figure of £45 million may be doubled, trebled, quadrupled or multiplied even more. It would involve the demolition of London. Let us make no mistake, the people of London and the amenity societies are not prepared to tolerate the demolition of the whole of London merely to suit the convenience of commuters. The same thing applies to other towns, resorts and any places to which people go.
The effect of this upon public transport must also be borne in mind. Public transport must be maintained. Even the motorists expect public transport to be maintained in order to be able to move about London after they have come in. In a large number of cities in the United States of America the public transport system is virtually bankrupt. We must remember that these cars, blocking up the streets and slowing down public transport, are adding immensely to the cost of public transport. It was calculated by the London Transport Executive that if it were possible to speed up the central London buses by an average of one mile an hour it would reduce the cost by £2 million a year.
Confronted with this problem at the Ministry of Transport, we had to consider what should be done. A colleague of ours, the head of another Department, said to me, "Sooner or later we shall have to forbid private cars in the centre
808
of London. If the Opposition win the next General Election. it will happen soon. If we win the next General Election, it will take longer to come." That was the Election of 1955. We turned down that idea, not so much on grounds of principle, as for purely practical reasons. We have people living in the centre of London, and we cannot prevent such persons having cars, if they live in the middle of a place where cars are prohibited. They may have a business address there, and from that we might also get to bogus addresses, but we also have the problem of the doctors, nurses and the disabled. We have all the problems of commerce, business and so on.
Therefore, we had to resort to the idea of trying to distinguish between what we regarded as legitimate and illegitimate parking. Short-term parking is the perfectly legitimate use of the Queen's highway in which, if one wishes to call on a person in a place, one leaves one's car for twenty minutes, half an hour or an hour and then goes on. Illegitimate parking, is involved by driving up in the morning and leaving the car on the road all day. We resorted, as a reasonable but not 100 per cent. efficient method—very few things in this world are 100 per cent. efficient—to the idea of the parking meter. By that means the short-term parker would be able to pay for short-term parking, and all the profits from the parking meters were to go towards the provision of off-the-street parking accommodation for long-term parking. But that all depends upon the success of enforcement, not only the enforcement of the rules about the parking meters, but also the enforcement of the "no parking" regulations in all the adjoining streets.
We came up against two practical difficulties, and we tried to deal with both of them in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. The first was that, at that time, towing away was restricted to vehicles that were creating a danger. We extended that to cars that were either creating obstruction or were breaking some statutory rule. When these words were drafted I was given clearly to understand that it would be possible for the police to employ contractors to remove the cars and for a charge to be made for the cost of removal. Only after it was on the Statute Book was it found that, for technical reasons which I need

809
not state, the police themselves must remove the cars.
If a success is to be made of towing away cars, it is vitally important that one should overcome the watershed. As long as so few cars are being towed away that it is worth the while of any individual to take a chance, no progress will be made. If a car is towed away only two or three times a year, a motorist will go on illegally parking it and the police will never be able to tow away a large proportion of the 30,000 long-term parked cars which there are at present. When someone has lunched in Soho three times in a fortnight and his car has been towed away two out of the three times, he will not try it again and we shall get over the watershed. We must aim at increasing the rate of towing away.
The second, and perhaps more important, reason was that at that time, if a car was parked in a no-parking area, the constable had to wait until the person in charge of the car appeared. Most people, seeing a constable waiting by their car which they had left in a no-parking area, found that it was very convenient to leave the car for an extra hour or two, or even more. We provided in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, that it should be sufficient for a constable to take the number of a car, and then he could set the legal procedure in motion.
It has been found since that what we thought at the time would be effective is not effective. The legal procedure is still so long and complicated that it is not working satisfactorily. The House must take a bold step forward and introduce the ticket system. There is nothing new or revolutionary about it. It has long been the law as regards Road Fund licences. It can be done in the case of a motorist who has not taken out his licence at the beginning of the year. If the Sharpe Committee recommended against it in paragraph 64, it did so only on the ground that
"the system of pleading guilty without appearing before the court"—
which it recommended and which has been introduced, should be
"given a thorough trial before any more extensive changes are considered".
The time has come for more extensive measures not only to be considered, but to be put into operation as soon as possible.
810
It is of the utmost importance that the Government should reiterate what was said by the present Minister of Defence on 7th May last, that they are not prepared to subsidise the provision of off the street parking accommodation. My right hon. Friend on that occasion said:
"After the most careful thought, I am satisfied that no case has been made for a Government subsidy for off-street parking. … it would lead us in the long run to some very odd consequences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 591.]
So it would. If it applied to London, it would have to apply to all the great cities. If it applied to the great cities, it should apply also to the smaller cities and certainly to market towns where the rural population come in perhaps once a week and require accommodation. Why should inhabitants of towns provide parking accommodation for people coming in from outside? It would be necessary at seaside resorts, and so on. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) supported the same conclusion on that occasion. The motoring organisations at the last election asked us to agree in principle that public funds should be used for that purpose. It would be useful, to get us all on to practical methods of dealing with this, if the Parliamentary Secretary were able to say that the Government have not changed the views expressed in May of this year.
Mr. Marples: The policy is exactly the same. If one wants to store a grand piano in the centre of London, one pays a certain economic price for it. If one wishes to store a motor car there, one should pay exactly the same economic price.
Mr. Molson: I agree entirely. That is almost the exact phrase used by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall in the previous debate.
If I have emphasised that a great deal of the failure to deal with this problem is due to the inability of the police to enforce the regulations, I do not want that to be taken as any criticism of the police. It is their courtesy and consideration which make them reluctant to enforce the regulations. The police feel that they would be put into a false position if, having told a motorist that parking at a certain spot was not allowed and having been asked by the motorist where

811
he could park, they were required to say, "There is no place where you can park. You just must not bring your car into London." That is the position which the Minister should take up, and I hope the House will support him when he takes up that view. It would, however, be most unfair to constables if they were expected to adopt that attitude in dealing with the public. Much of their success is due to the fact that the vast majority of them enjoy not only the confidence and respect, but I might almost say the affection of the general public, including the motoring public, because of the help they give.
By the introduction of the Pink Zone my right hon. Friend has, by his public appeal, his skilled public relations and the fact that it is temporary, managed to achieve for at any rate a limited period a measure of co-operation from the motoring public, support from the police and encouragement from the Press and public opinion never experienced before when we have asked that this should be enforced twelve months of the year and everywhere where these Regulation apply. The Minister is right in recognising that further steps must be taken and that the good will may prove evanescent, as it has so often in the past, and in that case enforcement will be necessary.
To deal with urban congestion, we must continue with our efforts to secure the staggering of hours. We must introduce traffic wardens to help the police. It is most unfair for newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Herald, when there are burglaries and crimes of violence, to gibe at the police for having been engaged elsewhere in dealing with "trivial motoring offences". Offences by motorists are not trivial. A motor car is a lethal weapon, as the casualties on the road remind us in a tragic way. We must have traffic wardens. We must have fines leviable by the ticket system without court proceedings. We must have an extension of the towing away system. We ought also, I think, to have an increase in meter charges. With such measures, and with the support of public opinion and of the House, my right hon. Friend should be able to succeed.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Frank McLeavy: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for The High Peak Division (Mr. Molson). For A number of years we were very closely associated in transport debates, and although we disagreed upon most points, we certainly agreed that each of us was approaching the problem with sincerity and purpose.
I welcome this debate, as it gives Parliament a chance to re-examine its approach to this nation-wide problem. Nothing short of a warlike effort will bring about a worth-while solution. I regret that so far today there has been too much talk about restriction. It is stupid to think in such terms except as a very temporary measure—and I mean very temporary. We should think rather in terms of enormous expansion of both road and rail facilities, blending the two together in the best interests of the industrial and social life of the nation.
What is the size of the problem? The estimated number of vehicles on our roads is 8½ million, and at the present rate of increase that figure may well go up to 10 million in 1962, representing one vehicle for every 35 yards of public carriageway. The cost of the traffic congestion in loss of time per man hour and the wasteful consumption of petrol and oil is estimated at about £500 million a year, and that is reflected in costs of production and in the prices that the housewife has to pay for food and household commodities.
Far more important is the human side. The Ministry's figures show that the number killed on our roads in October was 655–67 higher than in the same month of last year. The total number of casualties was 31,218, an increase of 4,497. When these figures were announced by the Minister, he said, "I view with horror the fact that we can slaughter over 6,000 of our citizens each year." He has repeated that statement in much the same word today. We all share that view. We have been expressing it in this House for many years. What is wanted, however, is not an expression of horror, but a way of getting rid of this slaughter altogether, and unless we have a scheme to deal with

813
the whole thing carried out with determination, we will not solve this very difficult industrial and human problem.
What is the cause of the present congestion? If I were asked to pinpoint it. I would say that it results from the ever-growing volume of traffic, lack of suitable roads, and the decline in the use of the railways. The remedy lies in two main factors; first, how far we can speed up the road construction programme; and, secondly, how much freight and passenger traffic we can bring back to the railways. It is by directing our attention to those two important factors that a worth-while solution will be found.
Above all, we must be prepared to spend vast sums of money over the next five years to ensure that both our road and rail systems can play their part. Their development is vital to our economy, but the two cannot be treated in isolation, as has been the unfortunate policy of Conservative Governments for the past eight years. Conservative Governments have insisted upon dealing with the road and rail systems as if they were separate, instead of treating it as one vast problem involving safety and mobility. I therefore tell the Minister of Transport that there must he a change of ideas on that side of the House. There must be an acceptance of the fact that unless we treat both road and rail as one unit, and deal with our road and traffic problems through those two channels, we shall not find a real solution.
I regret that almost throughout the debate we have been playing with restriction and the position in London while the vital question of national transport and the proper use of available resources has been entirely forgotten. This debate will only be worth while if we leave trivialities and get down to the main reasons of the trouble. I beg the Minister not to worry too much about trivialities here and there. What is wanted is a recasting of our national policy.
I shall not attempt—I never have done—to deny the Government credit for having started with the motorways. Whatever criticism I have made of the Government whenever I have spoken in the House on transport has been of a constructive character, rather than trying to find a political reason for opposing
814
them. The Government have made a small start in the construction of motorways, but the whole yearly expenditure is totally inadequate to meet the urgent needs of the times. What is necessary is for the Minister of Transport to tell his Cabinet colleagues, "We shall not solve this vast problem unless millions and millions of pounds are made available, almost at once, to get on to the job."
In the past, the Ministry of Transport has been very sympathetic towards road development schemes, but it has been frustrated by the financial restrictions of the Treasury. I hope that the Minister, after this debate, will go to his Cabinet colleagues and tell them that this problem must be tackled with a war-time effort. They must put everything into it that they know, forgetting their political prejudices about the nationalisation of the railways and getting down to brass tacks with industry about it.
There should be a real five-year plan for modernisation and new construction. The Minister ought to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer a reasonable and practical proposition. If the Chancellor says that only £x million can be allowed this year, next year, or for the next five years, the Minister of Transport should arrange with the Chancellor for a system of loans so that money can be borrowed on long-term repayments, so that a really first-class job can be done quickly.
Everyone knows about the scandalous way in which taxation on road vehicles and petrol is being fleeced from industry and used for the relief of taxation in other ways. It is high time that the Government decided to restore the Road Fund. Taxation on motor vehicles and the petrol they used should bear some relationship to road expenditure.
We need new machinery and arrangements to accelerate road construction and planning and for training more road engineers. The procedure for the acquisition of land has led to great delays and difficulties in the past. I understand from my travels abroad that some countries have a method for taking over the land first and getting on with the job, settling questions of payment or compensation afterwards. Although I have no particular sympathy for Ihe landowner, I understand that, as a matter of fact,

815
the landowner is in no worse position financially when the settlement is made in that way than he would be if the settlement were made before the road construction.
In the past, when we have decided that there should be a main road, a by-pass, or a motorway, there have been months and months of negotiations about the purchase price, compensation for displacement, and the like. The Minister should take powers to purchase land and use it immediately for construction work, with safeguards in legislation to protect the proper interests of the land owners.
The powers of local authorities to hold up the planning of a motorway should be limited. The delay which has taken place in planning the extension of the motorway to Yorkshire is an example of what objecting local authorities can do. I have spent many years dealing with local authority matters, but I cannot at all see why a local authority should be able to hold up a scheme for the benefit of the nation as a whole, very often simply on pure technicalities, or because there is jealousy between one local authority and another. While I would defend to the last ditch the proper freedom of local authorities in performing their duties, I believe that the time has come when we as a Parliament should say that those powers ought not now to be vested in the local authorities themselves.
I come now to a question which has not been discussed today but which, nevertheless, is of vital importance. How can we increase rail traffic? At a time when there is an ever-increasing demand for transport, it is absurd that the railways should be so hampered by heavy debt that they are compelled to reduce their services. I am sure that the Minister of Transport, with his past experience at the Post Office, would be shocked if the new Postmaster-General announced to the House that he proposed to give up some of the rural collections and deliveries, or to reduce the telephone services in the countryside because they did not pay. The whole foundation of the magnificent service which the Post Office gives lies in the provision of an efficient and cheap national postal service, the benefit going very greatly to those who live in the outlying parts of the country. That is quite right and proper.
816
The same could be said of our nationalised electricity system. Private enterprise would not take electricity out to the countryside, because it would not pay. Let us acknowledge these things without being too political about it. Under our national electricity systems, farms are being supplied with electricity and the cost is spread over the common pool. 1 say frankly that this is stupid in these days when traffic problems are so difficult.
I have heard different Ministers of Transport on the benches opposite defending the closing of district railway lines or stations. The argument has been, "They are not profitable; we have got to close them." As a consequence, the agricultural areas were denied those services. They were also denied the services of buses, because the bus undertakings could not afford the loss in running them in those areas. We have got to the maddening stage of not assessing our values correctly. When we insist on the railways closing these stations throughout the country, simply because they do not pay, we have forced people to use motor cars, thereby causing greater congestion on the roads. Surely it is time that Parliament took a different view on this matter.
We are spending vast sums of money on road construction and repair—very rightly so—yet we expect the railways to be the only transport undertaking to provide their own road and traffic signalling system. A preposterous situation has developed. How can we, in common fairness, maintain this policy of bias in favour of road transport? Why not accept the cost of the maintenance of tracks and signalling on the railways as a defence expenditure and relieve the railways of the heavy debt which they are carrying?
I believe that industrial firms are not seriously concerned whether their goods go by rail or by road, provided that the cost and the services are satisfactory to them. I am sure that there is a big future for an extension of the road-rail service system. I remember when I and other hon. Members visited one of the greatest industrial firms in the country, a combine which has a subsidiary company which provides its transport. We found that a most sensible arrangement, convenient and profitable to the firm,

817
had been arrived at between the firm and the railways.
The company had established regional depots in all parts of the country which were stocked with goods sent there by rail. The company had its own small fleet of vehicles at each regional depot for the purpose of distributing the stores to the customers in the region. This saved miles of transport on the road and probably hours of congestion and it was economic to the firm to have an arrangement with the railways whereby this road and rail system was applied.
Some hon. Members may say, "That is all right for the great firms in the country, but what about the smaller firms?" I suggest to the Minister—and he has asked for suggestions—that he should call a conference of industrial firms or associations, together with railway representatives, to discuss how far the system of road and rail transport could be extended? The railway company may say, "As we shall benefit by some of the traffic on rail, we will, either wholly or partly, provide the regional depots that are necessary for the convenience of the smaller firms."
It may well be that the railway companies have buildings idle at present which could be used for this purpose. If, at the request of the Minister, we could get industry and the railway companies to consider this, I believe that we could get an extension of the road and rail services which would help to solve the road problem by distributing the traffic in a more sensible way.
I think that we are making heavy weather about the traffic difficulties in the City of London. It seems obvious to me that there should be on the outskirts of the city, either at the tube stations or adjacent to them, adequate parking facilities for people who normally come into London by car. They should be invited by the Minister to help prevent the congestion on the London roads and streets by using the parking facilities available on the outskirts and going into the City by tube. I do not like the idea of compulsion, but if the problem cannot be solved in that way then the Minister and Parliament will have to consider whether some compulsion should be applied.
If we are to consider this vital matter of road congestion seriously, it is
818
essential that we should examine the whole plan of transport, nation wide, and provide a plan which will make use of all the facilities available today. Do not let us allow any pettifogging political considerations to prevent us from taking the action which is necessary.
7.9 p.m.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: During the past few weeks, I have listened on numerous occasions to new Members who, on rising to address the House for the first time, have craved the indulgence of the House. Although the House has always shown them every kindness and tolerance, I have sat on these benches with that unpleasant feeling of a myriad of butterflies in my stomach, partly in sympathy with the maiden speaker himself, but mainly because I have been conscious all the time that sooner or later I had a similar ordeal awaiting me. That moment has now arrived, and I rise confident in the ability of the House to show me that indulgence and kindness, which I, too, must now crave, even if not so confident of my own ability to prove worthy of this House.
I have the honour to represent the St. Albans division of Hertfordshire, a constituency which boasts not only the fine old city of St. Albans, with its ancient cathedral, but some 55 square miles of that pleasant countryside for which the County of Hertfordshire is well known. No doubt, to many hon. Members the name of St. Albans conjures up memories of heavy traffic jams and of sitting at the traffic lights, or somewhere near them, on the A.5 when they have been on their way from London to the Midlands or the North.
That, however, is now a thing of the past, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, who took the decision to build the M.1 and, having taken the decision, saw that it was built in a remarkably short time. As a result, St. Albans is a changed place. Not only can one now cross the London Road without endangering one's life, but it is possible to walk along the pavement and hear the conversation of one's companion and even to breathe freely, whereas in the past we were overwhelmed by the noise and noxious fumes of the heavy transports thundering their weary way through the City. I am grateful indeed,

819
even if some hon. Members are not, and I am glad to have this opportunity to express the gratitude of the people of St. Albans to my right hon. Friend for having taken that decision and their appreciation of the efforts that were put into that magnificent project, both in its design and in its construction, by all concerned.
My experience of traffic problems is not limited to my constituency. For six years, I served on the Westminster City Council, on which I made traffic one of my major interests. Today, indeed, I represent the Cities of London and Westminster, a constituency of which you, Mr. Speaker, may know something, on the London County Council. That is, of course, the town planning and road improvements authority for the London area.
There I find myself in the position in which the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) finds himself in this Chamber today. I can stand up, point to the party opposite and say that it has failed entirely to react to the changes which have been apparent all around. I can point to those on the benches opposite and say that it is they who permitted all the new buildings to be put up in the centre and who have moved the residents out of London, thus increasing the total volume of people rushing in and out of London all the time. I must not, however, be diverted into becoming controversial here today.
I have also driven at least a quarter of a million miles, mostly in the London area, during the last twenty-three years when I have held a driving licence. Therefore, I can claim not only to have studied the problem but to have lived with it. Over the years, I have seen the position deteriorate to the stage when my right hon. Friend has had to produce what, on the face of it, appears to be an extra-ordinary project for a Tory Minister—a "Pink" zone in London. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed and energy with which he put the plan into being so that we could prevent the traffic of London from grinding to a halt during the Christmas period.
There are many factors which contribute to congestion on our roads. I
820
should be abusing the good nature of the House if I were to attempt to deal with all of them tonight. I will content myself by dealing with what seems to be the first consideration, particularly in large urban areas like London. I refer to the question of effective control of parking on the streets.
The first thing we need is a new sense of urgency from the viewpoint of administration. We must find ways of reducing the time taken for these measures to get through the usual channels. The experimental parking meter scheme in the north-west corner of Mayfair, for example, took 12 months to be translated from the agenda paper of the Westminster City Council into a Ministerial order. Although that might have been considered reasonable for a new and somewhat revolutionary idea, we still find that although the extended scheme for the whole of Mayfair left Westminster City Council ten months ago, it has only recently been announced as being accepted by the Minister, and we still do not have an order for it. This means that no expense can be incurred and, therefore, the meters cannot be ordered until the order comes through. I do not blame my right hon. Friend the Minister. I merely say that it is the general way in which our usual channels operate that results in these delays. Similarly, it has taken six months to get planning permission for the first multi-storey car park in Westminster.
With all these delays, as each month goes by things get worse and worse and the stranglehold on the Metropolis tightens. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will find some way of cutting this red tape so that he can eliminate the kind of delays we have had in the past, even if it means his coming to the House of Commons to ask for amendment of the Road Traffic Act, 1956.
One of the things which I am pleased my right hon. Friend mentioned today was the confusion for the motorist about where he may and may not park. It is absurd to have some streets marked to show that parking is allowed on either side for a limited period; others where motorists may park on one side only for a limited period; some with a temporary notice prohibiting parking; others with a yellow band so that drivers must not even wait; and yet others in which no parking at all is allowed.

821
An innocent-looking street is often a big trap for the motorist. Seeing no "No Parking" signs, the motorist thinks he may park, but how wrong he may be. He has chosen, perhaps, the one place where he is likely to be caught by the police for obstruction. We must sort out the law of parking and of obstruction to obtain a cut-and-tried scheme so that the motorist knows exactly where he may park.
That having been done, our next step is clear. I am sorry if I appear to be echoing much of what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon. It may be that he has had access to information from authorities on which I have served which has caused him to reach the same conclusion as myself, or which, possibly, has led me to come to the same conclusion as he. We cannot emphasise too much the importance of enforcement. It must be made clear from the outset that any new regulations will be enforced ruthlessly. My right hon. Friend was quite right to refer to the selfish motorist. The selfish motorist must not be allowed to cheat and thereby make the ordinary law-abiding motorist suffer as a result.
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about traffic wardens. I am glad that so many people have suggested that these wardens should be able to issue tickets for parking offences. If a parking-meter attendant, who is, after all, a traffic warden under a different name, can give a ticket to a motorist charging him 10s. for exceeding the time he has purchased, I see no reason why the same sort of warden, even if called by some other name, should not be able to give a ticket to a motorist who either has parked where he should not or who has parked for too long at a parking point. There is no doubt about the saving in public expenditure that would accrue from the economy of time in the administration of our courts and from the saving of the valuable time of an already overworked and understaffed police force.
I see no reason why, if the regulations are clearly defined, a system of ticket issuing should not be imposed and, indeed, accepted by the public at large. I agree that heavier fines may be necessary. I do not think that in these days of depreciated currency one guinea or two guineas is enough to act as a
822
deterrent against the parker who nine times out of ten gets away with it. One thing which will have to be considered is the question of graduated fines for the persistent offender.
Once this well defined system of street parking is effectively in force, we come to what is, in my view, the most difficult question of all, namely, accommodation for long-term parking. I say that it is most difficult because we are up against the problem of finding the sites in the first instance, but the real demand will not and cannot be assessed until parking restrictions are enforced fully on the streets. I realise that large numbers of cars in the central area will be displaced if there is a proper parking meter scheme and other methods of parking on the street. Various estimates have been given, but it seems that at least half of the cars parked in the area will be displaced. That will involve 20,000 to 30,000 motor cars.
Will all the people driving those cars be prepared to pay the economic cost of garaging their car for the day? We know the cost of providing multi-storey car parks and underground car parks will be such that the charge will have to be between 8s. and 12s. per car per day. It is difficult to say how many motorists will be prepared to pay that sum of money. I thought that most of the people who parked for a long time in London had come from long distances and therefore would be prepared to pay because they would thus save high rail or bus fares, but this is not so if certain figures published in the parking survey's final report are correct. A police analysis was made of parking offenders in the Mayfair area. Forty-eight per cent. of them came from within a radius of five miles of Charing Cross and 73 per cent. from within a radius of ten miles. The owners of these cars are not saving themselves heavy rail and bus fares. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will be prepared to pay 8s. or 12s. a day.
I hope we shall not act hastily in this matter and build all over the place large multi-storey car parks and underground car parks. I hope we shall tackle the matter by a very carefully planned programme of accommodation, strategically placed. My right hon. Friend spoke about car parks around the periphery

823
of the central area of London. That is most essential. It is no use having people driving into the centre of London and then parking their cars. They should be able to park around the periphery.
It is not possible to build a ring-road because London is too built up, but we could at least designate existing streets for the purpose and make them one way streets so that through traffic can travel easily round the central area. Then people coming into London by the main routes would be able to go to the nearest car park on the edge of the central area and thus avoid cluttering up the roads. The logical development of this is to build an outer ring-road, a really good fast motorway with few interceptions, around the outskirts of London, such as there is in Rome, to enable the motorist to get round London quickly. I am perhaps wandering from my main point. I said that I would concentrate on parking, and I must do so.
I should like to summarise the four points which I have put to the Minister for his consideration. I think he has agreed with several of them already. First, drastically cut the red tape necessary to get these measures through in order to cut out unnecessary delays. Secondly, inaugurate as soon as possible a really well-defined comprehensive scheme for parking throughout the whole of the central London area. Thirdly, the rigid enforcement of the scheme, with traffic wardens, a ticket system and, if necessary, higher fines. Fourthly, the provision of carefully positioned multi-storey and underground car parks around the inner area. The motorist has watched the chaos in London grow year by year, and he has seen the police virtually abandon any serious attempt to control it, except where there are parking meters and in the Pink Zone. He has been tempted to say, "Everybody else parks his car where he likes. The police do not seem to do anything about it, so why should not I park where I like?"
My right hon. Friend has proved that he is a man of action who has an imaginative approach and is not afraid to risk short-term unpopularity in order to secure order out of chaos. I am convinced that if he shows that he is determined to succeed in this monumental
824
task, he will have not only the support of the vast majority of the motoring public but, I hope, of all sides of the House.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. Ray Gunter: I feel singularly ill-equipped to congratulate the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). The hon. Gentleman referred to butterflies at the opening of his speech. I have as many butterflies as he had. Although this is not my maiden speech, it is eight years since I left the House and I find the second immersion almost as bad as the first. The hon. Member sounded more confident than I feel at the moment. I also detected, I think, a note of delight in controversy in his speech which I am sure will stand him in very good stead in the House. I am happy to congratulate the hon. Member on his maiden speech.
I regard the debate as rather odd. We have had excellent speeches from both Front Benches, but I failed to detect a real determination to face up to the fundamental problem of transport. I should like to go back thirty-nine years and refer to Sir Eric Geddes, who was certainly not a member of the Labour Party. He realised, which, perhaps, no one else did at that time, the effect of the consequences that would flow from the development of road haulage and the internal combustion engine. He said that this country would have to face up to the problem of transport and decide that that portion of traffic which could most efficiently and economically go by road should go by road, and that that which could best be carried by rail should be carried by rail.
We shall not find a final solution of our transport problem until the nation recognises that transport must be seen as a whole. It is the great distributive industry of the country. The sectional and vested interests to which the Minister referred, who argue these days with such vehemence on behalf of themselves, are damaging and distorting the national transport facilities.
As I see it, the task before us is to solve the problem not because of any doctrine, but in the interests of the economy of the nation, to ensure that all the sections of the transport industry are used in the best possible way. We pay a heavy price in transport for the fact

825
that the Government and the managements of the 'twenties and 'thirties took few real steps to pattern the industry as a whole to the new circumstances arising from the end of rail monopoly.
I cannot see that a modernised, efficient, dieselised, electrified railway system can be any other than the real backbone of the whole transport industry. Whatever priority is given the roads, whatever measure we take to deal with parking problems and the rest, we shall be unable to cope in an orderly and efficient manner with the vast increase in the number of vehicles pouring out each year on to the roads unless we have a railway industry which is modernised and capable of bearing the main part of the burden.
Today, what really matters is the speed of modernisation of the railways, so that we can determine the development of rail transport and solve many of our major problems. Despite all the appalling difficulties with which it has been faced on the railway side—the hostile opposition, the attempt to keep services going whilst proceeding with vast engineering works—the British Transport Commission has done a magnificent job.
The pattern for a smaller but more efficient railway system is emerging at present. The more rapidly we can have the railway industry modernised and efficient the better for the nation and the solution of many of these old problems. The diesel services which will be taking over very soon large areas of regions, the progress in electrification, the planning of great terminal stations with modern equipment through which will flow fast freight trains, new and better signalling equipment, the building of modern marshalling yards, the efficient co-ordination of road collection and delivery, with modern railheads—all these are now emerging. This is the pattern of the railway industry of the future. I believe that I carry the Minister with me in thinking that the real solution of many of our problems is to bring back to the railways under modern and efficient conditions much of the traffic that is now pouring on to the roads.
Given a fair chance, I believe that modern railways can claw back from the roads much of the heavy loads that are now jamming our highways. When
826
I say that, I say it as one who has lost a great deal of faith in doctrine, having been engaged for the past few years, in the grass roots of the industry, in discussions on matters of transport policy. I do not believe that we can legislate the traffic back from the roads on to the railways, but I believe that if we had the chance—and I shall speak later of the chance—we could compete in this modern world and relieve ourselves of the problems that beset us on the roads.
We believe that electrified and dieselised railways can play their fundamental part in the country's economy in the future. It can be done, but over it all there is the shadow that haunts the British Transport Commission, and certainly the railway unions. We want all these things to solve our problems and serve the country's economy, but no one yet will make up his mind about the nature of the direction that is to be given to the Transport Commission and whether British Railways are to run on strict commercial principles, or whether they are to be a public service, or a little of each. Until we have the answer and the directive, it will be impossible to make the progress that is required.
Much has been said today about London transport. As a politician, I suppose that I should be very cautious about criticising the public, but the British public get into some curious moods sometimes. They want and demand a comprehensive and fast train service while, at the same time, they concentrate their demands for that service during the peak hours of the day or certain periods of the year—a service which is particularly expensive to provide. And then they exert every ounce of pressure whenever there is any talk of raising fares to meet the cost of these most expensive services.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House demand that rural areas should be well served and that the Commission should maintain services in all country areas, whether they are economic or not. If anyone wants to close a small branch line or a station, all the people who have never used the line or the station rise in their wrath. Members of Parliament sometimes imagine that we can keep branch lines open as historical monuments, but we cannot unless the money is forthcoming from somewhere.

827
The general public regard British Railways as a semi-public service. They want the service and I believe that they are entitled to it, but that does not relieve us of the financial problems of the Transport Commission. Industry reserves to itself the right to send the cream of its traffic by road and to use the railways as a standby It would object to any restriction on the amount of traffic it desired to send by road and, at the same time, it would object to paying a full contribution towards the capital cost of providing the standby service which is the railways.
I cannot imagine that the nation would desire that all unremunerative services should be ruthlessly obliterated, but if British Railways are to play the tremendous part in the future which they ought to play in the solution of our traffic problems, the Government are required to face the Commission's financial position. Despite all the dreams and the hopes that many of us have that rail transport shall emerge, modernised and equipped, to deal with the problems of the last half of the century, there is not an hon. Member who does not know that at present the strain on the morale of the railwaymen is terrible. They have not had a square deal; they have not shared in the fair times and the prosperity. During this tremendously important period of revolution in rail transport, this peak period of modernisation, the Commission is not able to meet the fully justified demands of those who serve it as employees.
The Commission is in an impossible position. Seeking to serve the nation in the manner I have described, it wants to recruit the best type of person for its staff and to get into the industry the best possible brains. But, owing to its financial position, the Commission is unable to offer the terms and conditions required. It is a tragic indictment of transport policy that notices have been put up in the Western Region during the last few weeks stating that, owing to the shortage of key workers in the industry, trains might be late and even might be cancelled.
I say to the Minister, therefore, that when he faces the overall problems of transport it would be as well if he paid attention to the financial structure of
828
the Transport Commission. We are moving in the economics of Bedlam. We are talking about congestion on the roads, yet we are told that we can place great faith in British Railways. We are pouring billions of £s into railway modernisation, and yet doing it in such a way that a great shadow is hanging over the industry.
I may be wrong and I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am, but I assess that when we have modernised British Railways, which may be in five or ten years, the industry will be inevitably smaller, although much more efficient, and it will be asked to service a capital sum of probably £3,000 million. That will be made up of old capital, money borrowed for modernisation, interest which is now going into the suspense account, and interest on the interest which has accumulated. It is time for the Government to face the realities of the situation of the railways. Much of the capital could be found in other ways, and if the railways are to function properly and to perform their tasks as they should, they ought to have some security.
It is not often in this country—perhaps unfortunately—that trade unions pay tribute to those with whom they negotiate, but the Transport Commission, with whom I spend much of my life negotiating, so far as lies within its power is the best employer in the country. The Commission has enabled us to work out some of the best redundancy agreements in the country. It has done many things for joint consultation. It is hard, indeed, upon men of honour like Sir Brian Robertson and other members of the Commission that they are unable to make improvements in the salaries, wages and conditions of their workpeople which they know to be justified.
1 hope that the Minister will appreciate that and that in the next few months, when we have received a very important report which may lead to some long night sessions with the Minister of Labour, the right hon. Gentleman will be a friend. The unions are willing to play their part with the Commission in helping the Minister solve transport problems. We hope that he will help the Commission to meet the justifiable demands of our people, for pride of craft still remains with many railwaymen. Although it has

829
diminished, it is still there. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us and this industry, of which many of us are so very proud, so that it can play its part in solving our major traffic problems.
7.43 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: While the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) is a worthy successor to Mr. George Isaacs who sat for that constituency for many years, I hope he will excuse me if I do not follow his argument about the integration of transport. It is a very interesting subject, but I think we should confine ourselves strictly to the Motion, which deals with traffic congestion.
After the Minister of Transport had spoken, I detected some doubts on the Opposition Front Bench about whether hon. Members opposite should vote for the Motion. In order to help them make up their minds, I would point out that the Government have made considerable progress in highway construction in the London area in the last few years. The Dartford-Purfleet tunnel is under construction, the Park Lane highway scheme is now being built, the Cromwell Road extension has been finished, as has the Chiswick flyover, and all the way round there is evidence of progress.
One must congratulate the Minister on the success of the Pink Zone. He has succeeded in making Piccadilly, Park Lane, Grosvenor Place, and so on, clearways for traffic. I add my congratulations to those already extended to him on that subject.
The difference between transport in the nineteenth and the twentieth century is that the former was a century of collective transport. If one wanted to go any distance, one could not travel unless at least 100 other people were ready to go at the same time—by train. We are now becoming accustomed to individual, personal transport, and it is that which is the root of all our problems. Everyone will soon own his own carriage and pair, as it were, and all the carriages and pairs will be crushed into eighteenth century streets built on the duck shoots of Mayfair and so on.
The House has been deluged with statistics tonight, and I do not intend to give any more. However, the other day I noticed that about ten years ago
830
the motor industry was making half a million vehicles a year. One firm alone, the British Motor Corporation, now intends to make one million vehicles in one year. There are many other firms which have great expansion plans that will result in a great increase in our traffic in the next few years.
We are naturally proud of our efforts in road construction over the last few years—our motorways and so on—but we ought for a moment to consider the efforts of the Victorians with spades and shovels and wheelbarrows. In the years 1840–50, they built 250 miles of railway every year, a great triumph. Of course, they realised that railway trains did not run continuously and had to stop, and so they built no fewer than eleven railway terminals in London. Going round the compass, they are Euston, St. Pancras, Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, Cannon Street, Holborn Viaduct, Charing Cross, Waterloo, Victoria and Paddington. We shall have to build motor terminals in our chief cities for our motor traffic.
I feel that I can speak with a little authority on this subject because it was as long ago as 1936 that I publicly advocated that the only way to solve our long-distance motor traffic problem was by building a network of motorways. That was not a very popular view in those days, but it happened that I was the secretary of a delegation of 224 Members of Parliament and county councillors who inspected the autobahnen in Germany and who were very impressed with them. Indeed, I have the feeling that Adolf Hitler and I practically invented motorways.
Looking back over the last twenty years, one sees a rather sad history of London traffic. I do not know that it is anybody's fault, although it may have been the fault of the Government of hon. Members opposite. The Bressey plan came out in 1938. That advocated the building of a number of through-ways for London at a cost of £200 million, which would now be about £600 million. I still have an original picture from Punch showing Mr. Burgin, the then Minister of Transport, climbing up to a pigeon cote at the top of a ladder in 1968 and looking into the pigeon holes for the Bressey plan. The Abercrombie plan was produced at the end of the war

831
and has mostly gone by the board, and we have now come to the watered-down ultimate plan of 1951. In that time, much water has gone under the bridge.
However, London County Council is now coming into its own again and spending about £3 million to £4 million a year on big schemes. The problem in London and in other great cities is that the centre of the city is a commercial centre—goods have to be taken to the shops in the morning and perhaps in the afternoon, buyers have to come and buy the goods and take them away in the afternoon, and that sets the pattern of traffic.
I had an example of that the other day. I motored up the Edgware Road at ten o'clock in the morning. The Minister might be interested to know that for the first five miles there was not a single parked car on either side of the road, but the road was reduced to one-lane traffic each way because vehicles were loading and unloading every 100 yards. People were turning right at every one of the traffic lights, and for about every quarter of a mile the road was being taken up by either the electricity or the gas authorities.
I also went up Bond Street at ten o'clock one morning. The road was again reduced to single-lane traffic because every ten yards a vehicle was loading or unloading at the side of the road. We must find space somewhere in London for vehicles delivering goods. Roads ought to be like rivers and widen as they approach their destination. The opposite happens at the moment.
We have been asked tonight to throw into the pool ideas for both long-term and short-term solutions.
We must direct our attention to setting up motor terminals and multi-storey garages round the centres of our big towns. They must not be too far away from the centre. The car park at Chelsea Barracks has space for 700 cars but at no time are more than thirty cars parked there. The terminals must be near the centre of the town. I suggest that places like Marble Arch, Euston, and Finsbury Park would be suitable.
I was told the other day that Hornsey Council in conjunction with Islington Council has a scheme for acquiring from
832
the British Transport Commission a half-used coal depôt at Finsbury Park and building a multi-storey garage there. That is an estimable idea. In addition, there could be terminals at Whitechapel and Vauxhall Bridge Road. I hear that a garage in the latter district would build a terminal if it could get permission from the London County Council to do so. It would be a great help to have a terminal in South Kensington or Knightsbridge, and one in the centre of Mayfair.
Despite what has been said, I think that we must provide grants from the central fund towards the buildings of these multi-storey garages. We should give a 50 per cent. grant as a shot in the arm to local authorities to start building these multi-storey garages. I do not believe that local authorities have sufficient resources of their own to undertake this task.
Mr. Chapman: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest. Can he give the House an idea of the number of cars that he will get into these terminals? He mentioned ten garages and assumed that they would make a difference. I feel that that would be a mere drop in the ocean.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not agree. I understand that in the coal yard at Finsbury Park it would be possible to park 300 cars. If there were several terminals taking 200 to 300 cars each it would make a lot of difference. The number of cars in The Mall and Horse-guards Parade is numbered in hundreds only, and that has made a great difference to the centre of London.
As a long-term solution, I suggest that every time a shopping area is reconstructed we ought to pay attention to the possibility of elevating the pavement to the first floor so as to allow room for vehicles to unload underneath. I was glad to see that in the scheme for Piccadilly Circus, which in some respects we have criticised, provision is made for a piazza at the first-floor level for shops.
We must squeeze more roads out of redevelopment sites. I am delighted to see that in the redevelopment of the Stag Brewery at Pimlico arrangements have been made to squeeze out a new road between Victoria and Buckingham Palace Road.

833
Lastly, as a long-term solution, we would be justified in starting the Victoria to Walthamstow tube. The traffic carried by that line would be equivalent to a fourteen-lane highway in London.
All those things would cost a lot of money, perhaps £200 million, but we must face that over the years.
Dealing with short-term proposals, I agree with the Minister about the marking of lanes on our highways. We must discipline traffic, but as soon as we begin to mark lanes in the main roads in London we run up against the amazing variation in the curve of the pavements alongside. In many places like the King's Road, Buckingham Palace Road and Knightsbridge, we find a pavement that is 20 feet wide bulging out into the carriageway. How many people are aware that on the north side of Knightsbridge there is a pavement 18 feet wide with only a few people using it?
Parking meters must be extended. I agree that we must be tougher in seeing that they are used by fining people more if they indulge in unauthorised parking. In America, one can be fined 30 dollars for illegal parking. If the magistrates imposed a heavy fine in London the areas that are now congested would soon be cleared. Whereas businessmen do not mind paying £1 or £2 which they can add to their expenses, they would not want to pay as much as £10.
London Transport should make another experiment to free traffic in the centre of London. These great big lumbering double-decker buses going along in convoys of three, two of which are empty, make their own congestion. I agree that there is a case for a shuttle service on the No. 11 route from Sloane Square to the City. I should like to see London Transport experiment again with single-decker buses with tip-up seats round the sides so that the whole of the bus could be available for standing passengers. These buses should be able to carry about 50 people. They could carry a conducter with a ticket office so that the people could pay for their tickets as they entered at the rear, as is done abroad, and leave the bus through a door at the front end. In that way it would permit buses to empty and fill up at a faster speed.
Lastly, there is the poor, unfortunate, highly undisciplined pedestrian. One
834
reason why he is undisciplined is because when he gets to traffic lights he cannot see whether they are red or green because of the mask over the lights. He does not know, therefore, when it is safe for him to cross. I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange tomorrow for a man with a step ladder to go round London with metal shears and punch out some holes in the side of the masks so that the unfortunate pedestrians can see whether the lights are for or against them when they want to cross the road.
We have had a number of long speeches tonight. I will not detain the House any longer, but we want our city, in particular, and all the cities of this country to be reconstructed so that they are worthy of an educated democracy. Much of London is, architecturally speaking, Victorian trash, and we should not be sorry to see some of it go and be redeveloped in a modern and beautiful fashion.
I commend the Government Amendment to the House, because in the Minister of Transport we have a man who will show the energy and foresight that our Victorian forefathers showed when they built the railways. I ask the House for support for him tonight, and I shall vote for the Amendment.
8.0 p.m
Mr. Stan Awbery: We have listened to many speeches this evening, nearly all of which dealt with the transport problem from a national point of view. They contained many constructive proposals, and the Minister should be able to get something worth while out of them. I propose to deal mainly with the problem from a parochial point of view. The Motion mentions congestion in the urban areas and I want to refer to that problem as it affects the City of Bristol.
There is no doubt that the road transport industry has far outgrown our roads. The other day I heard a woman complain to a boy that his coat had grown too small for him. She was making a mistake. The coat had not grown too small for the boy; the boy had grown too large for the coat. That is the position with the transport industry. It has grown too large for the roads. We knew that this growth was coming. It was prophesied a year ago

835
that the growth of the transport industry would continue.
Our trouble is that we have not made provision for that growth. We have never kept pace with developments in the industry in matters of speed, weight and numbers. We have been told that a further 250,000 vehicles come on to our roads each year. That is an unprecedented number, and it demands an unprecedented roads programme. We have enlarged the port of Bristol. We have widened and dredged the entrances to prepare for the increased size of vessels which will be using them. That is what we should have done with our roads. We should have anticipated future needs and drawn up a programme accordingly.
If we have the biggest road programme in our history we also have the biggest traffic problem, and our success in overcoming it will be measured by the amount of traffic our roads can carry. The Gracious Speech said that the Government would
"press forward with their policy of building new highways and improving existing roads."
Are we carrying out this promise as we should? The civil engineering industry can do twice as much work as it is now doing if the Government will give it the opportunity.
I am concerned mainly with local authorities. I understand that all local authorities are willing and anxious to help the Minister in his work and planning, but as local authorities like mine try to use the accelerator, and go a little faster, the Minister puts on the brake and prevents them from doing their work. My local authority is straining at the leash to get on with the job of providing roads. Desks in its offices are cluttered up with plans, but they cannot be carried out. I do not know what the Government are waiting for. They know the size of the problem that has to be tackled.
A century ago the Rebecca riots occurred in South Wales. The Government failed to deal with the problem of the toll gates on the roads, with the result that riots occurred throughout South Wales. Commissions were sent from the House to make inquiries, but it was only after serious rioting took place that something was done and the
836
toll gates were abolished. Are the Government waiting for local authorities to do something serious before they take action?
Local authorities can do this work only if the Government will provide the money and give their sanction. Local authorities cannot make bricks without clay, neither can they build roads without the permission of the Minister and his financial assistance. He has placed upon local authorities a great responsibility for our roads, but he is depriving them of the wherewithal to carry out that responsibility. We have heard today about the number of road accidents, fatal and otherwise, which have taken place on the roads. I am convinced that it is the condition of the roads as much as the carelessness of the drivers which is responsible for the accident rate.
The Minister may say that local authorities are pushing at an open door, but as I see it they are pushing at a concrete wall, which they cannot move at all. My local authority is concerned with one specially big project at the moment. I have written to the Minister about it, and it has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). It is known as the Bristol Inner Circuit Road. Thousands of pounds have been spent upon it, but because all the roads forming it have not been completed there is a bottleneck, which means that we cannot reap full advantage of the money spent. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the completion of that road. I hope that he will give the local authority permission to complete it so as to remove the bottleneck.
In a recent letter to me the right hon. Gentleman said that this was a responsibility of the local authority, but the authority can move only with his permission. I now ask him to give that permission, and also to provide the wherewithal to enable the local authority to carry out the work. If he will only tell the authority to go ahead, the job can start almost immediately. It is not a job for my local authority; it is a job for my local authority plus the Ministry of Transport. If the two can work together, the job can be done.
I ventured to take part in the debate only because this is a most pressing need. It is essential that we have this road.

837
because we feel that it is the height of folly to build part of it and leave the unmade part as a bottleneck. The Bristol City Council has written to the Minister about it. The Bristol Chamber of Commerce has also taken up the problem. Business people have written to me to say that they established their businesses near the site of the circuit road because they anticipated that the road would be completed this year. But it has not been completed, and they are losing thousands of pounds as a result of the delay.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this problem. I do not want him to tell me that the Government are spending a great deal of money in Bristol and the West Country. I know they are spending money, but they are not spending enough to meet the demands of that area. The roads through Bristol are the arteries to the South and to the West Country. Bristol is the gateway to the holiday resorts in the South-West and for the commercial traffic from the Midlands to the South and the South-West. Cargoes coming from Portishead and Avonmouth must pass through the Bristol bottleneck on the way to the Midlands.
The roads are narrow and there is congestion. There are numerous bends where vehicles cannot overtake each other. Queues of vehicles form, and, as a result, accidents occur because the drivers take risks. During the holiday season these roads are almost impassable. There is congestion everywhere. I am dealing with the matter from this parochial point of view, because I want the right hon. Gentleman to look at the problem as it exists in Bristol. I assume that there is a similar problem in other cities.
I know that the question of finance will worry the Minister. Where is the money to come from? In 1910—this has been referred to already—a fund was set up which was called the Road Fund. That is still in existence. The licences on motor vehicles are still called Road Fund licences. Money was paid into that fund to make provision for the maintenance of the roads. If there is no money in the fund there is nothing to prevent the Government from providing a Road Fund. In 1926, the Road Fund was raided by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took £5 million from it. But the Fund was established as a horse-
838
power tax on cars and the proceeds were assigned to the newly established roads. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who raided it?"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was the right hon. Member (or Woodford (Sir W. Churchill).
A Question was asked in the House by Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, in 1926, and that Question is as relevant today as it was then. He asked what was the balance of the Road Fund and why had the surplus
"not been expended on, or at least earmarked for, definite schemes of road improvement which, in many counties, are now held up for lack of money?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1926; Vol. 195, c. 30.]
The Chancellor said then that the money in the Road Fund was to be used for the roads. I ask the Minister to examine this problem especially from the point of view of the difficulties in Bristol, and to see what he can do not only for Bristol, but for the whole of the South-Western region.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Fergus Montgomery: In rising to make my first speech in this House I crave the indulgence of hon. Members and trust that I shall be shown the courtesy which the House always shows to those undergoing the agony of making a maiden speech.
It is ironical that I should seek to lose my "L plate" in a debate on traffic problems. There is a certain similarity between making one's maiden speech and taking one's driving test. The similarity, of course, is that they are both nerve-racking experiences. But at least in respect of a driving test one can have a second chance, and for some poor souls there are third, fourth and even more chances. I can remember all too well my first attempt to pass my driving test, when I failed, and quite deservedly so, and I am certain that the poor examiner who took me out on that occasion would have been perfectly justified in applying for danger money when we eventually got back to base. It was with a great feeling of relief that I managed to pass the test on my second attempt, but I can assure hon. Members that I shall have a greater feeling of relief when I have finished making this speech.
Before referring to the traffic problem I wish to take the opportunity to pay

839
a tribute to my predecessor who represented the constituency of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. Although I differ from him politically, I share with him a great pride in the City of Newcastle and, indeed, in the whole of north-east England. We in the North-East sometimes think that we live in a forgotten area, and therefore one finds that hon. Members who represent constituencies in the north-east part of England are continually pushing the claims of their region. I know that that is something which my predecessor always did, and I only hope that I shall carry on in that tradition as successfully as he did.
We have undoubtedly made a great deal of progress in the road-building programme since the war, but it is a sobering thought when one considers that the amount being spent on roads, which totals about £170 million a year, represents only about 1 per cent. of the national income. I think we are entitled to ask whether that is sufficient. After all, the roads are of tremendous value and importance to this country. If we are to have a satisfactory road system the extra money has to he found for the necessary work to be done.
I should like to join in the tributes which have been paid by hon. Members on this side of the House to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence who, when he was Minister of Transport, did a first-class job. I am very hopeful that my right hon. Friend the present Minister will use his considerable ability and imagination to solve this vital problem. However, it is not enough to build new motorways, welcome as they are, because the problem of congestion in the urban areas calls for urgent attention. Traffic congestion causes great annoyance to the general public. There can be few people in this country fortunate enough never to have had to endure a traffic jam. There is nothing more frustrating than to have to sit in a vehicle in a long line of traffic which is crawling along. Tempers get frayed and new excuses for unpunctuality have to be devised.
Before becoming a Member of Parliament I taught at a school in Newcastle and I had to travel across the Tyne every day to get to school. From the mouth of the Tyne one has to travel 10 miles up river before coming to a
840
bridge, and, therefore, it is no wonder that the bridges leading into Newcastle are always congested during the peak traffic hours. The Tyne is not an extremely wide river, yet I have known mornings when the bus in which I was travelling has taken over 15 minutes to cross the Tyne Bridge.
As I have said, I was a schoolteacher, and on such mornings I was invariably late for school so that I was not in much of a position to reprimand any child who came to school late. Had I been late because I had overslept, that would have been my fault, but to be late through no fault of my own was not only embarrassing but extremely annoying.
Next year we hope to start on the Tyne Tunnel which will be welcomed by the people of Tyneside. Not only will it help to ease the congestion on the bridges across the Tyne but, I believe. it will prove a tremendous asset to trade in the area. It has been reckoned that traffic congestion costs the country something like £200 million a year. Those figures show the damage done to trade from this cause. I therefore welcome any steps which will help trade and, as a consequence, employment in the northeastern part of the country.
It is not, however, only in terms of trade that I am concerned about the road situation. Also, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) said, there is the human side to the question. I read the other day that it was estimated that since the war 72,000 people had lost their lives in road accidents in this country. When we add to that number the accidents in which people have sustained injuries, we ought all to realise that we have a duty to do all we can to prevent these numbers from rising. New roads which are good roads would be a great help in reducing those casualties.
To return to the problem of congestion in urban areas, obviously much of this is caused by bad parking or lack of parking facilities. Here there is much that can be done. To begin with, I think motorists should be helped as much as possible. To come by car into a strange town and have to start looking for somewhere to park is no one's idea of pleasure. Therefore, I advocate that there should be a clearer definition of

841
streets where parking is allowed. In some parts of the Continent there is a very simple but effective method. In streets where parking is allowed there is a sign with a large P on it and where parking is not allowed there is a sign with a letter P and a stroke struck through it. In this way one knows where it is safe to park.
So often in this country the signs have so much writing on them that one has to stop to read them from beginning to end. In 99 per cent. of the cases, one discovers one cannot park at that time or on that particular day. Then one has to continue the pilgrimage to find a place to park, thereby adding even more to the problems of congestion. I suggest that where parking is permitted in the wider streets it would be a good idea if it were allowed only in the direction of travel. In that way we could do a great deal to avoid the dangers resulting from cars pulling out from the wrong side of the road.
I also suggest that on those same wide streets if for some reason—for example, shopkeepers' requests—parking is to be varied from side to side of a road, we should make the definition much clearer. Some signs say that parking is allowed on one side of the road on odd days of the month and on the other side on even days of the month. Many people are never sure what day it is. When they draw up in their cars they ask themselves, "Is it the 9th or 10th today?" and they are at a complete loss to know. If we must have alternate day parking on a street, could it not be done on a monthly basis, by allowing parking on one side in odd months of the year—January, March, May and so on—and on the other side on the even months—February, April, June and so on? People often have to think of the date, but I am sure they can always remember the month. These suggestions, I think, would help to ease the problem in some way.
I feel that much of the trouble and friction between the police and the general public has been caused by parking offences. So many people who are completely respectable and have had no trouble at all with the police suddenly find themselves charged with a parking offence. They become annoyed and they ask, "Why do the police pick on
842
me? Have they nothing better to do with their time than wander about the streets sticking labels on cars?" They feel aggrieved. I am certain that the police are just as unhappy about that state of affairs as are the motorists. If we had a simplification of parking signs it would be welcomed by all. The answer is to make perfectly clear to motorists where they can park and where they may not park. If that were done, I am convinced that friction between the police and motorists would be considerably reduced.
I apologise if I have talked for too long or if my suggestions have not been acceptable to hon. Members. I have talked about friction between the police and the general public. Because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate and because, in this speech at least, I do not want to cause friction in the House, I propose to take my own advice and to park very smartly.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Ron Ledger: There falls to me the very pleasant duty of congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) on the speech he has just made. I assure him with all sincerity —and I believe the House is with me—that he did not speak for a moment too long. We were really enjoying what he had to say and we could have gone on listening for a while longer. Because of the way in which he made his speech and the humour of which obviously he is capable, we shall all look forward to times in the future when he takes part in debate and when he has a chance of being controversial. On the showing he has made tonight, we can assure him that, although he may have failed his first driving test, he has passed this test with high honours.
Because the time is passing quickly and I know other hon. Members want to speak, I shall stick mainly to one point, a suggestion I want to make to the Minister. Because I am a driver and a car owner I want to give the House a short impression of this debate so far.
We are supposed to be debating congestion and ways of dealing with it, but I am coming to the conclusion—I was partly forced to it by the latter part of the Minister's opening speech—that the

843
motorist can look forward to a future of almost bitter persecution. Having been encouraged to purchase a car, and having been told that his car will represent a much higher standard of living, he will be persecuted for using it. I think that is quite wrong.
Another thing which worries me is that the Minister said he was not changing the policies of his predecessor. I wish, therefore, to quote a statement of his predecessor as recently as 7th May, 1959, in this House. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"It is worth considering that if we did not have a problem of acute traffic congestion in our cities we would probably be a great deal more worried than we are today, because traffic congestion is at least a sign of an expanding and lively economy. … Do not let us regard it, therefore in too tragic a manner. It is a by-product of an advanced technological way of life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 584.]
If the present Minister agrees with that, I suggest that we cannot take too seriously his statement that he regards this as a major problem. The fault of the previous Minister was that he could not see that, because of this traffic congestion, we were failing to master the technological advances of our age. The machine was becoming the master. It is futile for the Minister to paint a picture of himself carrying two buckets of paint, one pink and one white, wandering around the streets of London marking demarcation lines to try to solve the traffic problem.
When people begin to discuss the problem of congestion they think of the number of cars on the roads, or obtain the correct number from the statistics available, and calculate what the problem is. They suggest that it is possible in London, for instance, to find parking spaces for 30,000 cars to be left all day. One hon. Member pointed out that there was such a thing as a multiple garage which could hold 300 cars, but one can picture the scene at 5.45 p.m. when 300 drivers rush to the garage and all want to drive on to the street at the same time. This would simply create another problem for the Minister to tackle.
The worst fault of present-day thinking is that we do not bear in mind the increase which has taken place in traffic on the roads in the past and the possibilities for the future. The Minister
844
pointed out that by 1967 there would be twice as many vehicles on the roads as there are today. We therefore assume that the problem in London and other big cities will be at least twice as great as it is today. Indeed, I understand from experts that the problem of congestion grows twice as fast as the increase in the number of vehicles on the roads. We have to look forward ten or fifteen years to see the problem which we shall have to solve, but we must begin to solve it now.
It is futile to talk of providing parking spaces for these people who park all day. I was interested when the Minister said that there would be virtually a war on the person who parked his car for eight days in London. In order that we may all be aware of the problem which this involves for the car driver, I suggest that the Minister should close for a fortnight the car parks which are available to Members of Parliament. We should then appreciate the difficulty which faces the 30,000 people who try to find a place to park in London. Let Ministers, with their normal parking places closed to them, try to find a space to park. They will then appreciate the problem.
We should not treat these motorists as criminals—and that appears to be the tendency today. I do not think that they are selfish. When a man has bought a car it seems to me quite unreasonable that he should be expected to pay tares in order to travel around the country by public transport. That is also the view of most motorists.
Hon. Members will gather from what I have said that all these suggestions for painting white lines on the road, for having channels of traffic and for having parking meters and pink zones will, in my view, not deal with the problem of today and certainly will not deal with the problem of tomorrow.
A number of suggestions have been made which we hope will help the Minister to deal with the problem speedily. He will have some difficulty because he has to sift all the information which has been given him today. He has to build better roads in order that industrial traffic can travel faster and he has to improve the railways to ensure that industrial traffic travels by rail and not by road. He has to try to sort out all these

845
things. In trying to deal with the problem, however, he must look a number of years ahead. He cannot help us with present problems, and the immediate plans which he suggests appear to me to be totally inadequate.
Three things must be done. We must go ahead with the present proposals as fast as possible. We cannot stop now because the matter is urgent. Secondly, I welcome the Minister's idea of a long-term study group, because in the past we have lacked a source of information from people who have studied the problem, not as it is today but as it will affect us in ten or fifteen years' time. I think that would be an extremely good idea, and I think that many of us would take considerable interest in its activities.
There is, however, a third thing that has to be done in connection with public transport. Many hon. Members have said that public transport has to be developed, and I do not think there is much argument about that. We have heard from some hon. Members about how America and Germany have been building roads, but what those hon. Members forgot to tell us was that, having built those roads, they still had the problem of congestion. They have not got over that problem in those countries. What we have to do is to find the answer to that. If we spend millions of pounds upon the roads and are still left with the traffic congestion we have got nowhere.
I want to develop an argument for the better use of the public services which might appear to be a little revolutionary, but the Minister wanted ideas, and he regards himself as very progressive. I do not think that he would mind a little revolution if it would help to get rid of the congestion on the roads. Certain figures have been mentioned of the cost of traffic congestion, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts them. These are the figures which are given for the cost of all traffic congestion, and one figure which has been given as the actual cost is £200 million. If we take into consideration the time lost by individuals, I believe that the figure is nearer £500 million per year. I am given to understand that the actual cash cost of accidents in this country is £130 million per year.
I want to know whether the Minister accepts these figures as a rough estimate,
846
and whether he uses them as a basis for his considerations. If he would nod his head one way or the other, it would help me in putting my argument. If he will not nod one way or the other, he will, in my opinion, be like other Ministers in that he refuses to accept advice when it is there, and refuses to accept information when it is given to him. So I shall have to accept the figures which have been mentioned by so many hon. Members as the cost of traffic congestion, plus the fact that this cost will increase at the rate of 14 per cent. per year. I am going to accept this as correct, because I need it in order to put my argument across as best I can.
I also understand that the passenger revenue on the railways is £165 million a year. Another figure given by the Minister was that the trouble in London, and I presume that applies to other big cities as well, is that about 6 per cent. of the people coming into the cities cause the main problem of congestion. We must try to get as many of this 6 per cent. who come in cars to change their mode of travel and to come in on the public services. If we could persuade a large enough number of them to do that the immediate problem of congestion would he met.
The question is how to get them to accept that. I do not think that this idea of providing car parks will necessarily do it, even if we provide car parks right outside the tube and railway stations. I do not believe that for the reason that a man is not going to buy a car and pay all the expenses connected with it, and, on top of all that, pay fares. I therefore suggest to the Minister that there should be no payment for travelling on the railways. [Laughter.] This is not as funny as it sounds. We have gone into the cost of congestion. It is over £630 million a year, and it is increasing at 14 per cent. a year. Railway receipts from pasengers amount to £165 million a year. Surely, it is reasonable that the Government should pay £165 million to London Transport and British Railways, and induce people in large numbers to come into town on the public transport rather than by their own cars.
Many hon. Members might inquire what motorists are to do with their cars. It is not an intelligent use of a car to put up with such congestion as

847
exists in London. In any case, any suggested measure—even the present restrictions—will restrict a man in the use of his car. We should induce motorists, not force them, to come into congested areas by public transport, thus relieving congestion on the roads.
I will now state one or two points in favour of my suggestion, because it has considerable value. First, roads would be freer for industrial goods which, delivered more freely and quickly, would reduce the cost of transport and therefore reduce the cost of the goods. The scheme would be invaluable in that sense. Secondly, if travel on the railways were free the cost of printing tickets would disappear. The staff employed at present on issuing and collecting tickets could be used for the vital job of making the public services much more efficient. All public services have the problem of providing sufficient labour to do the job. They have the labour if it could be given the proper job to do.
I put forward my proposal with all seriousness. I have discussed it with traffic experts, who consider that it is feasible. If the Minister is interested in suggestions being made from this side, this is one which could be put into operation very quickly. If adopted, it would have an immediate effect upon congestion in all cities. It is this sort of measure which the Minister will require if he is to convince hon. Members, the country at large and motorists that he is concerned with congestion. But I am not sure that he will be too impressed by what I have suggested.
Mr. Ede: Never despair.
Mr. Ledger: That is sound advice coming from my right hon. Friend, and I will take it. The big problem is that the Minister may feel that the public services as social services will in those circumstances become extremely popular and efficient. The Government are not noted for looking favourably upon social services. I hope that the Minister will take my suggestion with all the seriousness with which it has been advanced. I am being very serious about this, although I suspect that the Minister is laughing, but he may be harshly judged in four years' time if he has failed to
848
solve the problem with pots of paint. He is proud of his Pink Zone scheme, although I cannot see why. The logic of it is that he will have to extend it until, ultimately, it will be impossible to own a car in London unless one has a garage. The Pink Zone will have to cover all London. That is the logic of the action the right hon. Gentleman is taking at the moment. I believe that his actions and those of his predecessors are too small. Their outlook should be broadened. The Government should take another look at the public services, when they would see that they would be the best and speediest way of solving the present problem.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Russell: Of a number of debates on traffic that I can remember in recent years this is the most popular, from the point of view of the number of hon. Members who want to speak. I only wish that we were to have an extension of an hour or so, or even a second day. We should realise that this subject is rapidly becoming one of the most important that we can discuss, and I hope that it will be given much more time in the future than it has been given in the past.
I am only sorry that the Opposition have put down—for the first time, I think—a rather critical Motion, as there is obviously not much disagreement on broad principles, though there may be on the details. They may, of course, get a "kick" out of chivvying the Government, but the Government do not need chivvying. As my right hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said, the handicap under which the Government have suffered in the past has been the complete lack of public interest and of any sense of urgency. Now the emergency is upon us in full blast. I wish the Government every possible success in dealing with it, because the more delay there is the worse will things become.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport asked for our views on some suggestions, one of which related to traffic wardens. As one who has for some time urged the adoption of this system, I hope that it will be brought into operation. I am quite certain that if we had these wardens. Who would

849
surely not need to have the same standard of fitness as the regular police, to handle parked cars and, perhaps, some other things, there would be a great saving of manpower.
The regular police, who now spend a great deal of the day walking round car parks and, on other days an even greater part of their time waiting in police courts to give evidence, would be released for the more important task of tackling crime, From the point of view of crime prevention alone, we ought to adopt this system without delay.
My right hon. Friend also said that he was to experiment with more one-way streets. I hope that that will be done and that, when they are instituted, the one-way streets will become permanent. I cannot remember, certainly in London, a single case of a street, once made one-way, reverting to the two-way system. Every one-way street system that I can think of in London has been a success.
My complaint is that in the past there has been far too much delay in introducing one-way streets, and far too much reluctance to experiment. Jermyn Street is a case in point. It took years before that was made a one-way street. For years, we had the spectacle of cars parked on both sides, room for only one line of traffic in between, and vehicles going both ways, with the inevitable jam in the middle. Since Jermyn Street was made a one-way street, there has been a free flow of traffic.
My right hon. Friend must be bold in his experiments with one-way streets. I am sure that he will be judged not by what he does, but by what he does not do. I would like to endorse the suggestion of experimenting, possibly, with Wigmore Street and Oxford Street, possibly with King's Road and Fulham Road, or the Strand and the Embankment. After all, if it does not work, we can change back again, but we will never find out whether it will work unless we try it.
I am glad that turns by taxis right over the street will be stopped. I recall that some years ago I asked a Home Secretary to stop that, but my request was refused. I do not see why taxis should be privileged beyond other road users to use the street in that way although, of course, the only reason they make their U-turns is that they have a far greater lock than have normal cars.
850
Another traffic alleviation that I have mentioned before is to do away with many pavements that are too wide. I would like a survey to be made by local authorities of all pavements on any road in their area where there is an appreciable amount of traffic, to see whether those pavements need be so wide. Just across the road from this House there is Great George Street. I have not measured the width of the pavement there, but it is enormous in relation to the number of foot passengers using it, though the carriageway is very narrow and, as we all know, jammed with traffic in the rush hour.
I understand that one of the difficulties is that there are Treasury cellars beneath the pavements which need to be propped up. I do not know what is in the cellars, but I imagine that the job could be done. I should not mind being a member of a squad from this House going out to do it if there is no other way of getting it done. Seriously, it should be a simple matter to prop up cellars like that and strengthen the pavement so that it will carry cars parked there, if they are to be allowed to park, though I would rather see the road left free for a greater flow of traffic.
There are many similar ones. A survey should be undertaken. In the Borough of St. Marylebone, where, I know, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has interested himself in the matter in the past, there are many wide pavements which carry virtually no foot passengers but which, on the other hand, do detract from the width of the highway and, therefore, delay a very considerable flow of traffic.
Another way to help traffic along would be to co-ordinate some of the traffic signals. Along seven miles of the Great West Road there are 11 sets of traffic lights at 11 cross-roads, yet hardly ever does one pass down that stretch of road without being stopped by at least three or four of them. It should be possible, at a certain speed of travel, to pass all the lights at green. It is done on the Continent, and, I think I am right in saying, it is done on a part of the Bath Road just west of Slough, with great success. I do not understand why that should be the only experiment in this country.

851
It ought to be possible to try similar arrangements on any road where there is a succession of traffic lights at reasonable intervals. On the Hendon Way, just as it leaves the Finchley Road to go north, there are four sets of traffic lights, if I remember aright, which are completely unco-ordinated. The flow of traffic could be accelerated by traffic light co-ordination there, and there are many other examples. We seem to be rather slow to think of such things. Such arrangements are commonplace on the Continent where, as some of us know, it is possible, by observing an indication beneath the traffic lights of the speed at which one should travel, to pass all the lights at green.
The provision of car parks is a problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) would like many car parks within what I might call the inner ring of London. Other hon. Members suggest that they should be put further out. In my view, we want both if we are to solve the problem. More use should be made of railway space. I was very glad to read in the Press the other day—I hope that the reports are correct—that there are plans for building car parks over some of our London stations. This is an excellent idea.
I suggest, also, that there is plenty of railway siding space over which it should be possible to build car parks without interfering very much with railway operations. If such car parks were built in conjunction with some office accommodation as well—I am speaking now of parts farther out—it might be possible to construct them economically at a price which would not be a burden on the motorist. I gather that the cost of building car parks over railways is rather heavy, but much more use could be made of railway space if there were real determination to do it. I am glad that the British Transport Commission is, apparently, thinking along those lines.
The Minister should be bold and try experiments. I am sure that we should be only too glad to put up with temporary inconveniences if he did. We might find streets which we had expected to be able to go down in one direction closed to us and have to go
852
another way, but I am sure that we should all prefer that rather than that nothing at all should be done. It is much less exasperating to have to go a little further and be able to keep moving than to go a short distance and be stuck in a traffic jam. I urge my right hon. Friend to take courage. He should experiment as much as he possibly can.
One does not do any harm or commit a crime by trying something and being proved wrong. A few years ago, when I was a member of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I was told by one of the Ministry's officials that it was as much as his job was worth to try something—this was an improvement at Hyde Park Corner—and fail. That is an appalling attitude for anyone in any Ministry to have, because it stifles all initiative and experiment. I only hope that that attitude no longer exists and that everybody will have the courage to make all the suggestions he can. Everyone should be given the power to experiment and try new ideas. If they fail, we can go back to where we were before, but surely it is better to try and fail than never to try at all.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Victor Yates: Unlike the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), this is the first time that I have had the opportunity of speaking in a transport debate. I had prepared quite a lot to say, but I shall confine my remarks to about four minutes, because I realise that the debate must be brought to a conclusion, although I agree with the hon. Member who said that it would be a good thing if it could go on longer.
I want to bring the debate back to the provinces. I feel very strongly about the City of Birmingham. It is only one-third the size of London, but it is trying to carry an improvement programme far in excess of anything that London has ever contemplated. I ask the Minister to give us some hope and encouragement and to say that he will give us help, without our haying to exercise the same kind of pressure that we had to exercise on his predecessor, when we pointed out to him that Birmingham would be a bottleneck and in a serious position unless something was done.

853
My constituency, Ladywood, runs through the centre of Birmingham and my central committee rooms at the last election were in Corporation Street, right in the centre of Birmingham. I had to enlist the support of the police to enable me to get inside my committee rooms and to get out again. The police were certainly very co-operative.
I have seen this congestion problem in the City of Birmingham gradually getting worse. On 13th November, there was a traffic jam in which I myself was involved. I was trying to get from one part of the city to another but every road was blocked. The roads to the North, to Coventry, to Bristol and to Burton were all blocked in the worst traffic jam in the history of the city.
We have had seriously to consider over a number of year how to deal with this problem. The City of Birmingham has put forward plans for improvement schemes from 1962 to 1966 involving an expenditure of £37,296,350. Of that sum, over £17 million is for land alone and £17 million for works. When I asked the Minister of Transport yesterday what he proposed to do about this problem of congestion in Birmingham, he told me that he hoped
"… to bridge the period until the series of road improvements, some of which have already been provided, take on their full shape."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1959; Vol. 615 c. 45.]
What I and Birmingham want to know is whether the Minister is prepared to give us authority to go forward with this £37 million scheme. The Lord Mayor of London, speaking at the Guildhall this week, referred to London's expenditure. One would imagine from what has been said by hon. Members opposite that London was the be-all and end-all, but it is proposed to spend £17 million for the County of London as against £37 million for Birmingham, which is one-third the size of London.
I, like the chief engineer for Birmingham, want a realistic scheme for the whole country. We want Birmingham to have authority for its proposals. I say to the right hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who seems to be discouraging the idea of all these parking places, that Birmingham is proposing to have 13,000 parking places over the next ten years. We want to know whether we can go on. Birmingham is not the
854
city of a thousand trades. It is now the city of 1,400 trades. But it will be a city of complete chaos unless we can get authority to go forward.
I therefore appeal to the Minister to help Birmingham. Let it lead the country. When one considers what is being spent on new roads and road improvements, it is ridiculous to imagine that the money that the Minister is spending is adequate or satisfactory. The Government have failed. I am not concerned whether the Labour Government did or did not do as much as they should have done. I am looking at the last eight or nine years. I am not concerned about what happened before. I want something to be done now. I want the Government to act to help the police and all the other authorities in the city.
Let us see that Birmingham is able to pursue its objective and fulfil its contribution to the export trade by getting its goods out of the city and getting trade, so that the country's economy can be strengthened.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for cutting short his speech and allowing me extra time to reply to the debate. My first and post pleasant duty is to acknowledge the maiden speeches we have heard during the course of the debate. We have heard three first-class maiden speeches. The first was from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). He came to the House with a high reputation, and he lived up to it with a first-class speech and a contribution which we all enjoyed. I hope that some of his suggestions will be replied to by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
We had another very good speech from the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), whose local government experience was obvious. He made one very apt remark. He said that he was a member of the London County Council and was in the opposition. He said what joy there was in being in opposition because one could put up a number of proposals in the knowledge that one carried no responsibility for them. As one who has been in opposition for over nine years, I can only say that I am fed

855
up to the teeth with it. When the hon. Member has had as long as I have had in opposition, he will not enjoy it so much. It was, however, a good speech, and we enjoyed it.
The third maiden speech was from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery), who also made a good contribution. I am glad that he paid tribute to his predecessor, Arthur Blenkinsop, who was a beloved Member of the House and a first-rate Member of Parliament. In paying his tribute, the hon. Member said that Arthur Blenkinsop always fought for his constituency, and we well know that to be true. He was always defending the people of his area. We are obliged to the hon. Member for his reference to our very good friend.
The debate is one of great importance. It can be fairly said that transport is now realised, not only by us in the House of Commons but by people outside, as being perhaps the greatest and most important domestic issue of our time. The debate began with a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bistol, South-East (Mr. Benn). It is unique that the four speeches from the Front Benches are being made by what might be termed new boys. We shall know at the end of the day which one of them has the least knowledge
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, in what everybody would agree was a first-class speech, made an important point concerning the staggering of hours. I re-emphasise what he said about the great importance of the need to stagger hours. I know that everything that could be done voluntarily has been done. My hon. Friend spoke in terms of taxing employers who did not apply the staggering of hours. My hon. Friend was doing what the Minister himself asked. He was throwing out ideas. These were individual ideas, and I should like to emphasise that. All of us will agree that the whole purpose of debate is to be helpful and to try to assist the new Minister in the task before him. I should like to make it perfectly clear that my hon. Friend put his suggestions forward as personal suggestions and not on party lines, or anything like that.
856
I should now like to refer to the staggering of hours. It is important that we should be clear on this matter. We know from the figures already given that 30 per cent. of the people coming into a city like London travel between 8.15 and 8.45 in the morning and 20 per cent. leave between 5.15 and 5.45. During those times, the problem of our public passenger transport system is appalling. What we are after—and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to this as well—is merely a slight alteration—perhaps half an hour's extension—by good will. If we could extend the times from 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock, for example, and 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock, the relief in that half an hour alone would be almost impossible to measure. We are not asking for a lot, and my hon. Friend was quite right to bring up the point.
The right hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) showed exactly why we should have tabled the Motion. He properly made a speech of great knowledge, because he has had, as he told us, three years at the Ministry of Transport as Parliamentary Secretary. He said that one of the troubles confronting previous Governments was that the public would not co-operate, or that it was difficult to get the public to co-operate. He said something about our not being in a position to co-operate and that in the production of any plans or ideas this was always a great problem. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is the indictment against the last Government and the one before. At no time have they come to the House with any original suggestions, plans, or ideas about the future on transport matters. The plea must come from the Dispatch Box opposite to galvanise public opinion.
We face a situation of tremendous seriousness. That is why we tabled the Motion, and we do not regret having done so. As the debate has continued, it has been proved to be right that, as an Opposition, we should focus attention on what has not happened in the past and on what is to happen in the future.
I must say that I like this Minister. He has almost as much cheek as I have, but he has publicity experts, whereas I have great difficulty in getting anything that I say in the local Press. He came to the House with the knowledge that a Motion of censure had been tabled, and

857
we expected him to tell the House something really worth while. After all, he was not in his job five minutes before he conveyed the impression that the Pink Zone was his own idea. One would have thought that this was something of which the Ministry had no knowledge at all. Then suddenly this new Minister arrived, and out of the blue a Pink Zone occurred. This is what he would have us believe. Frankly, we expected today, in view of all the kites flown in the Press recently, that he would tell us about a great scheme for the future and that we should be shattered with some of his revolutionary ideas.
What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He started off by saying that he wanted ideas and that he proposed to take full credit for any good ideas. That is what I like about him. This is the modest approach. I do not mind that, but—
Mr. Molson: Is it not a little inconsistent of the hon. Member to criticise the three predecessors of my right hon. Friend for not coming to the House and asking for our ideas and then blame my right hon. Friend for doing exactly that?
Mr. Mellish: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to develop my argument, he will see why I am so disappointed with this Minister. Our Motion is not directed against the right hon. Gentleman—he has not been in this job long enough to know anything about transport—but against the inaction of previous Governments. Anything that I say must not be regarded as being directed against the Minister for anything he has not done in the past, but with his great reputation and public experts one would have thought that he had a scheme, an idea, or a plan. However, he came to the House and said that he will consider any ideas put forward but that he will take the credit for them. I am obliged for that.
Then he spent a great deal of time attacking the Labour Government of 1945–50 and saying that the Conservative Government had done very much better. I do not think anyone in Britain will stand for that sort of argument any more. We have gone far too far away from that position where comparisons are made between the last nine years and what the Labour Party did in 1945–50.
858
It does not impress anybody any more, and in the House it has become a tedious joke. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter seriously. What the nation wants is confidence that the Government have long-term plans. It was quite futile to compare the record of the present Government with that of the Labour Government after the war when much of their work was filling in holes in the ground after the bombing.
The right hon. Gentleman wants a study group. What has the Ministry been doing in the last few years when the right hon. Member for The High Peak and the present Minister of Defence were in office in the Ministry of Transport? Were they not studying anything? I should have thought that they would have had masses of plans and would have done a lot of study. But one of the troubles was that they did not produce a comprehensive plan for the future. As has been rightly said, one of the problems facing us is that they badly underestimated traffic requirements in the future. We have been given figures in the debate today to show that.
The Minister also said that he had plans to take over a very large zone somewhere. I gather that it is to be in London, though he did not say so, and that in effect the Minister of Transport will be completely in charge of certain powers. The right hon. Gentleman asked us for our views and quoted some of the things which he or his Department may do within that zone. I put this to him quite fairly, and it is very important. I understand that legislation will have to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us in Opposition, or indeed any hon. Member, to express views on a scheme of which we have no prior knowledge.
We are prepared to co-operate right up to the hilt in solving traffic problems, provided that a scheme is produced with a proper sense of democracy and of wanting to do good to the nation as a whole. We shall encourage the right hon. Gentleman, and when his scheme is produced we shall co-operate with him provided that it proves worth while.
One of the troubles in winding up a debate is that everything one wants to say has been said already, and in my case far more effectively. As for

859
figures, I had masses of marvellous figures ready to be produced in this debate, but they have all been quoted by other people. I am sure that hon. Members opposite and probably the Parliamentary Secretary and some of my hon. Friends discovered exactly where the same books that I have used were to be found. This is very distressing.
There is one very serious point which I want again to emphasise. It has been put forward by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), whom we are glad to see back in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) and my hon. Friend for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell). This is the straight issue about public passenger transport services. I plead with the Minister to understand that all of us in the House recognise that this is the No. 1 priority in the problems of today and tomorrow. There can be no doubt about that. Millions of our people are trying to use public passenger transport services of one kind or another.
We have used this argument as a political football for far too long. The virtues or the vices of the British Transport Commission have been kicked about from one side of the House to the other. I speak to the Minister as a fellow-Britisher. Is there any point, on the verge of 1960, in continuing to talk about the Commission as if it were some evil organisation which the Government are not prepared to help? All we get from the benches opposite very often is sneering and jeering at what the Commission is trying to do. This is something owned by Britain. This is something we want to run on behalf of the nation as a whole. The fact that the Labour Party introduced the legislation in 1947 has no relevance. It is here and it is here to stay, and it must be helped.
If the right hon. Gentleman intends to help, we have to alter the philosophy of the party opposite on this matter. It cannot be a Commission which must pay for itself commercially. If it is the argument that the B.T.C. must be run on an entirely commercial basis and show a profit at the end of the day, I warn the nation and certainly the Minister that it has no future. Our
860
buses and our trains will deteriorate and not improve in such conditions. We have to get the party opposite to understand that the Commission provides a public service which is essential to the country. If we say, as has been said in the past, that the Commission must find £40 million—the last Minister said it— by withdrawing all uneconomic units, then the Minister should take the blame and responsibility for the hardship which the withdrawal of the routes will create.
In the past, the Commission has been regarded as a Labour Party effort, and it has been the attitude that anything that has gone wrong with it has been the fault of the Labour Party. The party opposite has somehow enjoyed that and, at election times, has run down the Commission. If the Minister will say that he will help the Commission and give it loans free of charge and encourage it to become more efficient and thus able to lower fares, we will back him to a man. As he knows, if we can get more people on the buses and make the buses run more efficiently, many of our problems will be solved. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with transport to help and no longer to jeer at the Commission.
There are many problems with which we have to learn to deal. One of them is the Pink Zone, this great Pink Zone about which we have heard so much. It was a first-class idea, and I give credit to those who thought it up. Having said that, I ask the right hon. Gentleman a straight question. One of the great things about the Pink Zone has been that by scheduling certain areas for car parking, 6,000 parking places have had to be found. When the Pink Zone ends, are those 6,000 car park places to be abolished? Will those places be lost when the great Marples scheme has ended and when Christmas has gone and everything is back to normal? It has been one of the great things about the Pink Zone that police have been able to tell motorists not only where they are not allowed to park but where they are allowed to park. It has provided the police with their first opportunity to do that.
Do not let it go from the House that we are united in persecuting motorists. The right hon. Member for The High

861
Peak frightened me at one time. Perhaps it was just as well that de did not have a comprehensive plan when he was at the Ministry of Transport, because some of the things he said about motorists were terrifying. Let it be understood that we have no intention and never have had any intention of cutting down motor car manufacture. The motor industry is one of our basic export industries, and 1 should have my hon. Friends from Coventry after me if I suggested that motor car output should be cut. It must he made clear to the nation that we are planning not only for today but for tomorrow, and if motorists are not to be allowed to park in certain areas at least parking space will be provided for them elsewhere.
I do not think the Minister paid sufficient tribute to the police. The police have done a magnificent job. They are 3,000 under strength in the Metropolitan area compared with 1938 figures, and yet we have asked them to deal with major traffic problems in addition to their other police duties. They have done a superb job and I thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little ungracious not to emphasise the part that they have played. I hope the public realises the debt owed to the police and that we have no right to complain when they do not catch juvenile delinquents and people coming out of warehouses when the House of Commons continues to impose on them such arduous duties.
I support the plea that the time has come when the police ought to be helped by traffic wardens. The Minister must get down to this. We have been crying out for an experimental scheme of traffic wardens whose job it would be to control the traffic and help the police in their work. I have been given some amazing figures. I am told that 95 per cent. of the time of the police in the Metropolitan area is spent on traffic duties. That is a pretty grim figure, and it is asking too much of the police.
We must make the best use of existing roads. One way of doing that would be to consult traffic engineers. They could do a magnificent job, and illustrations were given of the sort of things that they could do. We have heard about right turns not being allowed at intersections. Another thing that could be done is to stop cars entering a main road except
862
by certain types of roads. At the moment, traffic can come into a main road from either side. We ought to have a scheme whereby traffic can enter main roads only by selected side roads.
Parking meters have been a success. When will they be extended? How will it be done? What is being done to make certain that the scheme is extended?
We have not heard a word from the Minister of Transport about the Victoria to Walthamstow tube. That scheme has been "kicking around" since 1948. Is anybody surprised that we have tabled a Motion of censure? I know that the Labour Government were in office in 1948, but we have had nine years of Conservative Government and the scheme, which will cost about £55 million, has not been started. Every expert on transport agrees that that tube would be a great help in easing traffic congestion in London. Can the Minister give us a decision on that?
Four years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was responsible for a great deal of work on the scheme for the testing of vehicles. I am advised that in more than 20 per cent. of the accidents that have occurred—and some of those have been accidents in which people have been killed—the vehicles concerned had faulty mechanism. Four years ago the Government were asked to introduce a scheme for testing vehicles more than ten years old. That scheme has not been introduced. Is it surprising that we have tabled a Motion saying that we deprecate the fact that the Government have not produced that scheme? When will the scheme be brought in? What do the Government plan to do? What can we do to make certain that as many vehicles as possible are tested to make sure that they are in a fit condition to be on the roads?
A lot has been said about the financial aspect of this problem. It is monstrous that a great deal of road work has to he done by local authorities and paid for out of their own rates. We cannot go on with that, particularly where small councils who already have financial problems are concerned. At present, when a road is to be repaired it is dug up, and at five o'clock in the evening a lamp is put there to mark the site and the workmen go home. The result is

863
that the street becomes congested. At eight o'clock the following morning the workmen arrive. They then go off for tea and all the other things that the average workmen goes off for during a normal day. Why do they not work in the evening? [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite drink more than their fair share of tea.
Why do we not try to help local councils by giving them a 100 per cent. grant and thus make certain that where the job is urgent it will be done at night and at weekends? How long must we go on with this stupid business? Motorists are becoming completely bewildered. If we ask a local authority, "Why are you not putting a great deal more pressure on to this job?" they reply, "If we do it will cost a lot more money. We cannot afford to pay overtime rates, or to pay for double-time at weekends." It is simple and obvious, but nothing has been done about it over the years, and I plead with the Minister to help us on this matter.
When we turn to the long-term transport problem we find a terrifying picture. I have worked it out that since this debate began at 3.30 p.m. no fewer than 780 new vehicles have come on to our roads. Try to cram that lot into our New Palace Yard! It cannot be done. Every fifty seconds a new car is being produced, and no restrictions will be imposed upon production. They are not all for export. I believe that over 50 per cent. remain on the roads of Britain, and when the manufacturers really get under way with the Minimotor—the small, cheap family car—the problem will become that much worse.
It has been said that by 1967 there will be 16 million cars on the roads, and if anybody wants to be thoroughly frightened I can tell him that we hope to have on the roads, within fourteen years' time, more than 24 million cars. That is a conservative estimate. It is based upon the figures for car production now, but, like previous Ministers of Transport, I could be wrong. Production could be speeded up even more. But, on those figures alone, the outlook is terrifying. We want to help the Minister to make certain that there is a comprehensive plan to deal with the possible future situation.
We have heard of the wonderful efforts that have gone into the construction of
864
M.1, but what is the point of M.1—a wonderful road—if the motorist has to drive through a congested area before he can get on to it and then go through another congested area when he gets off it? What sort of planning is that? Only a Conservative Government could have thought of M.1, a wonderful road, running into congestion at both ends.
There are some fundamental principles to be considered in relation to the future. We have heard that about 74,000 people have been killed on the roads since 1945. We became very distressed and unhappy when we heard about the recent disaster in France, when 350 people were killed, yet we take the loss of 74,000 of our own people on the roads since 1945 with nonchalance. The train of misery left in the wake of those figures speaks for itself. We have a solemn duty to make it clear that we intend to plan the roads to cities and towns in the years to come not only with an assurance for the rights of the motorists, but with emphasis on the rights of pedestrians, by providing areas where they may be quite safe. I speak now as a family man. Whenever any of my children go out my wife and I are terrified to think of what may happen to them on the roads, and we pray that they may come back. I suspect that more prayers are going up today in connection with the Minister's roads than ever before because they are so dangerous.
That is the background to our Motion. We do not believe that the terms of the Amendment are satisfactory. We cannot accept it, and we shall vote for our own Motion because we sincerely believe that unless we can jolt this Government and the country into a realisation of the problems facing us we shall go on as we have done in the past, with a small effort here and there, but without any genuine planning. We believe that something can he done to improve the immediate position, and that something must be done to relieve the probable future position. That is why we shall vote for our Motion tonight.
9.30 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I think that hon. Members, in whatever part of the House they may sit, will agree that we have had a debate

865
today which has been interesting, useful and good humoured. This is the first Motion of censure to which I have listened which has been debated with such good humour.
Mr. Mellish: We are all nice people.
Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman says that we are all nice people and I am glad to hear it. I hope that in our future consideration of this matter we shall retain the spirit which has animated our discussion today, because it seems to me that in many respects this problem of traffic congestion is one which transcends party feeling and one to which everyone has a contribution to make.
We have heard a number of speeches from hon. Members which have been extremely helpful and, as did the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I should like to refer to three hon. Members who helped us with their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), who has had a good deal of experience on the London County Council, raised a number of points to which we shall pay the greatest attention. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Good-hew) drew attention again to the difficulties of the local authorities in this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery)—an old friend of mine from the days when he and I were much younger—was able to give the House the benefit of a good deal of advice. We were delighted to hear from these hon. Gentlemen for the first time and I know that we all look forward to hearing from them in the future.
Another speech which I am sure every hon. Member was delighted to hear was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who has given this country distinguished service over a number of years, and who, out of the fullness of his experience and knowledge, came forward with a number of most important ideas. We are glad to hear again from my right hon. Friend.
We were also interested in a contribution from the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Ledger), who had two suggestions to make. The first, as I understood him, was that hon. Members should leave their cars at home for a period of
866
some six months, so that they could get used to knowing what members of the public have to endure. His other, and more popular, suggestion was that everyone in the country should have free rail travel. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that we shall look into what he said and that I hope that he will not press me to go further tonight.
In many ways this debate has been well-timed. It comes in what I suppose I can call the full flush of the Pink Zone experiment. The purpose of that experiment was two-fold. First, to try to ensure that during the Christmas period London traffic did not come to a dead stop. When my right hon. Friend arrived at the Ministry of Transport—I was already there, although not concerned with these particular matters—he met his officials, who said that last year London traffic nearly came to a dead stop. Since then there are approximately 10 per cent, more cars on the road and unless something was done this year it would come to a stop.
Accordingly, the London Travel Committee produced the blue print of a Pink Zone. I should like, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to pay a tribute to the work done by the Committee and its chairman, Mr. Alex Samuels, whom many hon. Friends know personally. That was the first purpose, to ensure that the London traffic did not come to stop. The second purpose was to demonstrate to the public in a practical way that an improvement in London's traffic conditions is possible, because so many people, faced with the flood of cars and other vehicles on the roads, are inclined to wring their hands and say, "This is a terrible thing. Sooner or later we shall have a dead stop, and nothing can be done." There are others who say that we must lay down huge strips of concrete right through the centres of our cities. One result of the Pink Zone experiment has been to prove conclusively that with our existing roads in London a great deal can be done by intelligent planning and the provision of additional car parks. I shall return to that point later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked what was the future of the Pink Zone. I am sorry to have to say this, but the Pink Zone experiment ends on 16th January. The trouble is that the

867
essential feature of the experiment was the provision of additional car park facilities in the Royal Parks and other places. Those facilities were granted to us for the purpose of the Pink Zone experiment and for the period until 16th January. I am sorry, but that is the situation.
Naturally, we should like to be able to continue the arrangement indefinitely, but the House must remember that there are other people who are interested in the amenities of the parks and wish to use them, and their wishes have to be considered. I think that it has been proved that we urgently need additional parking spaces in London, and we shall do our utmost to provide them as soon as we can.
Mr. Julian Snow: Will the hon. Gentleman say in what way the amenities of the Royal Parks are affected? So far as I know, apart from being places where people may "hack"—and they are used for walking and car parking—the present parts would not affect walkers. As for the Horse Guards, it is high time that they were put to a more useful purpose.
Mr. Hay: I cannot argue with the hon. Member on this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who controls the parks?"] The House knows who controls the parks, but the amenities of the parks cannot be indefinitely taken away by the provision of standing waiting ground for motor cars. I do not think that is the long-term solution to the problem. What we have to find is off-street parking. It may well be that we shall be able to make use of the Royal Parks in a different way in time to come.
Mr. Mellish: I should have mentioned this in my speech. I understand that in off-street parking in the Pink Zone one thing has not been taken care of. That is the question of safety when cars are parked near schools. Whatever plans are made for future off-street parking, I hope that special emphasis will be placed on this matter because I have received a large number of letters about it.
Mr. Hay: I have not received information on that, but if the hon. Member cares to send me the information he has got I shall consider it.
868
I was reading in the Financial Times an article about the Pink Zone and one sentence struck me very much. It was that for a long time the general public has had a great deal of sympathy with the motorist, but that now we have got to the stage where people realise that a few selfish motorists can damage the interests of everybody and, therefore, public opinion may now be ready for a drastic move on this front. My right hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak referred to this and said that in the past it has been extremely difficult to make any kind of move to have really effective action simply because public opinion was not prepared to support the Government of the day on the subject. I think that it is true that now people as a whole realise that we have to do something about the traffic problem. We have to do it quickly, and that is the function of my right hon. Friend.
Perhaps it is the appreciation that time is not on our side in this and that we have got to make a move that accounts for the general unanimity there has been in the debate, despite the rather critical terms of the Motion. Our main problem, as the House will realise, is that we have an enormous and growing volume of traffic. All sorts of figures have been quoted in the debate. Some have conflicted with each other. I do not propose to go over them again now. I ask the House to bear two points in mind. The first is that the problem in Britain is more acute than in many other countries in proportion to the population simply because this is a small island with comparatively little space. It is true that one can draw comparisons with countries like Holland and Belgium, which are also small, but there the population is nothing like our 50 million.
The second observation is that, although we deprecate our traffic problems and are wrestling with it and worried about the future, it is at least—let us take comfort from this—an indication of the expanding prosperity of our country. One talks of the 60,000 commuters who come in to London. Probably they are businessmen coming in for the most part to do work of benefit to the country. Probably, also, the enormous number of vehicles the hon. Member for Bermondsey mentioned—780 since the debate began—are for the most part owned by families, not so

869
much for use on the commuter principle in the centres of towns but for ordinary family outings at weekends and holidays. We must keep that in perspective.
The fact is that the growth of traffic poses a problem which we must solve quickly. Many people say that our road system is hopelessly inadequate and out of date. There is a great deal of truth in that, but not complete truth. One has only to go into the main street of any town to see that the roads are badly used. It is cluttered up. Every main road is cluttered with all manner of things which we have put there, or have allowed to be there and which impede the free flow of traffic. There are traffic islands, refuges, and lamp standards in the centre of the road and there are pedestrian crossings.
I am not decrying these crossings, but they slow the traffic flow. We allow vehicles of all kinds to load and unload, we allow buses to stop and pick up passengers—[Laughter.]—we allow cars to do the same, and we allow cars to park. I do not know what is amusing hon. Members opposite. I am merely saying that we are not using some of our roads in the proper way, and I should have thought that that was not controversial.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: Where does the hon. Member want the buses to stop?
Mr. Hay: Of course, we must try to find room for buses to stop. I was trying to make clear that we are not using our roads to the best advantage and that we need better planning of our roads.
As I see it, the needs of our road system at the moment are twofold. First, we must have more physical improvement in the way of buildings and works. Secondly, we must have better control of both standing and moving traffic.
I come to the terms of the Motion moved by the Labour Party. I know that there is no gratitude in politics and often very little kindness, but I thought that at least they would have had some regard to the facts, because it is quite untrue to say, as the Motion says, that the Government have failed
"in recent years to tackle the growing problem of traffic congestion in the urban areas."
Let me remind the House of what the Government have done. Here, I want
870
to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and to my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), for the hard work which they have done over the last few years. May I speak of the works of major road improvement carried out in the last few years? Let me begin with London and the immediate region. The Cromwell Road extension is completed. There is the massive work done at Hammersmith Broadway. We have had a speech today by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). There is the Hammersmith flyover, which has been started and which it is hoped will be completed by October, 1961. There is the Strand widening. There is London Wall, Route 11.
There is the great complex of work going on, with Government grant and help, at the Elephant and Castle junction. Many hon. Members have seen the work being done at Notting Hill Gate. There is the extra tunnel at Blackwall, costing £7·3 million. There is the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel. Last, but not least, there is the big Hyde Park Boulevard scheme. These are the schemes which have been completed or are under construction, and they are only a selection from a great many others.
Outside London, in most of our big towns work is already in progress on major schemes. On Tyneside, for example, there is the Tyne tunnel.
Mr. Popplewell: It has not been started.
Mr. Hay: The hon. Member should let me finish the sentence. It has been approved. There is the work already begun, which I have seen, on Merseyside—the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, a long-felt want. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) was somewhat critical and asked many questions, but in Birmingham the inner ring road scheme was started in 1957, in the period to which the Motion relates. These are some of the schemes which have been or are being carried out, but I remind the House that it is not only by major works that we make an impression on the problem of traffic congestion. In fact, a great many smaller schemes have been carried out, many of

871
them in the form of by-passes, because the by-pass round a town relieves the congestion inside it.
Let me mention the St. Albans by-pass, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans referred, and which has done a great deal to relieve the situation in that town. There is also the Maidstone by-pass, the Oxford by-pass, the Lancaster by-pass and the Stamford by-pass. Since my right hon. Friend the Minister came to office, three new bypasses have been opened, at Wetherby, at Ingatestone and New Ferry. I see the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) here. I had the pleasure of opening the New Ferry by-pass at Bebington, and I saw his photograph on the wall. I believe that he is a former mayor of the town. My noble Friend Lord Chesham, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, is opening another by-pass tomorrow at Catterick. These are some of the things done in the last few years that are essential and which relieve traffic congestion. These are the things about which the party opposite criticises us, but I do not think that it is a bad record.
It is true, of course, that we should have liked to do more, but we should remember the scale of these things, and the fact that we are now spending, as someone said earlier, at the rate of £60 million or £65 million this year. Moreover, that relates to schemes which were started a number of years ago, for the payments do not fall in the years in which they start; they come in the successive years when the schemes are coming to fruition. We are gradually building up the programme, as the party opposite ought to know, because we stated in our election manifesto that we propose to double the amount spent on the road programme.
May I now turn to the second part of what we have done about the control of traffic as opposed to physical improvements.
Mr. V. Yates: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he answer a question? It is rather important to a city like Birmingham. He has mentioned, for instance, the ring-road in Birmingham, but that was only the beginning. It is now nearly completed.
872
There is a scheme for a £13 million ring road, and we want to know whether we can now go on with it.
Mr. Hay: The trouble is that practically every hon. Member wants to know whether his local authority can go on with its schemes. We have to measure the demands that are made upon us by local authorities, which want to go on with these highly desirable schemes all over the country, against the amount of money which we have available. We will certainly look into that scheme as a matter of urgency, but there must be some order of priority. We cannot do all that we want to do; we have to take time. All that I can promise is that we will certainly do what we can for Birmingham as quickly as we can.
Turning now to what we have done on the control side, as opposed to road improvements, I was asked a question by one hon. Member who mentioned the vehicle testing scheme. This was one of the main features of the Bill which we introduced in 1955, which resulted in the Road Traffic Act, 1956. The vehicle testing scheme, as my right hon. Friend said recently in answer to a Question in the House, is now in the process of formulation. He is about to make regulations which relate to the appointment of the garages to conduct the tests and of the councils to undertake the tests.
If all goes well, the testing of cars on a voluntary basis will start in the spring. Some months must then be allowed to pass before it is made an offence for a 10-year-old vehicle to be on the road without a test certificate. This is a debate mainly concerned with urban congestion and not road safety, important as the latter is, and I hope that I have now discharged my duty to the hon. Member who put the question.
The second feature of the 1956 Act was the institution of parking meters, giving the Minister the power to require in some cases, or in others to assist local authorities to place, parking meters on the highway. Here, I think that the House will know that we have already made good progress. The North-West Mayfair scheme has been working now for some time, and by all accounts has been extremely successful. The St. Marylebone scheme, which adjoins it to the north, is equally successful.

873
One of the first things my right hon. Friend did on taking office was to receive the Westminster City Council. I was present. The council asked whether he would be prepared to extend the parking meter scheme to the whole of Mayfair, in other words to confirm the Order which was before his predecessor. One of the first things my right hon. Friend asked was, "How quickly can you get the meters in?" The council said, "If you will give us the green light today, we will order the meters today". My right hon. Friend said, "Right. You have my authority to go ahead." We must tie up the details, but authority has been given.
Mr. Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need for taking in block areas for parking meters so that the block involves the whole of a shopping centre of a town? At present, the piecemeal schemes merely drive the all-day parker from one shopping area to another area, to the detriment of the second area.
Mr. Hay: We will have a look at that.
The third thing that the Act of 1956 did was to authorise the conduct, by the Metropolitan Police only, of traffic experiments. This authorisation is under Section 36. Under this power, which is a means of by-passing the statutory procedure laid down in the 1924 Act, we have started the 40-mile-an-hour experiment, which is proving extremely successful and which, I hope, will come before the Departmental Committee on Road Safety next Monday for it to approve and to advise the Minister upon. The police of London have been empowered to institute a series of loading and unloading bans on certain sections of road. These bans are paying very good dividends and freeing and speeding up the flow of traffic. Under this heading the police have managed to designate a considerable number of one-way streets. This, again, is contributing to traffic flow.
It may be said that this is all very well, but it is not enough. That is the burden of the debate, oddly enough. My right hon. Friend would not altogether dissent from that view, but we have to work a machine which was designed for a time long past. The 1924 Act was all right for the conditions of those days, but it has remained unchanged ever since.
874
Under it, the Minister has executive authority in the London traffic area, but before he can act he has to consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
If the Minister has a scheme which he wants to impose, he must go to the Committee for advice and report. That is laid down by the Act. He cannot short-circuit that procedure. He must then consult the police. If, as in the case of most of these schemes, some kind of road work is needed, or the erection of signs, or even the painting of roads, which has been advocated in the debate, he must consult the local authorities, which are his agents to do the work.
The House knows that the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council are involved in London and below them, at least in the London County Council area, there are 28 Metropolitan borough councils. I do not want to say anything against them, although some hard things have been said against them in the debate, but inevitably, they are bound to look at these matters from the local standpoint, without much regard to the greater needs of London traffic as a whole. This makes for slowness and delay in carrying out quickly the sort of things we want to get done.
In conclusion, I remind the House of the terms of the Amendment.
Mr. Mellish: We asked about the Victoria tube.
Mr. Hay: I have not finished yet. We ask the House to give
"its support for all practical measures to meet the problem."
Four main measures have emerged from the speeches today. The first was for parking meters. The House and the public as a whole have come to accept the idea of parking meters and want to see them extended. We all know that the streets were intended for moving traffic and not as a kind of temporary repository for people's domestic furniture. That is really what a car is.
There is no need for us to go back. I think that we can go forward as quickly as possible with the extension of parking meters. It may well be that we would have to ask the House for some easement of the procedure to enable the Minister to act more quickly—perhaps

875
ex post facto—instead of going through all the dreary business of objection and public inquiry beforehand.
However, it is no good putting down the meters quickly unless, at the same time, we provide, or see that there are provided in the long term, off-street parking facilities. There has been a long argument between those who claim that we should provide for off-street parking before putting in the meters, and those taking the contrary view, who say that we should put in the meters first and that that would create the demand for off-street parking facilities.
We take the latter view. We think, as did previous Ministers, that we should put in the meters first, accumulate revenue, and show that it is intended to ban in the long-term the all-day car parker from the streets. Once we begin to have the demand for accommodation coming up, I think that either local authorities or private enterprise will come into the business. If I were not in my present job, and if I were a rich man looking for something in which I could invest some money, I think that I would go into the garage business in Central London. There may be quite a lot of money to be made in it in the next few years. Certainly, we hope that people will provide these garages as quickly as possible.
Lastly, I think that we must admit that we do need better enforcement. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey said that the police in London were 3,000 under strength—
Mr. Mellish: That was the 1958 figure.
Mr. Hay: I believe that it is the figure today. It is true that there are just enough of them on the ground to deal with this menace of the long-term car parker—the man who parks his car and gets "pinched". But he has to wait another six months before he goes to court, and even then he is fined only
40s. He therefore gets six months' car parking free, except for the 40s. fine.
I think that the House feels that we need better powers of enforcement, and perhaps the House would also be willing to enable the police in future to tow away cars and make a charge for their recovery. Perhaps it would agree that we should have a corps of traffic wardens and, perhaps, that we should have a ticket system. All these things have been widely supported in the debate, and we shall certainly take account of what has been said.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and other hon. Members asked about the Victoria line—I have now only a moment or two in which to deal with this—and suggested that we should investigate the whole question of public transport. That, of course, we do. In this debate we have been concerned with the car problem, but it is only part of the much vaster picture of how to move millions of people in and out of London every day. We shall certainly look at every suggestion that has been made. The report on the Victoria line is now in my right hon. Friend's hands, and is to be published soon. When the time is ready, we shall make whatever announcement we feel is necessary. Beyond that I cannot go today.
I think that it is clear that the House as a whole now wishes that my right hon. Friend should be invested with rather greater powers to take bold, imaginative, and, if need be, experimental action here and there. I sincerely hope that, if and when the time comes for us to ask the House for such powers, the House will remember this debate; that hon. Members will remember their speeches, and will not, at that time, criticise us for going too far or too fast.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 301.

Division No. 19.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Beaney, Alan

Bowles, Frank

Ainsley, William

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Boyden, James

Albu, Austen

Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brist'l,S.E.)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Benson, Sir Georgo

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Awbery, Stan

Blackburn, F.

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Blyton, William

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Baird, John

Boardman, H.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Callaghan, James

Hunter, A. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Carmichael, James

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Probert, Arthur

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Proctor, W. T.

Chapman, Donald

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Chetwynd, George

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Randall, Harry

Cliffe, Michael

dormer, Barnett

Rankin, John

Collick, Percy

Jay, Fit. Hon. Douglas

Redhead, E. C.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jeger, George

Reid, William

Craddock, George (Bradford, 8.)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Reynolds, G. W.

Cronin, John

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rhodes, H.

Crosland, Anthony

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Crossman, R. H. S.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Darilng, George

Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kelley, Richard

Ross, William

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Kenyon, Clifford

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Short, Edward

Deer, George

King, Dr. Horace

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lawson, George

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Delargy, Hugh

Ledger, Ron

Skeffington, Arthur

Dempsey, James

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Diamond, John

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Dodds, Norman

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Snow, Julian

Donnelly, Desmond

Lever L. M. (Ardwick)

Sorensen, R. W.

Driberg, Tom

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Lipton, Marcus

Spriggs, Leslie

Ede, Fit. Hon. Chuter

Loughlin, Charles

Steele, Thomas

Edelman, Maurice

Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McCann, John

Stonehouse, John

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

MacColl, James

Stones, William

Evans, Albert

McInnes, James

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Fernyhough E.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Finch, Harold

Mackie, John

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

Fitch, Alan

McLeavy, Frank

Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith

Fletcher, Eric

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Swain, Thomas

Foot, Dingle

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Swingler, Stephen

Forman, J. C.

Mahon. Simon

Sylvester, George

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

Symonds, J. B.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Manuel, A. C.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd

Mann, Charles

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Ginsburg, David

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Gooch, E. G.

Marsh, Richard

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mason, Roy

Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

Gourlay, Harry

Mayhew, Christopher

Thornton, Ernest

Greenwood, Anthony

Mellish, R. J.

Tomney, Frank

Grey, Charles

Milian, Bruce

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Monslow, Walter

Wainwright, Edwin

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Moody, A. S.

Warbey, William

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Morris, John

Watkins, Tudor

Grimond, J.

Mort, D. L.

Weitzman, David

Gunter, Ray

Moyle, Arthur

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Mulley, Frederick

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Oram, A. E.

Whitlock, William

Hannan, William

Osewald, Thomas

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Owen, Will

Willey, Frederick

Hayman, F. H.

Padley, W. E.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Healey, Denis

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)

Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

Pargiter, G. A.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hilton, A. V.

Paton, John

Winterbottom, R. E.

Holman, Percy

Pavitt, Laurence

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Holt, Arthur

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Woof, Robert

Houghton, Douglas

Pearl, Frederick

Wyatt, Woodrow

Howell, Charles A.

Pentland, Norman

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hoy, James H.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Zilliacus, K.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Popplewell, Ernest

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Prentice, R. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Bowden and G. H. R. Rogers.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Barlow, Sir John

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Aitken, W. T.

Barter, John

Bishop, F. P.

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Batsford, Brian

Black, Sir Cyril

Allason, James

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Bossom, Clive

Alport, C. J. M.

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Bourne-Arton, A.

Amery, Julian, (Preston, N.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Box, Donald

Amory,Rt.Hn.D.Heathcoat(Tiv'tn)

Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Arbuthnot, John

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Berkeley, Humphry

Braine, Bernard

Atkins, Humphrey

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)

Brewis, John

Balniel, Lord

Bidgood, John C.

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

Barber, Anthony

Biggs-Davison, John

Brooman-White, R.

878

879

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Bryan, Paul

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bullard, Denys

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hobson, John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Burden, F. A.

Hocking, Philip N.

Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Holland, Philip

Page, Graham

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

Holland-Martin, Christopher

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Hollingworth, John

Partridge, E.

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hopkins, Alan

Peel, John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hornby, R. P.

Percival, Ian

Channon, H. P. G.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricla

Peyton, John

Chataway, Christopher

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pitt, Miss Edith

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pott, Percivall

Clarke, Brig.Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Powell, J. Enoch

Cleaver, Leonard

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cole, Norman

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Collard, Richard

Iremonger, T. L.

Prior, J. M. L.

Cooke, Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Cooper, A. E.

Jackson, John

Profumo, John

Cooper-Key, E. M.

James, David

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Cordle, John

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Ramsden, James

Costain, A. P.

Jennings, J. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

Coulson, J. M.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rees, Hugh

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Johnson Smith,G.(Holb.&S.P'ncr's,S)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Critchley, Julian

Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Renton, David

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Crowder, F. P.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Ridsdale, Julian

Cunningham, Knox

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Curran, Charles

Kershaw, Anthony

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Kimball, Marcus

Roots, William

Dance, James

Kirk, Peter

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

Kitson, Timothy

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

Deedes, W. F.

Lagden, Godfrey

Russell, Ronald

de Ferranti, Basil

Lambton, Viscount

Scott-Hopkins, James

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sharples, Richard

Drayson, G. B.

Langford-Holt, J.

Shepherd, William

du Cann, Edward

Leather, E. H. C.

Simon, Sir Jocelyn

Duncan, Sir James

Leavey, J. A.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Duthie, Sir William

Leburn, Gilmour

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

Elliott, R. W.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Smithers, Peter

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lindsay, Martin

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Errington, Sir Eric

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Erroll, F. J.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Farr, John

Longbottom, Charles

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fell, Anthony

Longden, Gilbert

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Finlay, Graeme

Loveys Walter H.

Stodart, J. A.

Fisher, Nigel

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Storey, S.

Foster, John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Studholme, Sir Henry

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

McAdden, Stephen

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

MacArthur, Ian

Sumner, Donald (Orpington)

Freeth, Denzil

McLaren, Martin

Talbot, John E.

Gammans, Lady

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricla

Tapsell, Peter

Gardner, Edward

Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gibson-Watt, David

McMaster, Stanley

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Glover, Douglas

Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

Teeling, William

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Temple, John M.

Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)

Maddan, Martin

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Godber, J. B.

Maginnis, John E.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Goodhart, Philip

Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Goodhew, Victor

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gower, Raymond

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Green, Alan

Marten, Nell

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Turner, Colin

Grimston, Sir Robert

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mawby, Ray

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

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

Vane, W. M. F.

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mills, Stratton

Vickers, Miss Joan

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Montgomery, Fergus

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Wall, Patrick

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Morgan, William

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Morrison, John

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Hay, John

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Watts, James

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nabarro, Gerald

Webster, David

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Neave, Airey

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Whitelaw, William

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Noble, Michael

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Hiley, Joseph

Nugent, Richard

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

880

881

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Worsley, Marcus

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Woodhouse, C. M.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Wise, Alfred

Woodnutt, Mark

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Woollam, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.

Proposed words there added.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House while acknowledging the progress made by Her Majesty's Government
882
in improving and constructing roads throughout the country draws attention to the growing volume of traffic for which provision must be made and pledges its support for all practical measures to meet the problem

POLICE (PENSIONS REGULATIONS)
10.12 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move.
That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.
These Regulations are made under the Police Act, 1948, and an affirmative Resolution is required. They are a necessary and fortunate result of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, passed during the last Parliament. They deal only with the pensions of police widows and the allowances of the children of deceased police officers. The pensions of retired police officers themselves were dealt with directly under the Act. I apologise to the House for the fantastic complexity of the Regulations, but having looked at the previous Regulations, I find that they were, if anything, even worse. I will do my best to simplify the matter, because the effect of these Regulations is fairly straightforward.
They have two objects. The first relates to what are known as graduated widows' pensions, and the second object relates to what are known as flat-rate pensions for widows. In the case of the graduated pensions— those which are related to the amount of a deceased officer's pay, either at the time he retired or, if he died while still in duty, at the time of his death before retirement—the Regulations ensure that the widows who receive these graduated pensions will get increases equivalent to, and on the same conditions as, similar pensions provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959. We achieve this by saying, in effect, that the awards shall be treated as though they had been specified in the Schedule to the Act.
The flat-rate pensions get a corresponding increase. We achieve this in a rather more simple way by substituting new actual rates of pension for the old ones but using as the method of doing so an increase which is appropriate under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
884
The Regulations have been the subject of consultation with the Police Council for England and Wales representing all federated ranks. Consultation is required by the Police Pensions Act, 1948. 1 am glad to say that the Regulations have been welcomed by a deputation from the National Association of Retired Police Officers, which called recently at the Home Office. They are drafted in such a way as to have effect retrospectively to 1st August last, which was the date on which the Pensions (Increase) Act came into force. There is, therefore, a complete tie-up there. It is our hope that if Parliament approves the Regulations my right hon. Friend will be able to make them before Christmas, so that payments on the basis of the new increases can be started in the New Year.
By way of further explanation of the contents of these very complicated and rather long Regulations, I should point out that they are divided into three parts. The reason is that existing police widows—I am not referring to future widows—receive their pensions under three different kinds of authority contained in three separate sets of Police Pensions Regulations and amending Regulations. Therefore, what we must do in the Regulations now before us is to amend each of those three sets of Regulations in such a way as to carry into them the increases which we want to bring about as a result of the Pensions (Increase) Act.
Part I of the Regulations amends the Police Pensions Regulations, 1955. We go backwards in time from that date since Part II amends the Regulations of 1949 and Part III amends the Regulations of 1948. The reasons for going backwards in time are so devious—and I have tried hard to understand them—that I will not trouble the House with them, but I am assured that it was the simplest way of drafting. The Pensions (Increase) Act provided a graduated scale under which the increase is smaller the more recently the pension first became payable. That factor governed the way in which the increases in the graduated pensions have been made in these Regulations.
The amount of introductory description which one could lay before the House to explain the effect of the Regulations is almost unlimited, but I think that the best thing to do is this. I shall listen to the points which hon. Members may wish

885
to make and try to answer the questions of hon. Members if the House will give me leave to speak again.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am not sure whether the two sets of Regulations are being taken together.
Mr. Renton: As on the previous occasion when Police Regulations were before the House, I think that it would be convenient if both Statutory Instruments were discussed together, although you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may find it necessary to put each to the vote separately afterwards.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has given us a very full and detailed explanation of these Regulations. Speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends, I can say that we welcome their introduction and we are glad that the Government have lost no time in placing them before the House. I will briefly summarise their effect, as I understand it. The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, provided a pensions increase for police pensioners and a limited class of police widows. The majority of the police widows and the orphaned children of police officers were not covered by the Act itself, owing to technical difficulties in drafting. These Regulations, therefore, seek to provide for the widows and the children who were omitted from the scope of the 1959 Act and to give them the appropriate increases in pension.
As the Joint Under-Secretary said, the amounts contained in the Regulations are the result of consultations which have taken place. I think that it is universally desired in the House to see that the police are adequately compensated and that proper provision is made for the police force and for their widows, and that adequate pensions are provided. I am also glad to observe that the Govenment have taken advantage of the Section of the 1959 Act which gave them power to give these Regulations retrospective effect. Consequently, they will have retrospective effect to 1st August, 1959, which is the earliest permissible date under the Act. We therefore heartily endorse these Regulations and hope that the House will approve them.
10.22 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: I, also, welcome the Regulations, but I hope that the House will permit me to try to clear up one point. The Scots had a great evening the evening before last, the Welsh had a great evening last evening, and perhaps it is not inappropriate or out of place that an Englishwoman should have a chance to say a word or two tonight.
I am very glad to know that the Regulations are welcomed by both sides of the House and that they have the support of the National Association of Retired Police Officers. As the House is perhaps not unaware, I am particularly interested in widows and those who live on small incomes. Therefore, I am always in touch with the organisations which look after the interests of retired people and widows and dependants. I had some correspondence with the National Association of Retired Police Officers on which I took certain action with my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. He kindly acknowledged the representations I made on behalf of the Association and said that the Home Office was aware of the point that the Association was making about the original draft Regulations.
Subsequently, when it was announced that the Regulations were to be presented, I wrote to the Association and I had a very pleasant reply, in the course of which a representative of the Executive Committee said:
"It is very gratifying to learn of the proposals which are now to be embodied in the draft Regulations for increase in Police Widows Pensions."
He went on to say that the draft Regulations "now" had the support of the Association. I want to know, entirely for my own purposes, whether the original proposals proved to be unacceptable, or whether it was because of the difficulty of drafting that the new Regulations held fire. Did the Home Office put forward proposals which were less acceptable than those now before us?
I have asked that because, like many hon. Members, I feel that those living on small fixed incomes do not have enough support in the country to make their mark when dealing with heads of Government Departments. Perhaps it is

887
because I live just on one side of the Border—I like to say the right side of the Border, but that will be unacceptable to my Scots friends—and because I have a very canny mind—Newcastle is often called a "canny toon"—that I am anxious that we should do more to meet the claims of those who live on small fixed incomes.
What were the original difficulties when the Association wrote to me in some consternation, and what happened for the Association to he able to write to me later saying that its objections had been overcome and that it supported the present proposals? I always believed in the maximum and not in the minimum. I am not a "minimum" woman; I am a "maximum" woman. I think that it is a good idea to have this matter on the record. I hope that from the start the Home Office was prepared to do the maximum for these widows.
Although I welcome these proposals, I do not think that they are very generous. I am rather sorry that I am not on the Police Council, because I should have been more firm. The increases are not as satisfactory as all that, but I always hope that we will be able to bump up the pensions of those who have served the country loyally and well and, also, that we will meet the election pledges in our manifesto when we said that we would enable such people to share in the general prosperity which the rest of the country enjoys.
I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend could explain the difficulty. I hope that it was a difficulty in drafting and that the Home Office did not first offer a minimum and then get pushed into the maximum.
10.29 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am very glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) raised that point, because I may be under some misapprehension about the intention of the draft Regulations. Like her, I had a letter from the National Association of Retired Police Officers and I understood from what was then written to me that the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we were discussing the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, had not been implemented.
888
The Minister said that he wished to do everything he could for civil servants, firemen, the police, and police widows. As I understand, widows were very scurvily treated in the first draft Regulations. Instead of getting the scale increase of up to 12 per cent. according to the period in which their husbands had retired, they were to receive only a flat 4 per cent. increase. I have the figures here and they are derisory. The first draft laid down that the figure of 39s. 3d. a week would be substituted for the figure of 37s. 9d. a week. That was an increase of a mere 4 per cent. There are other figures which I will not give unless I am asked to do so.
Look at the rates which were suggested for children. The figure of 11s. 4d. a week was to be altered to 11s. 9d. a week. Up to now the child allowance for an inspector's child has been 9s. ld. a week. It was proposed to increase that to 9s. 5d. a week. Concessions of that kind are an insult to those who should get a proper education. Obviously, they will not get anything like what the Chancellor promised.
I join the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth in pressing the Minister to say quite clearly whether the rates that I have quoted are to be paid, or whether a change of mind has occurred and they will get what the Chancellor promised during the passage of the Pensions (Increase) Bill in April.
10.33 p.m.
Dr. Horace King: I want to follow up the point that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) put so clearly, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) reinforced.
Some of us who share the hon. Lady's interest in pensioners and people on fixed incomes met retired police officers about four weeks ago. They expressed their uneasiness about the Government's intentions with regard to these pensions. It is worth recording that retired police officers are not concerned only about their own pensions. A marked feature is their desire to look after the widows of their dead comrades.
When we met them they were uneasy lest the Home Office, in its draft, made proposals for increased pensions which were not equivalent to the most generous

889
interpretation possible under the General (Pensions) Increase Act of this year. I share the hon. Lady's view that the general increases that we have given are not adequate. We want to be sure that the retired police officer will be treated as generously as possible under the principles which the Chancellor laid down in the Pensions (Increase) Act. I believe that that has now been done. I believe that retired police officers are now satisfied with the draft and I am very happy that that is so.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. James Dempsey: I want to make three small points. The Regulations say that consultations took place with the Police Council. What was the attitude of the Council to these proposals? I welcome the proposals, but I do not think that they go far enough. Anyone who has had any connection with police administration knows that there is scarcely a police force in the country that does not have its own orphanage fund, its own child allowance fund, and does not to some extent rely on charity to augment the allowances given by these Regulations.
I am wondering whether the Minister has considered this aspect of the allowances. It would be interesting to know what was the attitude of the Council. We must not forget that the police officers who are serving at present will be retiring themselves at some time and that they are entitled to representation in this matter.
From time to time we learn with regret of the death of a police officer while on duty. I can recall the case of an excellent officer in my own county who died in tragic circumstances. His wife died immediately after him and the whole of the superannuation contributions were lost. If children are left in such circumstances one would think that a suitable arrangement should be made for them. I concede that such cases are exceptional, but children who may be involved are entitled to an adequate degree of social security.
When allowances are fixed at amounts like 8s. 7d., for example, or 15s. 4d., I wonder whether those responsible consider the work which is entailed in calcu-
890
lating the allowances. There is a considerable amount of work involved in rounding off the odd pence and I wish to know whether, in future, it would be possible to make the allowances in round figures which would make administration easier.
Anything we can do to improve the conditions of service of policemen and policewomen and to assist their families will be welcomed. After a long association with police administration I am convinced that unless we provide good conditions of service we are not likely to attract suitable persons likely to enforce law and order in an impartial manner for the benefit of the country.
10.39 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: It was asked that the two sets of Regulations should be discussed together and I acquiesced in that course, hoping that, as has happened on previous occasions, they would be introduced by an English Minister and that a Scottish Minister would deal with any points that were raised. Perhaps the Ministers might consult together and come to some agreement about that.
I am pleased that a number of hon. Members have spoken about these Regulations. They are important and I am glad that they have been back-dated to 1st August as was promised. Every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to the original proposal.
That was, as the Ministers will he aware, a flat-rate 4 per cent. increase. It was really departing from the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Pensions Increase Bill was going through the House. There was a great deal of feeling in the matter, as the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and other hon. Members have shown.
Representations were made at that stage to many hon. Members by the National Association of Retired Police Officers. It may have been because that Association wrote to hon. Members about the matter and put forward its case—it was a very good case indeed—the Government had second thoughts and decided that they would have to give these people what, in effect, the Chancellor had promised when the Bill was before the House.

891
I, like other hon. Members who have spoken, feel that, although this is the highest increase that could be given in all categories under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, if we look at all the categories in these Regulations there is no hon. Member who could be satisfied that they are adequate to deal with the needs of these people.
I understand that according to the Pensions (Increase) Act the highest increase has been given by the Government. That ought to make us realise that though the fight which was put up on the Bill was a correct fight, because we lost it these Regulations have given the highest amount that could be given. I hope that pressure will continue to be exerted from both sides of the House—I am not claiming all the credit for hon. Members on this side—in an attempt to give those people who are living on small pensions and small fixed incomes a better share of the prosperity which we in this country are supposed to be enjoying.
I wish to make what I think is an important suggestion to the Ministers.
I understand that the Home Secretary is to set up a commission of inquiry on the police. I do not know what its terms of reference will be, but may I suggest that under them the commission will be enabled to examine the status and the pay of our policemen and policewomen because, of course, pensions always depend on what is earned while a person is working? If one can ensure a higher status and better financial rewards for the police, then perhaps those who are occupying these benches in the future will not continually have to exert pressure for better pensions for the police and particularly for their widows and children.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome these Regulations. As I have said before, the highest payments that can be made in the circumstances are being made, but I hope that the Home Secretary will consider very carefully the terms of reference of the commission.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that we were to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. It is customary on occasions when we are taking together Regulations affecting England and Scotland for an
892
announcement to that effect to be made as the start of the debate. In this case it was made at the end of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and we are still waiting to hear from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I had the disadvantage to be absent from the Chair when the question of discussing the two sets of Regulations together was raised. I think that, strictly, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can only speak again with the leave of the House. No. That is not so, for this is a substantive Motion. Therefore, I fear that that is not a point of order for me. I cannot compel the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to speak.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Renton: When Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair, he asked whether it was intended that the Regulations should be taken together and I suggested, subject to his Ruling, of course, that they should be taken together and mentioned that it might be necessary for me to ask the leave of the House to speak again. Whether that was necessary or not, I did comply with the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and conferred with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as to who should reply to the debate. It so happens that the Scottish and the English Regulations are in identical terms, and I hope it may be thought convenient that I should reply to this debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Lady for the welcoming tones in which they have accepted these Regulations on behalf of the Opposition. As to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who described the amounts as derisory, I hope to be able to assure him that the increases are the maximum which could have been made under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a lot of work—I can understand what he is about to say and I am grateful to him for offering to say it—but the point I was trying to make was that the figures

893
in the original draft were derisory and I asked why they were there at all in view of the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Renton: In reply to the right hon. Member, these are the only draft Regulations winch have been laid before the House, and, in politics, one should be grateful for ultimate mercies. The right hon. Member is quite right in saying that in the course of negotiations certain things w ere pointed out. It was pointed out, for example, that if we applied very strictly to some of the older widows—if I may so describe them—what was the appropriate rate of increase in flat-rate pensions under the 1959 Act, we would create certain anomalies and, with the anomalies, certain injustices. Therefore, in order to put the matter beyond any doubt at all, we chose the most generous way possible of increasing these flat-rate pensions.
Mr. James Callaghan: The most just, not the most generous.
Mr. Renton: Not only the most just. but it was also generous, because this matter has a history going back to 1921. Various attempts were made by various Governments and by Parliament to improve the position of these police widows and the matter has become very complicated as a result. We found that whatever increase was applied there were bound to be some anomalies somewhere in some hypothetical case that could be quoted. We thought, therefore, that not only the most just but the most generous thing to do was to choose in these particular circumstances that rate of increase which could give cause for the least complaint, in other words, the maximum rate of increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) described herself as a "maximum woman." I hope that on this occasion she can for once give to the Government of which she is such a welcome supporter the maximum appreciation
I was about to say a few moments ago to the right hon. Member for Colne Valley with regard to his comment—and I still say it in spite of his intervention—that I think it important to bear in mind when thinking of the quantum both of the flat rates and the increases which
894
have taken place and the quantum of the graduated pensions and all their increases, that both the widows and the children who benefit under these Regulations will also get such pensions as they are entitled to under the National Insurance Act and the children, so long as they remain eligible, will also get Family Allowances. It is in that light that we have to regard the quantum of these Regulations.
I hope that, however obliquely, I have covered all the points which have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), however, asked me the straight question: What did the Police Council say in the consultations? The consultations are confidential, and that is one of their purposes. All I can say is that the Police Council approve of these Regulations, and I am very glad that they do.
Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister convey to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the representations which have been made that the Committee which the Home Secretary is setting up to inquire into the relations between the police and the public and the status of the police should be given terms of reference sufficiently wide to enable it to review not only the rates of pay but also the pensions of the police force?
Mr. Renton: Naturally, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Member said, but I did not mention this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I did not wish to incur your displeasure by going into what has been said.
Mr. Callaghan: In view of what the hon. and learned Member said about the complexity of the Regulations, may ask whether there is any prospect of the Home Office beginning to consider the consolidation of Police Pension Regulations? Those of us who have to try to find our way through them are well aware of their complexity. I do not pretend that I thoroughly understand every Regulation, although I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State does.
Mr. Renton: A start has been made upon that gigantic operation. We have it very much in mind. The difficulty is that the logical way would be to

895
consolidate them in more than one set of Regulations so that the widows and children, on the one hand, and the police officers themselves, on the other hand, are not all mixed up in the same Regulation, which would make it very complicated. At the moment, we are working on a Regulation for the police officers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion, and I will bear it in mind.
Mr. Callaghan: Will it later be brought to the Police Federation?
Mr. Renton: I think that would go without saying.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Pensions Regulations, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.
Police Pensions (Scotland) Regulations, 1959, [draft laid before the House, 2nd December], approved.—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

EXETER PRISON
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
10.52 p.m.
Captain M. Hewitson: From time to time hon. Members have to raise unpleasant subjects and to make accusations, well-founded or otherwise. At the outset I want to make it clear that what I say tonight is not an attack upon the governors of the prisons in this country, because by and large the governors of our prisons are good men doing a very difficult job, and they measure up to that job. Periodically, however, there are rumours and stories of some who do not measure up to that calibre. I shall suggest that the Governor of Exeter Prison does not measure up to that standard.
Incidents have been happening in Exeter Prison, and incidents have happened in the prisons where this governor has been in charge before, but in Exeter Prison stories are being told that are appalling. A few weeks ago we had Press statements to the effect that there had been a fracas in the mailbag shop. If there is one place in any of our prisons which should be abolished it is the mailbag shop. We often find that when difficulty or trouble occurs in a prison it is in the mailbag shop that it starts, because of the shocking working conditions.
I should like hon. Members to take the opportunity to visit some of our prisons and examine conditions in the mailbag shops. The whole thing lends itself to seething difficulties, and to violence on occasion. Sometimes it is prisoner against prisoner, sometimes prisoner against warden. The allegation at Exeter Prison on this occasion is that it was prisoners against the Governor of the prison and against the Chief Officer.
A prison regulation lays down that if a man wants to make some appeal or to speak to the Governor he must put in a notice to that effect, and it then rests with the Governor, or someone else at that level, whether or not the appeal is granted. At about 11 a.m. on 23rd October, the Governor of Exeter Prison went with the Chief Officer through the

897
mailbag shop. A man stood up, and said to the Governor, "I would like to speak to you, sir." He was immediately pushed down, whereupon the other prisoners present started a demonstration.
One of the men was called Fraser, sentenced to seven years for violence. I say at once that I do not seek to whitewash him. He is a violent man. He has a record of violence, not only out of prison but inside it. Two of the three men accused on this occasion have been sent to other prisons, but Fraser has been kept in Exeter Prison. He says himself that he would rather go to Dartmoor, because he was happy there and is not happy in a place like Exeter. Dartmoor, of course, is looked upon by those who do not know anything about prisons as one of the "hell-hole" prisons. That is the reaction of the ordinary man in the street and, to me, Dartmoor—its very name—conveys something horrible and very terrible.
As I have said, a fracas started. On such an occasion, naturally, riot conditions are declared, prison officers are brought in, and the men are immediately hustled away to the cells.
About two hours after the incident. five officers went into Fraser's cell, as they later went to the cells of the other two prisoners, McVitie and Andrews. The five officers were Officer Mather, Officer Watson and Officer Mann. The fourth was the Chief Officer's clerk, and the fifth was not identified. They went into Fraser's cell, and so ill-used him that he had to be taken to an outside hospital for treatment.
I heard of that, and I put down a Parliamentary Question to the Home Secretary, for a Written Answer, asking if he was aware of this. I got the following shocking and rather misleading reply:
"On the evidence before me, I have no reason to believe that Fraser was, in fact, injured in the manner suggested. It was necessary to restrain him while he was resisting the officers escorting him after he had himself committed an assault, and medical examination revealed only trivial abrasions and no evidence whatever of serious injury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 63.]
I saw the man two days afterwards in the prison. He had a split two inches long across the top of his head. and his right arm, from the shoulder to the
898
elbow, was literally black. That is not hearsay. I saw that myself. To receive an Answer like that from the Department really makes one feel a little ashamed.
These things are not new in this prison. I have had sent to me from the West Country a newspaper cutting which says:
"'Beaten up by warders' alleges accused man."
This, of course, is not one of these three but another man altogether.
"Producing a torn and bloodstained shirt which he said he had smuggled out of prison, a 22-year old self-employed builder told Crewkerne magistrates yesterday that he had been beaten up by warders whilst on remand in Exeter Gaol".
These are common stories coming from this prison. They tell that the Governor of the prison is absolutely intolerant. If anyone wishes to speak to him, it just does not come about. It is alleged that, if a man is standing in his way, he will physically push him out of the way. The fact that we have incidents similar to the one I am reporting now means that there should be some investigation, not a public investigation but a Departmental one, at this prison to ascertain what the usages are and what has happened.
After this fracas in the mailbag shop on the Saturday, at 7 a.m. on the Monday Fraser was served with a summons to appear before the visiting magistrates. The charge on that summons was assault. Two hours later, at 9 a.m. that Monday morning, officers entered the cell of Fraser and took from him by force the original notice to appear before the visiting magistrates and served upon him another notice charging him with gross personal violence. In other words, the powers-that-be in that prison had had second thoughts; they had probably had a consultation or a small conference about the summons which had been served on this man and had decided that they had better have something that would he tough.
As I say, officers took away the original summons. I have in this envelope the top section of the summons, so it is no use denying that it was ever served. I have it here. He was charged with gross personal violence on the second summons, and, when he went before the visiting magistrates with the other men, he lost one year's remission of sentence and was to receive eighteen strokes of the birch.

899
During last week-end, the Home Secretary, in his wisdom, decided that the birch should not be used under this sentence.
These events disclose something. Warders could not go into a prison cell and misuse a prisoner to such an extent that he had to be taken to an outside hospital unless there were there a "Belsen" mentality, with hoodlum warders going into a cell and beating up a prisoner. That is the name the prison is given, the "Belsen" prison of this country. These things could not happen if the people at the top were not agreed upon it.
I have not met the Governor. I do not know the man. But I have seen the Chief Officer. My impression and reaction to the Chief Officer is that he is of the loud-mouthed sergeant-major type who would agree to anything that was brutal.
When prisoners are sent to prison, they are in the custody of the State. One thing upon which we pride ourselves is justice to every man and woman, no matter whom they are or what they may do. When a man is sentenced by our courts and goes to one of these institutions, the State has a duty to ensure that he is not ill-used in the same way as concentration camp prisoners were ill-used during and before the war in other countries. That is what we are facing if we are not careful.
I know that the Minister will give me a string of statements about Fraser's violence. Fraser is a violent man. He is a small fellow and, in my opinion, he is a case for a psychiatrist, but he has a record of violence, both in and out of prison. The other two men, McVitie and Andrews, who are serving sentences, have been taken away from this prison. McVitie, with two others, was accused of a crime. One of the men was sentenced to seven years. On appeal, the judge has released two of them, but McVitie is still in prison and has been refused the right of appeal by the Governor of Exeter Prison. That in itself is shocking.
These things could be brought to light by investigation. I ask the Minister, first, to agree to an investigation, not a public inquiry, but an investigation from his own Department, into the usages and practice and the running of Exeter Prison. Two
900
prisoners who were accused of this assault were sentenced by the visiting magistrate and have been taken to other prisons. I ask that the third man be taken to another prison. If it is possible to agree to a prisoner's request, send him to Dartmoor. He says that he is happy there. Let the Minister do that.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider these suggestions. They are not made lightly. I repeat that the majority of governors in our prisons are good men doing a difficult job, and they are getting on well with the job. Where we have cases like this, it is up to the Department to investigate them to ensure that similar happenings are not repeated.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. Dudley Williams: I do not propose to take up more than a minute or two of the time of the House, but as the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which Exeter Prison is situated, I should be allowed to express a personal opinion. Unlike the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson), I know Mr. Rundle Harris. I know Mr. Honey also. I know them well personally.
I also know many of the officers, on both the men's and the women's sides. and I can say without question that the speech which the hon. and gallant Member has just made will be greatly resented in the City of Exeter. The staff of the prison, the Governor, and the Deputy-Governor, in particular, are greatly respected in the vicinity. To say that they would tolerate any situation bordering on the state of affairs that existed in German concentration camps is monstrous, and, in my opinion, an abuse of this House.
The attacks which have been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the prison staff of Exeter Prison can result only in more trouble there. In fact, the very fact that he has been down to see this violent criminal has already caused tension in the prison. I very much regret that Fraser was not thrashed, but that was the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who, I am sure, weighed the situation very carefully before making his decision.
I am certainly very glad that this man is not to be released on the public for

901
another year. I hope that the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will do something to dispel the damage done by the gullibility of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
11.10 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): At the outset, I should like to say that, although I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) has put forward his views in good faith, all the evidence, very considerable and well documented evidence, which I have seen in this case leads me to the conclusion that he has been gravely misled in what he has told the House. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Rundle Harris, the Governor of Exeter Prison, but what I have heard about him endorses the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams).
The hon. and gallant Member based his charges upon the remarks of one Francis Fraser, a prisoner in Exeter Prison. It is therefore necessary for me to give my account of the events which led up to this incident. On 24th October, four prisoners, including Fraser, applied to see the Governor and complained about an event on the previous day. Later that morning, the Governor on his rounds went into the mail bag shop, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. While he was talking to an instructor, he was savagely attacked from behind by a prisoner named Andrews. Meanwhile, Fraser attacked the accompanying Principal Officer who seized and restrained him. Both prisoners allowed themselves to be removed from the shop, but subsequently Fraser broke away from the escort and ran off and had to be forcibly put into a cell and searched.
That afternoon, Fraser was seen by a doctor acting for the medical officer. He complained of some pain in his right ankle, but made no other complaint at all. The doctor examined him fully and found no evidence whatever of serious injury. The ankle was not bruised or swollen and it had full movement. Fraser did have trivial abrasions on his scalp and the left side of his back, which were not serious enough to require treatment.
902
On the next day, Fraser saw another doctor and complained of various aches and pains, including pains in the right shoulder. On examination, there was tenderness over the tip of the shoulder, but no evidence of bruising, swelling, or gross deformity. There was, however, a slight click when the right shoulder was moved, and this, together with the fact that Fraser had not complained of pain in the joint at his initial examination, led the doctor to the conclusion that the condition was probably the result of an old injury. But as a precautionary measure, he arranged for an X-ray to be taken the following day. The X-ray revealed nothing contradicting the doctor's view that the condition was the result of an old injury.
Fraser and Andrews were both charged before the Visiting Committee with gross personal violence. They refused to call witnesses or give evidence and demanded to be dealt with by an outside court. Both were found guilty.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the serving of the summons. I do not attempt to deny for one moment that the summons was varied. The original summons was varied from one of assault to one of gross personal violence. The reason was as follows: the Governor, as one of the victims of the assault, thought it right to propose the lesser charge, but, having been involved in the matter himself, he would have nothing to do with the adjudication and the Deputy-Governor amended the charge to one of gross personal assault
I should explain to the House that when prisoners are charged with serious offence like this, the Prison Rules require the Governor to report to the Prison Commissioners and that until then the charge is provisional. The point I wish to make is that even if the Deputy-Governor had not upgraded the charge the Prison Commissioners, on reference to them. would have upgraded the charge to one of gross personal violence. That in no way prejudiced Fraser's evidence, and he had a week in which to think it over.
It is true that the original charge was torn up, but the facts which I have quoted are supported by evidence, much of it given on oath by the Governor and

903
the prison staff, and this shows conclusively that these charges are without foundation.
lf, however, the hon. and gallant Member still prefers to believe what he has been told, I had better place on record something about Fraser. Throughout his prison career, both he and his family have been only too ready to make allegations of ill-treatment, but none have been found to have any foundation. In this connection, I should add that Fraser and his family between them have made allegations of this sort about no fewer than seven different prisons. He is at present serving a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm as one of the gang that attacked the notorious Jack Spot.
His record, in and out of prison, has been deplorable. In prison, he has been reported for no fewer than thirteen assaults, or attempted assaults, on other inmates or staff. and I do not think for a moment that anyone listening to this debate will accept the evidence of such a man, with such a record, in preference to the sworn evidence of the Governor and his staff.
The hon. and gallant Member has referred to another incident, which concerns a prisoner named Cook. He was a remand prisoner, and the facts are that on 18th November, Cook, having been awarded minor punishments for misbehaviour, attacked one of his escorting officers and had to be pulled off by another officer. Cook was one of a party of four prisoners which had staged a violent demonstration in the police cells and had arrived at the prison with an escort of no fewer than twelve police officers. However, he made no complaint either to the Governor or to the Medical Officer. The Governor investigated the incident, but was satisfied that no unnecessary force had been used. The following day, in court, he produced a prison shirt with spots of blood on it. asserting that he had been beaten up by officers at Exeter. He was committed for trial, and taken to Bristol prison.
There, he made no complaint to the Medical Officer on reception, and there were no visible signs of violence having been used against him; but subse-
904
quently he said he wished to make a complaint of assault against officers at Exeter. Later, he said he did not wish to pursue the matter.
It might be added that the shirt in question is being examined by New Scotland Yard, but the preliminary report on the matter has led me to the view that one should doubt the statement made in respect of this alleged assault.
All the indications are that, although a small minority of the local prisoners in Exeter have been coerced into making allegations, the great majority of the population has stood apart from the trouble-makers and refused to become involved. Many of the prisoners have told the Governor of their disgust at the behaviour of Fraser, Andrews, and McVitie, and one former prisoner has taken the trouble to telephone the Assistant Commissioner concerned and express his sense of outrage on learning of the attack on the Governor.
None of the prisoners who has alleged brutality against themselves, or in respect of whom this allegation has been made by others, has made a proper written complaint in the normal manner.
Perhaps I should add a word about the prison itself. Exeter prison is a small prison, which suffers from two faults. It is over-crowded, and it houses a group of prisoners from the London area, such as Fraser. Violence was virtually unknown in this prison, and the matter with which we are concerned tonight is the first incident of its kind since Mr. Harris became Governor four years ago. The prisoners make toys for children, and on a recent visit of the blood bank no fewer than 220 prisoners gave their blood. That seems to me to be significant.
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that we should hold an inquiry. Even before he tabled his Question, I had examined all the facts of this case. I have more than reasonably satisfied myself that the administration of this prison compares more than favourably with the high standard which the Prison Commission set.
Furthermore, a senior member of the Prison Commission, the Director of Prison Administration, himself visited this prison yesterday morning on a

905
routine visit. I have seen him within the last two hours, and I am satisfied with his assurance that life and routine in the prison are good and that the atmosphere is perfectly normal. Like him, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has every confidence in the Visiting Committee. the Governor. and the staff. and I see no need to hold a further inquiry.
906
In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will accept my assurance that I am satisfied that this prison is being properly conducted, and will consider withdrawing his allegations against the Governor.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  North Lanarkshire
  North Lanarkshire
  Company Law (Committee of Inquiry)
  Company Law (Committee of Inquiry)
  RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY (TERCENTENARY)
  RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY (TERCENTENARY)
  CENTRAL AFRICA (ADVISORY COMMISSION)
  CENTRAL AFRICA (ADVISORY COMMISSION)
  ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
  ITALIAN PRIME MINISTER (TALKS)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Television
  Television
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
SEYCHELLES
  Schoolchildren
  Schoolchildren
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
KENYA
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Education
  Education
  Book (Import Ban)
  Book (Import Ban)
  Television Services
  Television Services
  University Courses
  University Courses
CENTRAL AND EAST AFRICA
  Protection of Animals
  Protection of Animals
NORTH BORNEO
  Co-operative Branch
  Co-operative Branch
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS
  Mr. Ngembus Williams
  Mr. Ngembus Williams
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Dr. Banda (Visit)
  Dr. Banda (Visit)
NORTHERN RHODESIA AND KENYA
  Africans (Restriction)
  Africans (Restriction)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved Schools (Teachers)
  Approved Schools (Teachers)
  Mr. J. Philpott
  Mr. J. Philpott
  Wolfenden Report
  Wolfenden Report
  Auxiliary Traffic Corps
  Auxiliary Traffic Corps
  Eastchurch Prison (Absconders)
  Eastchurch Prison (Absconders)
  Paraffin Heaters (Safety)
  Paraffin Heaters (Safety)
  Magistrates' Courts (Offices)
  Magistrates' Courts (Offices)
  Birmingham Watch Committee (Police Allowance)
  Birmingham Watch Committee (Police Allowance)
  East Penwith Courthouse, Camborne
  East Penwith Courthouse, Camborne
  Probation Service (Television Broadcast)
  Probation Service (Television Broadcast)
  Mr. Kenneth Court
  Mr. Kenneth Court
  Premises, London (Police Entry)
  Premises, London (Police Entry)
  Departmental Stores (Smoking)
  Departmental Stores (Smoking)
  Probationer, Bath
  Probationer, Bath
  Prisoners, Exeter (Sentence)
  Prisoners, Exeter (Sentence)
  Juvenile Delinquency
  Juvenile Delinquency
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Central Africa (Advisory Commission)
  Central Africa (Advisory Commission)
  British Graduates
  British Graduates
  Civil Servants (Pensions)
  Civil Servants (Pensions)
EDUCATION
  Huish's Grammar School, Taunton
  Huish's Grammar School, Taunton
  County Colleges
  County Colleges
  Library Service
  Library Service
  Canton High School, Cardiff
  Canton High School, Cardiff
  Eastfield Road School, Louth
  Eastfield Road School, Louth
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Youth Service (Report)
  Youth Service (Report)
  Regional Colleges and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Governors)
  Regional Colleges and Colleges of Advanced Technology (Governors)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Paraffin Oil Heaters (Standards)
  Paraffin Oil Heaters (Standards)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Liquid Egg
  Liquid Egg
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Grey Squirrel
  Grey Squirrel
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Radcliffe Committee (Evidence)
  Radcliffe Committee (Evidence)
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  British Toy Manufacturers' Association (Letters)
  British Toy Manufacturers' Association (Letters)
  Prices (Chancellor's Appeal)
  Prices (Chancellor's Appeal)
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
HOUSING
  Situation
  Situation
  LAND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT
  LAND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Thor Missiles
  Thor Missiles
  Women Teachers, Singapore (Conditions)
  Women Teachers, Singapore (Conditions)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Ministry of Supply (Dissolution)
  Ministry of Supply (Dissolution)
ROADS
  St. James's Street and Pall Mall
  St. James's Street and Pall Mall

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE BILLS
3.5 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take with respect to the promotion of Private Bills, having regard to the Report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and the terms of the Motion approved by this House on May 21, 1958.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that any alteration is required in the Statute Law governing the promotion of private legislation by county councils, having regard to the Report of the Joint Committee on the Promotion of Private Bills and the terms of the Motion approved by the House on May 21, 1958. The recommendations of the Report relate to the way in which County Council Bills shall be dealt with by Committees and the necessary amendments of the Private Bill Standing Orders. I understand that Standing Orders designed to give effect to the safeguards recommended in the Committee's Report are in process of being drafted, in consultation with the House of Commons, and will be laid before the House for consideration in due course. Until such Standing Orders are before the House, it would, I think, be unwise to make any further statement with reference to the findings of the Report.

FOOD ADDITIVES
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what amount was expended from public funds on the testing of food additives and food containments in order to ascertain whether they are toxic.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, separate figures are not available. The Medical Research Council support some fundamental research on food additives and food contaminants as part of their ordinary research programme, but this does not include routine testing for such substances. The Food Research Associations which operate under the ægis of, and with the support of, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research occasionally assist their members on problems of toxicity. Little direct toxicological testing is, however, carried out by these organisations themselves.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, would it not be a fair inference, therefore, that food additives ought to be prohibited unless they are positively proved to be safe?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that might be the noble Lord's opinion, but I do not know how many other people would agree with him.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Conesford, might I ask the Minister for Science when the noun or adjective"additive" was added to the English language?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. I must plead guilty, apparently, to using it in my Answer. I found it extremely imprecise—indeed, I asked what the Question meant. But apparently those advising me were wiser than I am, and both knew the meaning of the word and were able to provide an answer; which only shows what an advantage it is to be a Minister for Science.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: What does it mean?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, that is a terrible question.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is perfectly simple; it means an unnatural substance which is added to natural foods.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say that the word"unnatural" seems to me to be one of the most difficult words in the English language.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Christmas for the purpose of giving Government Business (except with the consent of the Government) precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day, and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the aforesaid period.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MARSHALL SCHOLARSHIPS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
POPULATION (STATISTICS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
MR. SPEAKER MORRISON'S RETIREMENT BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WATER OFFICERS COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it has been represented to me that it would meet with the general convenience of your Lordships if the Second Reading of this Bill were deferred to Wednesday next; so, with your Lordships' approval, I will not move it to-day.
EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AID FOR UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
3.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING rose to call attention to the problem of aid to under-developed countries, with special reference to the Colombo Plan; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I put down this Motion because it appeared to me that a very considerable time had passed since your Lordships discussed this specific subject of aid to the under-developed countries, although it has been inferentially mentioned in other debates. It seemed to me that the time had come when we should devote some consideration to it, for I think your Lordships will agree that it is probably one of the two or three most important questions which confront the world to-day. I have linked with it a special reference to the Colombo Plan, though I do not propose to enter into any detail of its mechanism but rather to use it as an illustration. I have mentioned the Colombo Plan for two reasons. The first is that, having in the past led the United Kingdom delegation on four occasions to the meetings

271
of the Consultative Committee of that Plan, it is the aspect of aid with which I am personally most familiar. The second reason was that I was sure that your Lordships would welcome an opportunity to hear from my noble friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs some account of the most recent meeting from which he has lately returned, I have no doubt bringing with him not less agreeable and reassuring memories than I still cherish of my experience in the past.
It so happens that fortuitously this Motion is particularly opportune at this time, because, as I gather from the Press, there are considerable stirrings in this field—new ideas, fresh thinkings on the subject, especially perhaps in the United States of America, although it is not at this stage possible to ascertain with any precision the exact lines they are likely to follow. The United States has, with prodigal generosity, since the end of the war borne the vastly predominant share of the heavy burden of aid, and it is a matter for little surprise and less resentment if it should at this moment be concerned to devise ways in which that burden could be more equitably and comprehensively distributed. For the fact remains that, perhaps from no fault of their own, there are countries, some of them with very flourishing economies, which under present conditions take no part in the provision of aid of this kind.
There was at the outset of our business to-day a direct reference to Marshall Scholarships, and it occurred to me that it might be just worth while pointing out that there is indeed no real analogy between Marshall Aid and the type of aid with which we are concerned to-day. Marshall Aid was in the nature of an emergency operation, an attempt to restore the previously highly organised industrial and commercial system of a number of countries of Europe which had been disrupted and indeed battered out of shape by the impact of a prolonged and destructive war. It was intended to be, and it was, a matter of rapid results. But the aid which we are discussing to-day is not first aid; it is a question of a long, systematic course of treatment if through the years the patient's constitution is to be built up and he is to be able to look forward to a healthy and a vigorous life.
It is perhaps convenient for our purpose to-day to deal chiefly with the undeveloped countries of Asia, for the reason that it is upon them that, hitherto, the weight of aid has been concentrated and from them that the greatest volume of experience can be derived to enable us to arrive at our conclusions. It might not be inappropriate to pause for a moment in reference to South and South-East Asia, to say what I am sure the whole House feels—how warmly we wish success to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is shortly setting out on a most important and attractive enterprise. Although we shall miss him, we shall realise that he is rendering most valuable services to the country in a new sphere. I said that it is not only the countries of South and South-East Asia, because we must remember that there are undeveloped countries in Africa as well—and not only in Africa; there are undeveloped countries in Latin America. I have also a recollection of a meeting of the Economic Commission for Europe in which, when there appeared to be some prospect of a measure of aid being forthcoming, certainly four countries lined themselves up under the banner of under-development in order to be able to partake in any aid that might be forthcoming.
It is, therefore, not by any means a restricted sphere with which we are dealing in this context; in fact, I think it is a very wide one. But certainly, I think that mainly we have to consider the position of the Asian countries. I do not propose to argue the basic ethics of aid to undeveloped countries at this stage. There are, I think it would be generally acknowledged, three main grounds: a moral, an economic and a political. As regards the moral, I believe it to be true to say that out of the brutalities and barbarities of the last war something in the nature of an international conscience was born. As regards the economic aspect, it is a truism that to any trading countries the more widespread can be the volume of international trade, the better it is for all. As regards the political, it would be hypocrisy to pretend that there is not a political element in aid, and that a part of that element is not directed towards an endeavour to counter the persistent penetration by Russia of Asian and other countries. But it would be

273
equally wrong if we were to forget that the prime purpose of aid is an endeavour to raise the standard of living of the populations of a number of countries in which, at present, their peoples are enjoying a standard of life which merely oscillates from side to side of subsistence level.
The ultimate test of aid is not what we want, but what they need. Nevertheless, if we seek, as we do, to offer them not only fuller stomachs but fuller lives, surely we are justified in upholding and advocating our own doctrines of liberty, tolerance, democracy and the rule of law, and advocating them as a positive remedy and not merely as a negative antidote. We may preach to them what we practise, but we should be making a very great mistake if we sought, as a condition of aid, to make them practise what we preach. Most of these countries have learned at least the outline of their political institutions from our example and in many cases from our presence in them over a period of time; and we can, I believe, help them immensely in the elusive art and mystery of government, if our advice is asked. But we must avoid the temptation to endeavour to thrust it down their throats. Nationalism is essentially sensitive and suspicious. Many countries of Asia are apt not to distinguish between strings and chains.
The Colombo Plan, I think, draws its greatest strength from the fact that there is no fear of secret strings attaching to it. The countries which are members of the Plan, the Asian countries, realise that there is nothing to hide; that everybody is on terms of perfect frankness, and that they are being offered no more and no less than the particular aid which is extended to them at any one given moment. And it is that knowledge, that confidence, which has given them the warmth of appreciation they have for the Colombo Plan and its organisation, and has led them to put their trust in the Plan and those who work it, and to stimulate the extraordinarily friendly relations which have always existed between the delegations of all the countries present at these meetings of the Consultative Committee.
My Lords, that is a matter of great importance. I myself have always believed that properly administered aid
274
can be an invaluable instrument of international goodwill. But it is a delicate instrument, and if it is clumsily handled the barometer very quickly shifts from"fair" to"stormy"; and, in the end, more harm than good is done. In that connection, I hope I may be allowed to say that I have seen with some apprehension suggestions emanating from America that funds contributed by the United States for aid should be exclusively used for the purchase of American goods. That may seem to them, and indeed to us, a very reasonable term to attach, but it is just the kind of restrictive covenant that creates suspicion and resentment amongst the recipient countries, who see in any move of this kind a covert attempt to lay rough hands upon their still precarious economies and in that way to throttle their infant independence. I would myself venture to express the view that so strongly do they feel about that kind of condition that, if it were imposed. I should not be at all surprised if even those countries in the greatest need of assistance rejected it rather than be bound by a condition of that kind.
As your Lordships know, aid, in general terms, falls under three main heads: the provision of loans and grants, the supply of capital goods and the furnishing of technical assistance. I believe that, from the point of view of this country, the policy we have followed, certainly in regard to the Colombo Plan, is the right one, in so far as we have largely concentrated our effort—though not to the exclusion of other attempts—in the field of technical assistance, a field in which this country is perhaps peculiarly qualified to be of help. Technical assistance itself, as your Lordships equally know, falls under three main headings: sending out experts to the Asian countries, in order that they may instruct the inhabitants of those countries on the spot; bringing people here from those countries, in order that they may undergo courses of training here, and providing such things as equipment, machinery, libraries and so forth for technical institutions and laboratories in those countries. All of those forms of aid are, I believe, most welcome, most necessary and most valuable.
I want, in parenthesis, to put in one special plea which, though perhaps not

275
exactly part of aid, is so closely connected with it that it is difficult not to regard it as intrinsic. I believe it to be of preponderant importance that we should make a tremendous effort towards the more adequate and widespread teaching of English in those countries. Apart from all other considerations, it is difficult for a man to take full advantage of a course, whether from an expert who has come out to his own country or from people who are instructing him here, unless he has at least a certain standard of proficiency in the English language to enable him to derive the fullest benefit from it.
It is a remarkable thing that the whole of the proceedings of the Colombo Plan, with representatives of nineteen countries seated round a table, should be conducted, from first to last, in the English language without the intervention of an interpreter at any stage; but we have to consider whether that state of affairs is likely to last unless we make some effort to perpetuate it. With the passing of the direct British connection in India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, it is almost inevitable that, unless we make an effort, the standard of knowledge of English in those countries will decline. And that is not the end of the matter. I do not know how many times I have been asked—and probably my noble friend will support me in this—by leading personalities in all those countries of Asia:"What are you going to do to help us to diffuse more widely in our countries knowledge of the English language?" In countries, on the one hand, like Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, and, on the other, Indonesia, the first group of which had as their second language until recently French, and the second until recently Dutch, they have now turned their backs upon those languages and are seeking to introduce English as their second tongue. They must have help. A person may be able to speak English yet at the same time be incapable of teaching it, and the teachers that we send out must be qualified teachers.
The British Council—and I have visited them in a great many places in all quarters of the world—have in my view done an heroic job in the teaching of English, often in conditions of immense difficulty, discomfort and discouragement.
276
But they must have support if they are to extend their activities into the wider sphere in which it is demanded. It is indeed a scandal that English should to-day be taught, as I am told with great efficiency, to Asians by Russians while we stand aside. It is quite true that in some ways the Russians have advantages with which it is difficult for us to compete. We are apt to forget that three-quarters of the U.S.S.R. is itself in Asia; and there are, I believe, great institutions of oriental studies in Leningrad, Moscow, Tashkent, Vladivostok and elsewhere, institutions on a scale with which we are quite unable to compete. On that I would make the point that this traffic in language has to be a two-way traffic. It is little good sending out people to teach a language in a foreign country unless they have at least some working knowledge of the language of the country to which they are going.
From these academies to which I have referred, those under Soviet control, diplomats (in the somewhat elastic sense attached by the Soviet to that word) emerge fully instructed in the language, customs and culture of the countries to which they are to he, officially or unofficially, accredited. We cannot afford to lag behind in this field. It is one of immense importance, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do what they can. I know that there is a shortage of teachers here, but there may be among them some young adventurous people of both sexes who at the end of their period of training may not find themselves greatly attracted by the immediate prospect of a life of teaching in this country but who would be fired by the possibility of adventure in some of these countries in Asia, with all the immense results for the future that would lie in their hands to collect. So much for my rather lengthy parenthesis.
If I may return to my main theme, I have seen it advocated lately in some quarters that there should be superimposed upon the various and numerous agencies which at present exist for the supervision and distribution of aid some further organisation. I confess that I am always a little suspicious of any kind of global omnipotent control. It is very apt to become out of touch with the work which it is supposed to be doing.

277
There may be good reason for greater co-ordination and elimination inside different countries, or some countries, among the agencies which are at work. But I feel that one central dominant organisation would not be anything like so effective as regional organisations, which would be much better capable of getting into touch with the actual countries for which they were responsible, of understanding local conditions, and of appreciating the immense diversities that exist in the problem as it arises in different q darters of the world.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? I am sorry to interrupt his most interesting speech. Is not the reason for the advocacy to which he referred the very serious charge which has been made in several quarters, including, I think, The Times, that far too much of this aid does not percolate down to the peasant but is used by the politicians, the professional classes and the industrial classes for their own enhancement? That is a very serious charge.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I saw that accusation, and all I can say is that in my experience I have no evidence to justify it at all. There may be occasions. I have heard the same thing said: that machinery sent out for technical assistance is left to deteriorate in sheds or out in the open, and nobody takes any notice of it. I believe that that may have happened in the early stages. I do not believe—and I have some authority for saying it, because I have had some consultation on the subject—that it exists to-day. So far as this country is concerned, I think that, certainly as regards the Colombo Plan and the other agencies which work in South and South-East Asia, it may confidently be said that duplication of effort has been reduced to a minimum by the system of co-ordination which has been adopted.
My Lords, if there is to be any super-body I should like to see it with something more of the character of an advisory body, on which all the different regions should be represented under a wing of the World Bank. Because, after all, this is, in the end, very largely a question of,"Where is finance coming from?" It might, of course, be possible to devise a new group of suitable initials for any new body which was established, but I should
278
prefer to see it come under the ægis of an existing body. New initials do not always mean new initiatives. In saying that, in laying so much emphasis on the necessity for a regional lay-out of any system of distribution of aid, I am, I confess, greatly influenced by my experience of the Colombo Plan, because there we have it perhaps in its most visible form. It may be that, vast though the area over which they extend is, the countries of South and South-East Asia are, in a sense, compact; they form an entity on their own. And, my Lords, I believe that one of the values of the Colombo Plan has been to give them a sense of that entity and to make them feel that they are, each one, common members with the others of a union of that kind.
The success of the Colombo Plan which I call in aid in this context is, I think, evidenced not only by a great deal that has been done but by two main factors. The first is that, although it started under the inspiration of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, it started as a purely Commonwealth concept and was confined to seven countries. It is now extended to include nineteen countries which have come in voluntarily to supplement the original seven, come in after having been present, in many cases, as observers and having approved what they saw, and having applied and been elected to full membership of the organisation My Lords, every country which is eligible is now a member, and that, surely, is an immense tribute to the work of the Colombo Plan and to the faith of those countries of Asia for whose benefit it is designed.
The second piece of evidence, I think, lies in the fact that, though it was originally devised to run only seven years from 1950, that period has already been twice extended and is now, I think, to run as far as 1965; and, for my part, I have little doubt that a further extension will be warmly advocated and generally approved. Those are among the factors which lead me to see a future largely on a regional basis, although I would agree that there may be some, and perhaps sometimes considerable, adaptations of the Colombo Plan needed in order to fit the particular conditions of other parts of the world. There, I think, is the basis.
My Lords, I greatly hope that Her Majesty's Government will be far-sighted

279
and generous in dealing with this question of aid. But I would add two riders. The first is that here, if anywhere in the world, is a field for long-term planning, and what is essential is that such sum as is to be contributed must be made known long beforehand and must extend over a substantial period of time. We cannot work this kind of arrangement on a fluctuating basis and without knowing where we are going to stand from one year to the next. I would rather that in the end the aggregate was smaller than it might have been, provided that it is known beforehand and that those responsible are perfectly aware of how they can plan for the future.
The second rider that I would add is this. Do let us be careful in the type of people whom we send out in the course of this aid. It is much better to send nobody at all than to send the wrong people into countries of this kind. Two or three bad choices can upset all the benefit, all the progress, that has been made by their better qualified colleagues. I hope that great attention will be paid to thorough examination of those who are to go out, to make sure not only that they are properly qualified with such technical knowledge as they may be required to possess, but also that they are the kind of person who will take a friendly, human interest in the inhabitants of that country; and it will be better still if we can find those who have a real vocation—and there have been plenty of people of that kind in the past in this country—for work of that kind. It may be that so far the progress has not been as rapid or as extensive as some of your Lordships may have hoped. But there have been great obstacles, and it must be borne in mind that some of the schemes which have been undertaken and are now in process of development are very large-scale schemes indeed, which could not in this country be completed in a brief period of time but which will in due course, I am sure, bring great benefit to the countries in which they are situated.
My Lords, the whole political situation in the world has perhaps not made the task of the application of aid any easier, but the existence of difficulties is no justification for the adoption of defeatism. There is, in my view, great
280
scope for this country to give to this particular object, not only of our substance but of our experience, in order that millions of mankind may begin at least to look forward to a life which will be something ampler and higher than a mere lifelong battle to keep alive. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Moved, That there be Papers laid before the House relating to the problem of aid to under-developed countries, with special reference to the Colombo Plan.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
3.51 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has already a very considerable record of achievement in this field, and he speaks to us from great first-hand experience of many of the problems under discussion. He is always, if I may say so, one of the most attractive speakers in the House—and, if this is not impertinent, may I say that I think he speaks even better without the aid of the Dispatch Box, which to many of us is an almost indispensable requirement of oratory. We on this side have listened with a great deal of admiration to his speech, and agree with a high proportion of the important things he has said and has expressed so well. I have no personal qualifications of that kind for addressing your Lordships; but it is to me a privilege to speak on a subject which, as the noble Marquess has rightly said, is one of the two or three most important questions in the world—and some would put it even higher.
Moreover, it is a privilege to me to speak on such a subject on behalf of the Labour Party because this is a cause to which our Party has again and again committed itself beyond any question. I should hope that I can avoid introducing an unwelcome degree of partisanship. I certainly have not come down this afternoon to try to boast of our record whilst in office—though certainly we have nothing to be a ashamed of in our record in this connection when we were in office. As the noble Marquess mentioned, Mr. Ernest Bevin and his colleagues were the main initiators of the Colombo Plan; and there is much else of which we have every reason to be proud. But, as I say, I have not come down to compare one record with another, and I am not seeking to prove (which would be offensive and otiose)

281
that, individually, the hearts of those who sit on these Benches are more sensitive to suffering than those of noble Lords opposite. If I found myself in dilficulties—and, heaven knows, it might happen to anybody!—I would sooner approach the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, for a"fiver" than any other Member of the House: and I cannot pay any more of a tribute to the personal generosity of true-blue Conservatives than that.
As I say, we in our Party are committed to certain doctrines—though that is not an attractive word, and is not very popular in England—or to a certain ideology or philosophy. We draw our own philosophy from the brotherhood and equality of man, although we know how difficult it is to give effect to that in practice. To us, the disparity between the standards of life of the poor countries and of the rich countries—and we are ourselves numbered among the rich countries—must represent a special horror and affliction of conscience: and it is a disparity which we all know is steadily increasing. That is, if you like, from the point of view of the Labour Party. But from the national point of view, the duty seems to me to be put far better than I, at any rate, can put it, in many passages from a book by a friend of many of us here, Mr. John Strachey, which book has received a good deal of acclaim in the Press of all Parties. It is a book called The End of Empire.
I intend to quote him more than once, but I quote him now partly because I think the quotation will appeal to members of all Parties and partly because it compensates a little for what I am afraid I must call the rather crude, quantitive approach of my remarks this afternoon. For reasons of time, I shall be talking of so many millions of pounds for this and so many millions of pounds for that: but I think that this passage from the book by Mr. John Strachey shows that we are well aware of the subtle and human aspects, some of which were touched on so well by the noble and learned Marquess. Mr. Strachey says this, among many other interesting things in his book:
"The highest mission of Britain in our day is to help the under-developed world. It is a mission that cannot be fulfilled by means of Government-sponsored loans and grants alone: though these are its necessary foundation. It must be fulfilled also by individual men and
282
women going out themselves into the struggling, surging four-fifths of the world which are today in the throes of 'the great awakening'. In doing so they will be building upon, though at the same time transforming, one of our deepest national traditions".
Those words by Mr. Strachey—whose family has done a great deal of service in India in the past—will be widely acceptable, and I cannot improve upon them at all.
My Lords, I am afraid I am now going to throw out a number of figures. In some cases I may be told, either to-day or later, that more up-to-date figures are available, or that my figures are 1 or 2 per cent. wrong; but they are the figures which have been given to me, and I am offering them for illustration, and not because the exact figure proves anything very particular. These are the latest figures given to me as being the per capita national incomes per year for the United Kingdom and same countries which were until recently or still are, under British control. Britain's national income per head is £300 a year; Egypt's is £43; Ceylon's is £39; Rhodesia and Nyasaland's is £35; Pakistan's is £30; Kenya's is £28; India's is £28, and Uganda's is £22. Taking India, for the sake of argument, the amount is less than £30, and for the United Kingdom it is £300, or ten times as much. That is the starting point, it seems to me, for our general discussion of this problem. I am advised and should mention something that is known to all Members of the House who follow these things, and that is that one should make some allowance for the parts of the economy which never pass through any national income assessment, such as subsistence agriculture; but even if you raise the bottom figure a little, the disparity is certainly very terrible.
That is the world's problem and it is not getting any easier. In Asia the population is increasing by 2 per cent. a year, and this means some 25 million extra mouths to feed in that continent alone each year. So the national income of a country like India must increase by 2 per cent. a year simply to maintain the present average level. It is fairly obvious to all of us—because nobody supposes we can save money in these countries by cutting the standard of life—that in some sense or other large investments of capital must be brought to bear.

283
May I divide what is done or can be done into four headings? They do not conflict with the categories of the noble Marquess but they are drawn up on a different basis. First of all there is private capital; then there is the World Bank; then there is bilateral Government-to-Government aid—our Government lending money, for example, to one other country such as India; then there is international aid—through the United Nations, for example. These methods, though useful for exposition, in fact overlap, and if we take the Colombo Plan I suppose one can say that most of the aid actually given or recorded that goes from this country under the Colombo Plan would be bilateral, although the amount which goes to the administration of the Plan—a figure which was mentioned as being £1·2 million, I think, the last time the Minister spoke of it—would count as multilateral aid. Most of the aid goes directly from this country to other particular countries under the Colombo Plan, but a small proportion of it should perhaps be described as international.
First, I take private capital. I am not going to deride what private capital has done, or can do, and if I stress other forms of aid it is only because I think that they are the greatest need at the present time. It certainly is not my hope that private capital should not be brought in or greatly increased. But private capital is naturally attracted to developed and established countries. Some estimates have been given me, and whether they are right down to the last syllable or not, I think that they are something in the right order of magnitude. It appears that since the war we have invested £500 million in Australia, £500 million in South Africa and £150 million in India. Again, I am not saying anything against investment in Australia and South Africa, but if private capital has its way, it is unlikely to go to the areas where the need is greatest. Even when it does go to under-developed countries, it tends always to go into industries which are established or could be quickly established. There again we cannot assume—
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to ask this question, as one who has for a long time had official connection with India?
284
Is it not the case with India that there is not a free influx of capital? The Indians make certain conditions, whereas in the case of Australia and South Africa there is a perfectly free inflow. There is a rather different situation.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am pot trying to prove anything at the moment. I am saying only that we find that private capital does not go where the need is greatest. That could happen, but it is unlikely; and there is no evidence that it ever does happen.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, may I elucidate this point a little further? The noble Lord will find that 90 per cent. of the capital in India is British, because it is practically all private capital.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, that does not disprove my point that the standard of life in India is one-tenth of the standard of life here. I do not think that up to now what I have said comes into conflict with the proposition advanced by the noble Lords or that what they have said comes into conflict with mine. If it were left to private capital, this aid would never be obtained. That is putting it as plainly as I can put it. But that is not for a moment to disparage what has been done or can be done by private capital.
I come to the World Bank. Again, it is not part of our purpose to disparage or under-estimate what the World Bank has achieved. Last year its capital was doubled. I do not know what part we played in that doubling of the Bank's capital, but we should take any credit which should come to us and wish all luck to the World Bank. Now we have the International Development Association. I do not know whether the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will say anything about that when he replies but, we naturally welcome this as a new arrival on the scene. I do not know whether it would cause any embarrassment and I dare say the answer could not be very definite, but perhaps the noble Marquess could tell us something about this new mission—it has been called the Bankers' Mission—which I have read about in the papers.
The name of Sir Oliver Franks has been mentioned, and certainly no better name could be mentioned in connection with any mission of that kind, but I

285
believe that, when asked a few days ago, he said that no invitation had come his way. I do not know whether we can be told anything to-day about these bankers or whether what has come out is, perhaps, something of a leak; but it would be helpful to your Lordships who have read the Press reports to know whether these eminent men are going out in connection with the World Bank and to hear more about their activities.
Then I come to bilateral aid. Undoubtedly we have made available very considerable sums. It appears that between 1951 and 1958 we have provided £123 million to Colombo Plan countries. I gave the noble Marquess notice of this question, but I am afraid rather short notice, and therefore I am not sure it is fair to expect an answer. But perhaps he will be able to say whether that figure excludes military expenditure—for instance, in Malaya.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): It does.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am very glad to hear that. We must give credit to the Government, or to whoever arranged for this bilateral aid of £123 million.
I come to the international agencies, excluding the World Bank, and here I am afraid that I must describe our record as doleful. According to the best figures available to us (again the noble Marquess may have something more up to date or better), the total United Kingdom contributions in 1958 to all United Nations agencies and bodies were £5·8 million. That is the figure supplied to me, but it may be that we shall hear that it does not include everything. Certainly not all of this was for development. It appears that £1 million is the assessed United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations administrative machine. I am aware that we have increased our contribution to the Special Fund from 1 million dollars, the 1959 figure, to 5 million dollars for the coming year. That is all to the good. But at the same time the Colonial Office have submitted requests for 15 million dollars of loans, so how much we can be said to be doing on balance for the world under this heading is rather hard to make out. Certainly I must regard the whole effort to assist the United Nations administration
286
as being on a depressingly low level and unworthy of the resources of our great country. This, I am sure, is the general view of my noble friends.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, before my noble friend continues would he allow me to raise a point? I should be interested, after he has given these important figures of what has been done, to know whether he has taken into account the large sum of money that was owing, in particular, to India, and also to Pakistan, as a result of the war sacrifices. That has enormously assisted the Indian peninsula in its work of recovery and extending its economy.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, according to my view, the development plan of the Indian Government has been financed up to the present time largely by withdrawals from Indian balances. I entirely accept the importance of what my noble friend has said, but I do not know how far back he wants me to go. I was dealing with assistance through the United Nation agencies, and was not, therefore, giving the total figure for assistance to India, whether through private channels or otherwise. I was dealing with United Nations assistance—what I would call international aid in the full sense.
What are the Labour Party saying should be done? Your Lordships will forgive me, I know, for quoting round figures and speaking in broad terms. And once again the figures may be improved by the time the noble Marquess has wound up. We insist that the bilateral. Government-to-Government aid, and the multilateral aid through the United Nations, should be expanded until it is at least 1 per cent. of out national income. We would exclude, of course, private capital investments. I am not sure what our official view is about the World Bank in this connection, but I should hope that World Bank assistance is also excluded from the 1 per cent. although I cannot commit the Party to that view. That is what the Labour Party are talking about when they talk about providing 1 per cent. of the national income to help the underdeveloped areas. We are not talking about private capital investments, useful and invaluable though they may be; we are talking about Government-to-Government aid, both bilateral and multilateral.

287
According to the latest calculations, the national income, in spite of our beneficient rulers, appears to be going up, and according to the latest figures we have, 1 per cent. would be about £180 million. Again according to the latest figures given by the Minister, the comparable figure actually being provided through the Government at the present time would be about £90 million, or about a half. The Minister, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Erroll, explained in July that that figure was increasing. So I dare say that the aid now being given is running at a good deal higher level than that figure of £90 million a year. But then, as I say, the national income is increasing. At any rate, according to our latest figures, it is the provision of, say, a half, or, if you like, not much more than half, the total which we ourselves would have in mind.
But the total quantity provided is not the whole matter under argument. At the present time, we are providing, as I say, only £5·8 million in international aid out of the £180 million which we should like to see provided. We lay special importance on the aid coming through the United Nations. Let me repeat, ad nauseam I am afraid, that we do not want to disparage other forms of aid, but we do think that aid coming through the United Nations is the most valuable.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being a little misleading. He says that we are providing only £5 million out of the total of £180 million which the Labour Party would like to see. But there is the World Bank, the subscription to the International Monetary Fund and there is to be the I.D.A. These all come under the heading of aid, but they do not happen to channel through the United Nations. As I say, the noble Lord is being a little misleading in the way he puts it.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am always open to correction about my method of exposition, but I think that when the noble Earl reads Hansard he will see that I said that the Government were providing £90 million in total, against £180 million; and I said that that figure was said to be increasing. So what I
288
actually said was that if you take the target of the Labour Party of £180 million, we are going only half way towards that object, or possibly rather more than half way, because I appreciate that the figure would be going up in the current year. If I slightly blurred that statement by going back to the £5·8 million, I apologise. Heaven knows how difficult it is to make figures intelligible to oneself, let alone to others!
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, may I be allowed to say this? The noble Lord emphasised that private enterprise money is going in, and that he is not taking that into calculation, although it is of vital importance. There is a great deal of enterprise money which would go into the under-developed countries if they would accept it and give it a right deal. But it is difficult to suggest that private enterprise money should go into a country like Ceylon, which is threatening to nationalise it at any moment.
LORD PAKENHAM: I must be forgiven if I do not pursue that line of argument or defend the Government of Ceylon. I am sticking to my point that our national duty is represented most directly by our contribution through these Government agencies. I have said three or four times already, but I will say it again, that we welcome anything that private enterprise can do, in addition.
What I was trying to say—and I apologise if I did not make it plain—was this: that £5·8 million is rather a derisory figure. If I misled the House by comparing that with the £180 million, I withdraw that comparison. It does not go very far, in any case, whatever comparison may be taken. We say that, while the total ought to be increased, the proportion going through the United Nations should be much expanded: there should be an increase in total and a much higher proportion going through the United Nations. If noble Lords ask,"Why do we prefer the United Nations?", I could give several explanations or reasons for that. The general one, which I will not dwell upon—and I think we all in this House agree upon this—is that anything which strengthens the United Nations is itself likely to strengthen world peace Another reason

289
is that the United Nations could be the best of all co-ordinating pieces of machinery. I will not become involved in an argument with the noble Marquess as to that matter, but I put it on record as our view.
The two main reasons that we have for preferring the United Nations are these. The first is one with which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, dealt with great effect by using that very telling expression about the fear that strings will become chains. That puts it better than I can put it. But we are most anxious to see that this aid is likely to be much more acceptable to the receiving county in question, and we think it is more likely to be acceptable if it is shorn of any possible taint of exploitation or patronage. The second reason is a wider one, which I put forward with conviction and yet also somewhat tentatively, because it involves a number of considerations about some of which, at least, the position is not entirely plain to me. Certainly if we operate through the United Nations that eliminates any suggestion of a connection with the cold war, and one would think, therefore, that it would make co-operation easier with the U.S.S.R. I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, may feel able to say something about that.
We are well aware that Mr. Khrushchev, in his speech on September 18, laid considerable stress on the opportunities which disarmament would provide for a great increase in aid to the underdeveloped areas. We on these Benches—and I think this is probably common to the whole House—feel that these questions of aid and disarmament are inextricably linked together. Certainly we regard with horror, as I think everyone must, the thought that we are spending £1,500 million a year on armaments and are yet having the greatest difficulty in making these much smaller sums available for aid. I appreciate that it is easier to spend a large sum of money in your own country than to transfer it, as was found after the last war when an attempt was made to extract reparations from Germany. But when we think of £1,500 million a year spent on armaments, and compare it with the sums we are now taking about, of £100 million or £200 million, for aid, there is a painful moral to be drawn which does not
290
reflect discredit on our country in particular, but which does reflect discredit on the whole of the modern world.
At the same time, I agree that there is a certain danger in linking these questions too closely together, because if disarmament proves difficult, or appears to be impossible for a time, that, in turn, can be used as an argument against extending aid; and I am sure that nobody on these Benches would like to use the argument that we must hold up aid in the hope of achieving disarmament in that sort of connection. The fact is that in the current Session of the Assembly the Soviet Union have stated a willingness to work through the United Nations in this field, and we on these Benches feel that Her Majesty's Government should explore carefully what machinery the Soviet Union would be prepared to join in. We put that forward in an exploratory way, but with a great deal of concern and interest. I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, will be able to say something about it.
We strongly agree, I am sure, with what the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said on a rather wider though related point, about the need for broadening the whole front of the aid among countries. I thought he expressed that most effectively. Let me be quite blunt and ask: should we not seek to draw in Germany, in general, and in the prosperous countries of the West, on a much wider front than has yet been possible? The noble Marquess will not accuse me of any desire to be anti-German. I have no reason whatever to think that the Germans would not play a good and helpful part in this matter, and I think the effort should be made to find out what can be done among countries that have not yet been approached.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think I said in that connection, when I was referring quite obviously, though perhaps not by name, to Germany, that it might well be that the mechanism for helping had not yet presented itself. I did not attach any blame.
LORD PAKENHAM: Exactly. I am sure that we are at one there. We certainly feel that this is a case where we

291
can give a lead, even with our limited population and our always limited resources. This is a case where a British lead could, and should, be given. But one is bound to say that when one tries to give a lead of that kind one's experience, initiative, and all the rest I suppose, weigh comparatively little against the example. The question comes down to this: what is the example we are setting? We do not consider that we have yet set a sufficiently high example of sacrifice, and we ask the Government to consider whether, by greater sacrifices ourselves, a lead could not be given.
I come to a close. The case for economic aid of this kind can be presented as a moral one, an economic one or a political one—and the noble Marquess who opened the debate dealt with all those aspects. It would certainly be wrong to assume that a sacrifice of this kind must necessarily damage us. It may be that a policy of generosity will also be a policy of economic wisdom. We could cast our bread on the waters and recover it after not so many days. It might well be that a more generous policy would lead to greater exports, and certainly from the political point of view it might be something to combat Communism. If one takes that point of view, is one saying something different from what is said in the Gospel?:
"I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in:… Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
Is there a conflict between the two? I think there could be. It is wrong to assume that when we make a sacrifice we always get our money back. I do not think there need be a conflict, but I think it would be right to assume that we are taking this matter primarily from the moral point of view. You must pay attention to economic realities and to the question of what is possible for a country with resources such as ours. On this great question I have searched for years and I have not found words better than those in Mr. Strachey's book The End of Empire. I do not think he would describe himself doctrinally, but no more Christian words can be found than those
292
in the chapter"My Brother's Keeper?", where he says:
"The truth is that there is only one conclusive reason why we should help the peoples of the undeveloped world: and that is because it is right for us to do so. It is morally right. It is to-day a moral imperative for the nations of the Western world to use a part of their great resources to aid the peoples who still live and die in destitution. If this is not right, what is?"
He goes on to say:
"The moral and the material factors are inextricably united … two thousand million hungering, suffering, struggling men and women need the help which we alone can give. The world to-day is a ten thousand times more dynamic place than ever before in its history We have only to go out into it both to lose and to find ourselves."
I do not think that I or anyone here is likely to improve on those words, and I have much pleasure in supporting the spirit of the Motion of the noble Marquess.
4.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Reading for moving this Motion. He was able to speak with such intimate knowledge, particularly of the Colombo Plan and of the South-East Asian region, to which he principally confined his remarks. I think we must all have listened with great interest to the most sincere observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, although I confess that I was unable to follow some of his mathematical arguments. I have just come back from Indonesia, where the last Colombo Plan Conference was held, and inevitably my remarks will be coloured by my experience and in my subsequent travels through South-East Asia. But perhaps it would not be a waste of your Lordships' time if I tried to outline what in fact the Colombo Plan is doing. I do not do this only as a rebuttal of some of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, but to put on record what in fact is happening. I think, perhaps, some of your Lordships may care to hear some of the details.
As your Lordships will remember, the Colombo Plan started ten years ago and, as the noble Marquess reminded us, it was then a relatively small affair, with only seven countries. It was largely the brain-child of Mr. Ernest Bevin, and I, too, should like to pay my personal

293
tribute to his vision—vision that has been so well proved right by the growth of this organisation and by the strength and importance that it has achieved. We owe a lot to this wise man. This Plan was supported right from the start by the United States of America, although she did not become a full member until 1951. As the noble Marquess has reminded us, the Colombo Plan Conference new consists of no fewer than nineteen countries. We added another one this year, Singapore, and I had the honour, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, of proposing the acceptance of Singapore as a full member of the Colombo Plan—this, of course, as your Lordships realise, is in conformity with the new Constitution of Singapore. So we now have this group of nineteen countries covering all the countries of South-East Asia, from Pakistan through the Philippines up to Japan.
Perhaps it would be well if we reflected for a moment about the thought which was behind the Colombo Plan when it was initiated, and think that here the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will wish to listen with attention. I believe that the thought which was behind the Colombo Plan, and the thought which is in the minds of the supporters of the Colombo Plan now, was that it should focus the attention of the whole world on the practical problems facing the countries of South-East Asia: the problems arising from the massive increases of populations in those countries; the problems arising from the determination of those countries to provide higher living standards, education, health services and skilled manpower, all in this generation: and the problem of how to convert waterless wastes into fertile lands which ultimately can absorb these alarmingly increasing populations.
The founders of the Plan did not attempt to draw up a blueprint. What they wanted to do, I think, and what they have largely achieved, was to create a sense of international responsibility, with each member country making its own best effort and helping others—in fact, the idea of co-operation and interdependence. For this plan to be successful, the question of consultation and review is obviously vital, and it is through these annual conferences of the Colombo Plan Consultative Committee
294
that we are able to discuss together what has been achieved and what should be planned for the future.
Here I would like to say a word about our attitude of mind—and I think the noble Marquess, in his remarkable and interesting opening speech, has already touched on this point: it struck me, too, as it has struck him on the four occasions when he led the United Kingdom delegation. I feel that it is absolutely imperative that we of the West should not try to impose upon our brothers of the East our ways, nor attempt to impose upon them an order of priorities against their judgment. We must together consult and consider, and it is in that way that the spirit of co-operation that does exist in the Colombo Plan has been achieved. And I would not for one moment allow the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to think that belief in the brotherhood of man is something which is held only by noble Lords on his side of the House. I myself, and noble Lords behind me, believe just as strongly as he does in the brotherhood of man.
I think it may be interesting to your Lordships if I here say something which I heard at the last Colombo Plan Conference. The Conference was opened by the President of Indonesia. President Sukarno. He made a long and striking speech, and that speech had, as it were, a background theme which permeated all his ideas. And it was simply this: that"we of the East must develop in our own ways." Later in the course of the Conference, Mr. Nash, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who was leading the New Zealand delegation, in the course of a most interesting speech, and in his own inimitable style, referred to what he called the two great crimes. The first crime, as he put it, was the crime of allowing others to starve when there were means to prevent it. The second crime was trying to make a man change from the reality of himself into something else, the twisting of man's nature to conform to a particular pattern. And in his view the second crime was the greater of the two. He put it in this way, the"destruction of a man's soul". I believe that in our co-operation with our Asian friends we have to be most careful not to approach problems from a preconceived Western viewpoint, and I believe that only in that way, with the long-term planning

295
to which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has referred, shall we achieve the best results.
I heard it said by people when I was travelling through South-East Asia that"the problem is so big, there is so much to do, that it does not matter where you start, so long as you start." I believe that to be a profoundly wrong attitude. I believe it to be extremely important that we should go to infinite pains to see that we start at the right place, and that every pound, every dollar, of aid is properly spent for the best possible purposes. We have, as your Lordships probably remember, the help of the organisation E.C.A.F.E.—the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. They have their headquarters in Bangkok, and this organisation studies economic situations, problems and projects, and enormously helps the Governments in this area to assess their problems and to work out their projects. I was fortunate enough to be able to visit E.C.A.F.E. and have discussions with fifteen experts there. We particularly discussed the Mekong Valley scheme, and from talking with those men, who were drawn from every nationality, from every country, I realised that here were a devoted body of international civil servants giving of their very utmost to help these countries of South-East Asia. Some of them, of course, were South-East Asians themselves.
The nineteen member countries of the Colombo Plan are still classified as donors and recipients, but as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, will, I am sure, bear out, the plan is evolving, and quite often the recipients are becoming donors themselves, giving technical training, and in some cases giving capital. In the year ending June, 1959, for instance, India spent over £100,000 on technical assistance outside India for the benefit of people outside India. India is also giving aid to Nepal under the current Nepalese Five-Year Plan. Similarly, Pakistan has provided training for nearly 100 trainees, Ceylon for approximately 50 trainees, and Malaya for 25. So here we have a spirit of co-operation, of interdependence, and, above all things, of self-help, which is steadily growing. In order to assist this sort of help between the countries of the area, there is a plan that the Ford
296
Foundation shall make a survey of the potential training facilities of the area, and this, I believe, will be very valuable.
What, in fact, is being done on the capital aid side? I feel that I must give your Lordships a few examples. There are many more I could give, but I should like to have these examples on record. First of all, I would remind your Lordships of the great Durgapur steelworks. The estimated cost of this project is about £105 million. The United Kingdom has made a credit to the Indian Government of £15 million. A seven-year loan of £11½ million has been arranged by a British firm of bankers, supported by five other leading United Kingdom banks. The remainder of the external costs will be met from the Indian Government's own foreign exchange resources. Then there is the Warsak Dam in Pakistan. This is a Canadian project; the Canadians are helping to build the dam and they have provided a very substantial grant. In Laos there is the Dong Dok Dam, which is being built by the United States, also under a grant. For Malaya, the Australians are sending diesel railcars to the value of £5 million. For Pakistan, the New Zealand Government is making a grant of £200,000 for the erection of a sugar mill. In Singapore the United Kingdom, with grants from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, is financing improvements and development of the airport.
Then we come to the total amount of loans from the I.B.R.D., the World Bank, since it started in 1947 to June, 1959, which is the date of the last figure I have. The countries of the Colombo Plan area have received 1,117 million dollars. Excluding this money, from I.B.R.D. loans, the total assistance to the area since 1950 amounts to 6,000 million dollars or £2,142 million. I think that these figures may be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Marquess? I do not know whether now, or possibly later when the noble Earl replies, we could be given any idea of the total Government aid to under-developed countries during the latest year. It is rather easier for our purpose, at any rate, if it could be given for the last year.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend will deal with that in his winding-up speech. On the side of technical aid, here again a great deal has been done. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred in the course of his speech to the value which he attaches to technical aid, and I believe that we in this country have perhaps more qualifications for giving this aid. For instance, we have aided in Indonesia in the civil air training school. The Australians have helped in Indonesia in making a rehabilitation centre, giving hospital equipment, X-ray machines and so on. Then there is the Mekong Valley Scheme, to which I have already referred, with the United States, Canada, Japan, France, New Zealand and ourselves all taking part. There is the Canadian highway consultation team which is helping the Government of Burma. There is the Japanese-aided agricultural technical centre in Cambodia and so on.
I could expand the list considerably, but I will not do so at the risk of boring your Lordships, except perhaps to refer in particular to United States aid to the malaria eradication programme which takes place throughout the area. India is the largest recipient of assistance in this respect, and since the programme started, in 1952, the annual incidence of malaria in India has fallen from 75 million oases to 20 million cases—still a formidable figure. Of course, we participate in this scheme through the World Health Organisation. Since 1950, training has been given to no less than 18,000 students and over 10,000 experts of one sort and another. All this aid is co-ordinated by a small permanent office in Colombo—the Colombo Plan Bureau, which is supervised by the Colombo Plan Technical Co-operation Council, a standing committee of officials in Colombo. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the administrative cost will, in all, be about £42,000 in 1959–60, of which the United Kingdom share is about £2,250–4he total cost of the administration will be about £42,000 in 1959–60, of which the United Kingdom share is about £2,250. All member countries pay an equal share. I particularly read out those figures because I thought the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, might wish to have them.
LORD PAKENHAM: Would the noble Marquess repeat them?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have already read them twice. The noble Lord was not listening the first time.
LORD PAKENHAM: I was not sure whether the figures were right. If the noble Marquess will repeat them, my point may become clear.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: To the best of our knowledge, our share is £2,250 this year.
LORD PAKENHAM: Only £2,000?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is the figure that I have. If I am incorrect, I will at once inform the noble Lord.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I ask how many participants there are?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Nineteen. As I have already said, a great deal of our aid goes into technical assistance, and I think it is true to say that because of our colonial experience we are particularly well placed to offer assistance of that sort. I am happy to be able to inform your Lordships that the tempo of the technical assistance which is being given from this country is increasing rapidly. In 1958 we gave technical assistance to the value of £1 million. Over the period 1956–63 our contribution will be in all £9 million, and we shall be spending at the rate of £2 million per annum over the next three years.
The Technical Co-operation Scheme of the Colombo Plan, is, I think, a particularly successful part of the Plan. That is something to which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred. By June, 1959, the United Kingdom had provided 2,600 training places for Colombo Plan students in this country. The subjects that were given to these students included modern technology, engineering, agriculture, medicine, research—all valuable practical subjects for use in their own countries. The United States contribution for technical aid—of tremendous assistance—in the last year amounted to no less than 31 million dollars. In the same period, 360 United Kingdom experts have taken up assignments in Asia, helping in public administration, teaching in universities, and advising on technical projects.

299
In this connection, I think I should refer to what is being done by private firms and by the Federation of British Industries. They provide scholarships and they give a considerable amount of training to technicians overseas. I understand that they have recently formed a committee on policy towards under-developed countries. I have here a long and impressive list of the companies which are participating in this committee. I have no doubt that it will be a most valuable addition to the work of aid in South East Asia and elsewhere.
On the side of capital aid, we have many different channels through which this goes, and my noble friend the Leader of the House will have more to say about this in his winding-up speech at the end of the debate. But I would give just one figure now to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, lest he be impatient. It is, that since the beginning of the Colombo Plan the United Kingdom has committed £150 million sterling, and has actually disbursed £100 million. In the year ended June, 1959, we spent nearly £30 million, which was more than twice our average of previous years. I think that the noble Lord—I am sure not deliberately—tended rather to discount our contributions through the World Bank, which, after all, is an adjunct of the United Nations. Here, as the noble Lord well knows, our contribution is 14 per cent. of the total. After the United States we are the largest subscriber at 14 per cent. The United States stands at 33 per cent.; then we come down to France at 5½ per cent., then to West Germany at 3·45 per cent. The total loans from the World Bank since 1947, up to June, 1959, amounted to 4,426 million dollars, of which, as I have already said, 1,117 million dollars went to the present Colombo Plan countries, a not insignificant sum.
Then, of course, there is the International Development Association, and, as has already been stated in your Lordships' House, Her Majesty's Government have blessed this scheme and have undertaken to contribute £50 million—that is to say, at the same rate (14 per cent. of the whole) as our contribution to the World Bank, the total proposed capital being 1,000 million dollars.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Marquess would not mind my
300
interrupting him—he has been very kind and helpful—I suppose he would regard that as a capital payment. He would not add the £50 million to our total for the year. It is a capital sum?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, may feel, as I feel—and we all want to do more—that we have all played our part; and we are determined to continue to do so. We hope to maintain the momentum and if possible to increase it. As I have explained to your Lordships, it is increasing steadily all the time. But I do not think it is necessary for me to remind your Lordships that our ability to make any contribution or to give any aid at all depends upon the soundness of our own economy at home and the strength of our pound sterling.
I know that there have been some criticisms about wasted aid. I feel that it would be wrong for me or anyone to deny that it the past there has been waste. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, referred to that in the course of his remarks. But I believe that the greatest form of waste is likely to be caused by funds being distributed without adequate knowledge for their use. This is where the question of education is vital. I was particularly glad to hear the noble Marquess talk in terms of a long-term plan, for surely education must be at the heart of all these schemes. Obviously, funds without the knowledge to use them are likely to be wasted.
In the sphere of technical education English is becoming the lingua franca, as the noble Marquess has reminded us. Until the English language has been learned, young men or women who wish to take up technological studies cannot do so, and therefore there is this cry which has been repeated to me on numerous occasions, as it has to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for more English teachers. One has heard that on all sides. One hears in this country, in this Welfare State of ours, that among the youth of the country there is sometimes an element of frustration; and apparently there is insufficient adventure. We have had to invent schemes such as the Outward Bound to provide adventure for our young Britons. I submit that there is plenty of scope for all the adventure that these young men and women need if they would

301
volunteer to go out to these less developed countries and offer their services as teachers of the English language and of technical subjects.
I most sincerely hope that it may be possible for some generous treatment to be given to young men and women who volunteer for such work, for I believe that they would deserve some degree of generosity; for it may be that they would feel that by leaving this country they would interrupt their normal professional careers. That is something which perhaps should be studied and carefully considered. Certainly this seems to me to be one of the first priorities. In passing, I would just add that in Indonesia all technical teaching is now done in the English language, so that we have a rôle to fulfil here; but we have not yet sufficient teachers. I know perfectly well that there is a shortage of teachers in this country, as the noble Marquess has said; but I sincerely hope that among the more adventurous spirits in this country there may be a number who will volunteer to work overseas. At the same time, we must not forget that in our universities and training colleges in this country of ours there are now no fewer than 40,000 students from overseas. Here, of course, is a great contribution which is being made by this country.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, if the noble Marquess will forgive me for intervening for a moment on this question of teachers, I wonder whether it could be arranged—I thought possibly it had been—that service abroad should count towards teachers' pensions in this country. I know that at one time there was great difficulty in getting teachers to volunteer to go abroad because such periods did not count towards their pensions in this country. I do not know whether that difficulty was ever overcome. I have an idea that it was. Certainly that was one of the difficulties in getting young people to volunteer.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I must confess that I do not know the answer to his question. I hope the noble Lord is right and that something of that nature does or may exist as a helping hand to teachers.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, that is obviously very material.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think that that is a very important point. I just want to mention what may appear to be a relatively small thing, but it is one that illustrates the attitude of mind in the Colombo Plan. There is also a system called"Third Country Training," of which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, will have recollections, under which, for example, Indonesians may be trained in harbour administration in Singapore, and Cambodians may be sent to Singapore to learn English. It is a roundabout system, but it is all building up a co-operative spirit; and I believe, with the noble Marquess, that there is tremendous value in the two-way traffic. The traffic is not all one-way. If we send teachers and technologists overseas they are not only going to teach; they are also going to learn, and that in itself will be of great value to this country, quite apart from what we may be able to give.
I want to say just a few words about the terrifying problem of population. The statisticians tell us that the world population is now 2,800 million, and that in 1975 it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,800 million—an increase of 1,000 million in fifteen years. Approximately one-quarter of the world's population is in the Colombo Plan area, and I believe it is a fact that this is one of the fastest breeding areas in the world. Somehow or other, agriculture has to keep pace with this tremendous increase in population. I believe that probably this is the greatest problem of all. How are we going to contrive to make the land produce sufficient to feed these rapidly growing populations?
In the course of my travels, I had conversations with many leading politicians, and I remember particularly speaking with Mr. Krishna Menon, in Delhi. He spoke at great length about this problem of population, and also of how agriculture in the countries of the East could be made more efficient. I had the same conversation with Mr. Patil, who recently visited the United Kingdom and was shown round some of our experimental agricultural stations by the Minister of Agriculture and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. This, I believe, is a matter to which we in the United Kingdom must apply our minds: how can we give help, and what advice

303
can we proffer to the countries of the East, particularly in their agricultural problems? For though we may build roads, we may put up factories and so on, if the peoples' bellies are empty all that will be useless.
The problem of birth control is, I know, being carefully studied, and I think that perhaps the principle is slowly becoming more acceptable. But, after all, as we all know, in these countries of the East the sons of a family have so long been looked upon as an investment that it is bound to be difficult to break with that old tradition. As it was put to me, family planning is a wonderful thing, and it is, I suppose, a matter for great credit that the birth rate should be going up and child mortality going down. But, of course, with family planning we do not necessarily reduce the population. Whereas before we perhaps had the tragedy of five children dying out of a family of six, now we may have families of three where two survive. So there is there a tremendous problem which, somehow or other, must be overcome. I understand that in 1962 the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East and the World Health Organisation are to hold a special conference in Tokyo, where they will study this question of family planning, the question of food and the question of housing; and in the meantime all the countries of the region are holding censuses so that they will be in a position to provide adequate data on which this conference can work.
My noble friend Lord Reading said a word or two about the question of coordination. I am entirely in agreement with him. I do not believe that some great power at the top is wise. I believe that something in the nature of a regional: scheme would be more acceptable, a regional scheme of co-ordination, relying still, as we do now, on the World Bank as being the central clearing house, as it were. Because, after all, so much of the work does in fact go through the World Bank. In conclusion, my Lords—and I apologise for speaking at such great length—I should like, very briefly, to give your Lordships two or three of my own impressions from the Colombo Plan Conference.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, would the noble Marquess allow me to interrupt? I do so only in order to apologise for having to leave the House—to apologise to him, to the noble Earl the Leader and to the House. It is not a World Bank engagement that takes me away, but the noble Marquess would think it the next best thing. And I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his very full answer.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. The first thing that struck me (and I am sure that it also struck my noble friend Lord Reading) was that we sat round the table, nineteen different delegations, in a spirit of absolute co-operation, trying together to find solutions to immense human—and I emphasise that word"human"—problems. I also felt very conscious that there was no sense of the donors"lording it" (if I may use the expression), over the recipients. Nothing of that sort appeared in any of the meetings which I attended.
Then there was this point to which I have already referred: the importance of the Europeans, or the countries of European origin, not approaching Asian problems from a preconceived Western point of view—and I do not think that that point can be stressed too strongly. Another thing which struck me very forcibly was the sense of friendship that can be engendered by participating with other countries in an attempt to find solutions to problems affecting a third party: in other words, co-operating in altruism. Perhaps, my Lords, a further adoption of such a principle of action might go a long way to breaking down national barriers. I believe that might be so. My noble friend Lord Reading has reported to your Lordships that the Colombo Plan Conference is to be extended for yet a further period; and in 1964 there will be a review to consider a further period of extension after 1966. I, for my part, sincerely hope that there will be a further extension.
Before I close, I should like to put on record in your Lordships' House the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Indonesia who were the host country this year. I should like not only to thank them; I should like also to congratulate them on the extremely efficient way they ran the Conference and the generous and imaginative

305
way in which they looked after their guests. But Indonesia was not only a host but is also an active participant in the Colombo Plan.
My Lords, we all know that the problems involved are immense. I believe, as my noble friend Lord Reading does, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, does, that what we have been discussing to-day is one of the most important things we have to think about—the problem of aid to under-developed countries. I know that on all sides of the House there are some of your Lordships who are impatient at the rate of progress. I believe that also among the thinking people outside there may be an impatience. But, my Lords, the tempo is quickening; we are learning all the time, and what we must be concerned with is what is practicable.
5.9 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I should like to make a few limited observations suggested by what has been said and what has not been said in the speeches that have already been made. What I say will not relate exclusively or even specially to the countries associated in the Colombo Plan as distinct from those under-developed countries which are outside that association.
The first thing I want to say is that I think we aught to have a clear distinction in our mind between charitable aid and productive investment, even though both in motive and in practice the two may often be combined. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, gave us a picture of relative need by giving us estimates of income per capita in different countries of the world. He then pointed out that the relative need as so measured was very different from the proportions in which private capital had been flowing to different parts of the world. Of course that is so. It should be so. Private investment not only is but should be related, not to human need in the sense of the lesser standards of living in certain countries, but to opportunities of productive investment. When you come to Governments and Government provided money, it is, of course, proper to have more regard to a criterion of need: but even then, my Lords, I suggest that we should all agree that it is desirable to the utmost possible extent that the public money provided should be so
306
used as to take any opportunity of productive investment, and thus make the recipient country more and more, instead of less and less, self-supporting in the future.
To-night I do not propose to say anything of the purely charitable assistance that is given without hope or expectation that it will fructify and increase the general economic resources of the recipient countries; I propose to speak only of the cases in which money is provided for the purpose and with the hope that it will fructify and raise the general economic standard of the countries receiving it. After some experience of development and reconstruction projects in many parts of the world, starting more than 30 years ago, one thing has been burnt into me, and it is this: that if you are going to get results, it is not only desirable but essential that the projects for which the money is provided should be well chosen, and that adequate safeguards should be found to ensure that that money will be efficiently spent and devoted to the purposes for which it was provided.
Secondly, it will rarely be possible to ensure this without some kind of association of the countries from which the capital is coming with the administration of those to which it is going, both in the establishment of the necessary conditions and safeguards and in their subsequent observance and carrying out. And that, my Lords, is an extraordinarily difficult thing to secure: much more difficult in the present period, when the recipient countries are so much more sensitive as to their independence and as to anything which they call political strings, than before the last war. It is extraordinarily difficult for that reason to secure that conditions shall be accepted and observed which will make the schemes for which the money is provided successful.
It is also more difficult for the representatives of a Government, or of Governments, to secure these safeguards and their maintenance than it is for institutions that present themselves to the recipient countries as banking institutions, whether private or public. I do not know precisely how the new I.D.A. is to be administered, but I am sure that, if it is administered by means of negotiations through governmental

307
representatives, they will find it much more difficult—perhaps impossible—to secure the necessary safeguards than, for example, an institution such as the World Bank. The World Bank is an official institution associated with the United Nations; but it is an institution that presents itself to a borrowing country as a banker, concerned, when he asks for a certain safeguard, to secure something that is required for the technical success of the project for which the money is being provided, rather than for a political purpose. The Bank is also, of course, more acceptable because it is an international and not a national institution.
The difficulty about making the investment through the World Bank is that it is essential that the World Bank should make its own loans only such as are proper for a prudent banker. Its prestige and its opportunity for useful work in future will depend upon its record and upon its reputation being maintained. At the same time, it is quite clear that a great deal of money ought to be spent in under-developed countries on projects that go beyond the limits that a prudent banker would think necessary. There are many projects which are promising but precarious which should, having regard to all their possible consequences and benefits, be undertaken if possible, but which cannot properly be undertaken by a body like the World Bank without the grave danger of the World Bank's prestige and opportunities for further useful work being fatally impaired.
In these circumstances, the suggestion I wish to put before your Lordships is this. I think that a body like the I.D.A., or any other form of governmental institution, would do well to use an institution like the World Bank as an instrument in relation to its own provision of money. In the case of a particular recipient country, the World Bank might go up to a certain point and on certain conditions be prepared, as it now does, to lend its own money; but beyond that point I suggest that it might act as the agent of the Government or Governments concerned. So that, in effect, the World Bank would be as safe as it is in relation to its present work; and it would, up to the point it was prepared to go, have, so to speak, a first mortgage
308
upon any return from the borrowing country. The institution providing public money would utilise, would take advantage of, the fact that it was able to get better conditions in the negotiations if these were conducted by means of people who present themselves as bankers; and it would then have, so to speak, a second mortgage only on what is available for repayment. I realise that that is a suggestion that is somewhat technical, and which wants a fuller description than it is possible for me to attempt this evening without unduly trespassing upon your Lordships' indulgence; but I commend it for your consideration.
I would add only this concluding observation. We have in the last ten years or so had many examples of how to provide capital and how not to. There are a great number of people of different countries and of different nationalities who have direct and very valuable experience that may be relevant to what has to be done in the future. It is very important that there should be a collective attempt to try to secure from a few of these very carefully selected people the fruits of this experience, to distil their wisdom and utilise it for the tasks that lie ahead. Of course, we cannot get from them, or any other source, a static or uniform doctrine. The methods adopted will have to vary from time to time and from country to country according to varying political, economic and other conditions. But I think we could derive very great help for future public loans, national or international, and increase the chance that the moneys provided for development will be utilised successfully for development and will neither be wasted by incompetence nor diverted from their proper purpose. I do not ask the noble Earl who is to reply to comment on this to-day—I realise that it wants a much fuller exposition than I have been able to give now—but I do ask him to see that this is referred for consideration to those of his colleagues who are principally concerned.
5.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise with a certain degree of embarrassment. A few moments ago, my noble friend Lord Pakenham sought the forgiveness of the noble Earl the Leader of the

309
House for having to leave before the end of the debate, and I am afraid that I must ask for the same forgiveness. When I put my name down on the list of speakers, I did not expect that I should have to be in Scotland to-morrow morning at nine o'clock. But I was anxious to take part in this debate, and as a sign of my earnestness I may say that, instead of travelling in reasonable comfort during the day, I shall be sitting up most of the night, because British Railways are having a profitable time in selling sleepers.
THE EARL OF HOME: I wish I were going with you.
LORD SHEPHERD: Your Lordships, I know, are grateful to the noble Marquess for intiating this debate. I think that it is a happy coincidence that to-day your Lordships have also given a Third Reading to the Marshall Scholarships Bill. I am sure that your Lordships appreciate that there is a common aim between Marshall aid and the Colombo Plan. Although the methods are different, the conception of aid and generosity is the same. My noble friend Lord Pakenham has already mentioned Mr. Ernest Bevin. I was in Colombo when Mr. Bevin was attending the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers' Conference, and when I saw him I was appalled at his condition. He had to be carried into the conference room. But his dedication to his work made him continue. I believe that the name of Ernest Bevin will go down in the history of our country and the free world in the same way as that of General Marshall.
I was pleased to hear the noble Marquess stress in his speech that when we talk of under-developed countries we must not think only of South-East Asia. There are under-developed countries much closer to us. I was also pleased that a few weeks ago the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference at Washington adopted a resolution stating that N.A.T.O. countries, as one of their first aims, should give aid to the weaker countries in Europe and that the new trading organisations being built up in Europe should not raise barriers to make life in these poorer countries more difficult.
As I listened to the noble Marquess giving a report of what had been done under the Colombo Plan during the last
310
year, I shared his pride. Perhaps we have not done all that we could have done: we certainly have not done all that we should like to do. I think that there is the same feeling in the United States, where the aid given is phenomenal—not only to the under-developed countries in South-East Asia but also to those in South America. The aid they have given during the last ten years will have a proud place in American history. But while we in this country may take pride in our achievement, there are certainly no grounds for complacency.
The gap that divides the Western World and the countries of South-East Asia is growing wider every day. The reasons are obvious. In the Western World we have science at our command, a growing economic capacity and growing purchasing power. Yet in what we call the under-developed countries (I think that we should cease using that word, because it does not give a true picture of these countries, but perhaps for the sake of politeness it is better to use it) we find stagnating industrial production and squalor for the millions. It is clear that the gap is growing, and I believe that it is a potential threat, perhaps not to this generation and its civilisation, but at all events to the civilisation of our children and grandchildren. For this reason we cannot sit back complacently, believing that we are doing all we can, and not make greater efforts to develop our own economy to enable us to bring succour to these people in Asia.
The noble Marquess dealt with the rising birth rate in what I thought to be a solemn manner. He gave the figure of 2 per cent. I have a figure here which is even more telling. According to the Central Office of Information, the average number of people in South-East Asia per square kilometer is 82. The average throughout the world is 21. Not only are the number of mouths to feed increasing, but the people in these countries are occupying more land. Since 1951, food production in South-East Asia has risen by 22 per cent.—a very good record; but in spite of this increase, per head of the population the food available has fallen by 9 per cent. How long can that situation last before they will face serious famine?

311
I think it is essential—and here I entirely agree with the noble Marquess—that great efforts must be made to increase food production in this area. We can improve it with machinery, and we can improve it with fertilisers. But I believe that we shall never persuade the farmers to increase their production of food until we have done something in regard to stabilising prices. I believe this to be fundamentally true. Side by side with agriculture, the backbone of the economy of all these underdeveloped countries is their production of the primary products—the rubber, the tin and the rice. My information is that 50 to 60 per cent. of the value of exports of this area comes from primary products. I believe it is true that we must do something to bring about the stabilisation of the prices of these primary products. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, was quite right when he made an appeal that these countries should know long-term what money would be available in the way of aid.
If the House accepts that—and I think it must—surely it is equally true that no country dependent on primary products can possibly improve its conditions and its economy unless it knows that in the foreseeable future, long-term, there will be a steady income arising from its efforts in primary products. The United Nations Report, I believe of 1956, stated that a 5 per cent. change in the average export prices was equal to the entire yearly flow of private and public capital and Government grants into that area. If your Lordships read the 1958 record of the Colombo Plan area you will see the effects on the economy of so many countries of the fall in primary product prices: all the aid that we had poured in was lost because of the fall in price of primary products. We must be careful when we talk of this aspect, however, for much of the improvement in our own economy has been brought about by the lowering of import prices, many of them of these primary products from this area. It is true to say—and I am making no Party point—that our gain was at the expense of these under-developed primary product countries, whom it is our hope to help. Therefore it is wrong that we should ignore the primary product problem.
312
I do not ask the noble Earl who is to reply to deal with this point to-day, because I am going to put down a Question next week, but I want to draw the attention of the Government to Resolution VIII passed by the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference. This resolution asked member Governments to consider and investigate methods of stabilising primary product prices. I believe that we must have an answer from the Government on this question. Again, I do not want to appear to be making a Party point, but this resolution appeared at the economic committee, and I am afraid that the Conservative members of that committee wished the resolution to be struck out. I made myself rather unpopular with the British delegation because I disagreed with them. The resolution was passed with four votes against it, the votes of members of the Party opposite. Therefore I intend to ask the Government by my Question to say whether they are prepared to carry out an investigation into methods of stabilising prices.
THE EARL OF HOME: The noble Lord does not have to wait until next week; I think I can answer him right away. As he knows, we are party to an International Wheat Agreement and to an International Tin Agreement. Copper was investigated, if I remember rightly, but that was found to be impossible. What we have said is that certainly we encourage these things, provided each commodity is looked at separately. That has been said several times by Government spokesmen.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl. I am not, however, speaking only of primary products which we import for our own manufacturing requirements. I am thinking of the foodstuffs that are circulated within the area.
THE EARL OF HOME: Rice?
LORD SHEPHERD: Rice is an instance. The reason why I say that we have that responsibility in this matter is that we have had this sort of inquiry carried out by O.E.E.C. in Europe. We have many experienced men who are not available in Asia, and therefore I believe that it is a service we can give.
I have spoken far too long, particularly as I cannot stay to the end of the debate. I firmly believe that we of the

313
Western World have got to make far greater efforts. I believe that with all the scientific knowledge that is now coming our way, and with our economic capacity, if we use all that, and we plan it, and use it for a long-term plan, we can do much to help these countries in south-east Asia. But the point I should like to conclude on is this: that the gap between us is getting bigger every day, and conditions are becoming worse; and if we are to bring aid, time is very short.
5.39 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I regret extremely the speech that has just been made. It seems to me that it will put about in these countries we have been discussing that we are getting a lot out of them and are not reciprocating.
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD TEVIOT: That is what it sounded like to me. I wish to give your Lordships my own experience, a great deal of which was before many of you were born, in the days of Cecil Rhodes in the last century, to show you what 'history has done in the very direction to which the noble Lord has referred. I regret extremely that he made that speech: I think it deplorable.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt? I think he has got quite the wrong end of the stick, so far as my speech is concerned. I certainly never suggested that we have taken so much out without returning it. What I did say—and this is where the noble Lord may have it wrong—was that during the economic recovery last year a lot of our gain was made at the expense of these under-developed countries, because of the reduction in primary product prices. The reduction was not of our making, but we took advantage of it.
LORD TEVIOT: Of course, I accept every word the noble Lord has said, but I am afraid it has not altered my mind about the conclusions which will be arrived at by the people in these countries who will read what the noble Lord has said. There are one or two questions I wish to put to your Lordships as a result of my own experience. I was a little amused at the noble Lord's remarks about the conditions of life. I went through all that—no roof over my head and very primitive food. They
314
are the conditions in these very primitive countries miles from anywhere. You are bound to have that. But it is not our fault, and we are endeavouring to deal with it; and we have dealt with it to a great extent in some parts of the world.
I have been very worried about the representatives we send out to these countries. I want this question to be dealt with in a far more academic and educational way than it appears to me is being adopted. I will give your Lordships the exact position that obtained at the beginning of this century. This is the experience of one who was a pioneer in those days. I went out in the days of Cecil Rhodes, first to Johannesburg, and then up to Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Tanganyika and the Congo. I wanted to find out what the situation was. I found that I was the only white man in the greater part of the country, and my appreciation and admiration for the natives—most of them were Matabele, Basutos and Zulus—was enormous, and has remained so ever since.
What happens when one goes out in such circumstances? The next thing that happens is the arrival of the missionary, who may be the most splendid type of man you can imagine. He comes along and teaches these people Christianity. They pick it up, because they have the greatest admiration for this man's character and his way of life. I was a mining engineer in those days. We found gold, we found copper, and we found other minerals all over that area. What is the next stage? The next stage is the development of these areas by all sorts of, people who are out to make money, with total disregard and no knowledge of the character and the general set-up of the lives of these people. What is the result? The natives find that their appreciation of the white man, the missionary, is destroyed. There is drunkenness and raping of the women, and the whole basis of Christianity which had been built up by these people flops. They never forget that. I believe that if I went back to that area now, I should find men I knew who had been through that state of affairs.
I therefore feel that it is of absolute importance that whoever we send out to deal with the various questions—these people are now much more civilised and

315
developed—should be men who are fully equipped to explain to these people what we are trying to do, and what our aim is. There was a suggestion about sending teachers out. I am all for that, but they should be young teachers, if you can get them, and, for goodness' sake! let us teach them before they go out. Let us teach them what they must know if they are going to influence these still, to a certain extent, primitive people. We are going suddenly to alter the whole set-up of the lives of these people and give them independence. I go so far as to say that in the days when I was there they lived fine lives. Their ideas on religion, social life and their regard to honesty and speaking the truth were perfectly splendid—I should think a great deal better than in some places in what we are pleased to call the civilised world to-day. These people can now read. But look at some of our local Press and see what is happening. What do they think this nation of ours is doing when they see the headlines in the papers to-day? This is a very difficult position to face, and these people are fully alive to what they used to do and what they are going to be asked to do to-day.
I was glad to hear the able speech of my noble friend Lord Reading, and that of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, speaking about the mission from which he has just returned. I make the strongest appeal to members of the Opposition that if they are proposing to visit these countries which are at present very much in our minds with regard to aid and future development, they will do everything they can, within reason of course, to support the Government policy. Anybody who goes out and tries in any way to undermine what the Government are doing is doing no service to this country or to the people to whom he speaks. I make the strongest possible appeal to all to do as I suggest.
The code of honour, honesty, truth, straight dealing and moral and social conditions of the natives could well be adopted as part of the social standards of life by a great many of the people among whom we live; and also their great respect of loyalty to their chiefs and to the heads of their State. I see trouble facing the people who go out to try to help them to what we say are better things. Many of them remember
316
what happened in the days when I was there—I am afraid that is forty or fifty years ago now. I feel that we must train and educate the representatives of our countries of all walks of life to deal with the situation such as it is, and by all means explain to the natives, if they are in any doubt of mind with regard to what happened in the past, what our great aim is to-day. Let us show them that what we are presenting is a mode of living above the state they were in; and because they wear clothes now and did not then, that means nothing.
It is the psychological and political side that I am anxious about. They have to-day, of course, improvements in housing, in their food, in their health, particularly their medical health, as compared to the days when I was there. For instance, malaria fever was bad, and dysentery was bad. We have done a great deal, but we have not done nearly enough. So I say, on the psychological side, that it is of the utmost importance that we should take the most tremendous care in selecting those we send out to mix cheek by jowl with the people in these primitive countries far from what we call civilisation, to help them to improve their condition and take advantage of the aid that is coming to them. There is one thing of which I am quite certain. Some of your Lordships, no doubt, have met people like Sir Roy Welensky. For goodness sake, let us leave more to those on the spot who have been in these countries for years, who are thoroughly appreciative of the types of people they are dealing with, and not allow independent people to go out undermining or appearing to undermine their authority! Noble Lords seem to find this highly amusing—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, but it has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. I would be most happy to debate it with him if we were discussing the Central African Federation.
LORD TEVIOT: I am discussing it as part and parcel of the problem of the under-developed countries. Indonesia has been mentioned, and other countries, and I think I am perfectly justified, and I am glad to have the opportunity, in giving my own experience in conditions such as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, discussed

317
to-day, though I know that some of it may not suit the noble Viscount.
I am certain that if we allow the people on the spot, whether in Indonesia, in Rhodesia or anywhere else, in the primitive world, to deal with the situation that they know—because they are on the spot; they know the type of people they are dealing with—we should get on very much better with them and should be much happier than we find ourselves at the present time. No doubt there is considerable unrest in certain places, and I should like to see all that very much reduced. I believe that it can be done by careful choice of these young men who have been described as teachers but they must be taught before they go; they must be really au fait with the situation they are going into. Therefore I welcome very much the report of my noble friend Lord Lansdowne on the whole situation.
5.58 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how much I, in company, I am sure, with all your Lordships, appreciated the brilliant speech in which the noble Marquess introduced this debate. It takes some temerity for any speaker to rise to talk on the subject alter a speech like that, but subsequent speakers have shown that there apparently is room for a few other remarks, and I propose to make a few from my point of view.
With the passage of time this subject of aid to under-developed countries loses its apparent simplicity as one confronts not just the problem of aid to under-developed territories but the complex of problems involved in making such aid effective. If ever there was a job which required faith, this is surely it. The original tendency to think that it was just a matter of finance, of providing the necessary amount of money, has been very much tempered by experience. The core of the matter, surely, is the spirit of the people concerned. The dynamic quality which brings a community successful progress does not reside in the official structure, but resides in the interests and the desires and the purposes of the people living in that country. And without enlisting this, no amount of aid from outside will secure any permanent progress in that country, however desirable it may be. It is relatively easy to heap coals upon the fires of enthusiasm, but somebody has to
318
kindle those fires first of all; and the major problem in this matter is to persuade people to allow you to help them to help themselves. It is not enough merely to distribute to them gifts for which they may not have asked. Those who have been in charge of such work, or have seen it, know how often their efforts are handicapped by ignorance and prejudice and mental inertia, and if people prefer a life of that sort it is very difficult to shake them out of it, however desirable it may be, and certainly it cannot be done quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said just now that time is short. There is all the rest of the time of mankind to do this work, and in all probability it will have to go on for many centuries, if one looks at the problems which constantly arise from the very success that we may have in the initial steps. For instance, there was one in the first Report of the Colombo Plan Committee. They were staggered to find that, after all the aid they had poured into India, the net result, apparently, after many years was that they were preserving many millions more people on the margin of subsistence. That is not a criticism. That shows the sort of problem which arises out of success, out of preserving people, out of giving them enough food to keep them alive and helping them to help themselves to that extent, but not being able to carry them further, simply because improvement of health conditions leads to enormous increases in population, thus causing the problem to be thrown back upon you once more.
One of the problems, as I see it, in this question of under-developed countries is that it is essential to keep the people intelligibly informed. In order to be attracted by what you are trying to help them to do, they must understand what it is. That in itself is one of the major problems. Obviously, in any society it is necessary to know not only the facts of life, but also how these facts are viewed by other people—the people with whom you are dealing. One must relate what is strategically possible to the facilities at one's disposal and the support one is going to be given. On the other hand, in a revulsion from this idea that monetary aid can do everything, many of us have been inclined to lay aside the material measuring rod, which seems vulgar in such exalted

319
activity, and we forget that we must be realistic in our aims and in our demands.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is not here at the moment, but I think that we should not be like the philosophers who were castigated by Francis Bacon in his book Advancement of Learning. As he said:"They make imaginary laws for imaginary commonwealths and their discourses are as the stars which give little light because they are so high." So many people with good intentions fail to get desirable things done because they think and talk in vague generalisations; they do not come to grips with the real situations. For instance, to come to a modern example, the United States Government International Co-operation Administration have recently decided that their technical experts would be far more useful and acceptable if they knew something not only of their own specialities but also of the countries in which they work. So they have set up an elaborate organisation for training these men and for giving them the real knowledge of the country and the people with whom they will work.
The recent announcement in the Press that a mission of private bankers will go to India and Pakistan to help in the planning of an international development pool for those two Asian countries is of immense interest. As I see it, this is an encouraging sign of the universal acceptance of the idea that this is one world, in which the hope of future peace may well depend upon the success of efforts such as we are discussing by statesmen who are able to take a world view and to succeed in measures to improve the standard of living of these under-developed countries. We cannot, in any case, reasonably hope for ultimate peace in a world so sharply divided into proletarian and wealthy countries.
One of the criticisms of colonial policy which can be offered with some force is that political issues claim far more of Parliament's time than economic achievements. It cannot be too often repeated that economic help is one of the most valuable roads to overcoming political issues. For instance, we hear much about political problems in Kenya but too little about the miraculous economic progress achieved over recent years in spite of Mau Mau troubles. As
320
has been pointed out, not long ago it was possible to cross Kikuyuland without seeing a single man at work in the fields—it was left entirely to the women. Now, as a result of the Swynnerton Plan, the Kikuyu are being transformed into a race of genuine farmers, doing the main work themselves, caring for land and crops and healthily canalising an acquisitive instinct in farming for profit. But the solution of each problem, as I said just now, is only one link or part of a chain of consequent problems. The proper cultivation of Kikuyuland, which is potentially the most valuable productive land in Kenya, will bring in its train most serious marketing problems that will call for organising ability of the highest order. There is another problem. Economic and educational progress are so closely interlocked with political progress, and so vitally necessary to prevent political progress from being only a sham and a national disaster, that they must go hand in hand and be parts of a balanced whole.
I will turn for a moment, if I may, to Nigeria, the world's largest producer of palm oil and palm kernels. Most of West Africa's palm trees are wild, and farmers have paid little attention to improving stock or adopting scientific methods. On palm plantations 50 per cent. more oil per tree can be produced than from the wild tree. But only those who have tried to teach co-operative plantation efforts can appreciate the barricades of custom and prejudice which have to be overcome before these people can be helped to help themselves.
A little has been said this afternoon about the danger of Soviet aid intervening. Although this aid is relatively small compared to that from Western countries, it is increasing, and no doubt the centralised economy of the Soviet Union allows it to direct men and materials in a way that is not possible for a democracy. The present reasons for their intrusion commercially may be only commercial, but the danger is of such trade being under the control of an authoritarian country, and its possible use for political pressure. I came armed with a number of figures concerning the Colombo Plan which I do not propose to inflict upon your Lordships this evening. A certain amount has been said about it, but I should like once more to emphasise that

321
the Colombo Plan, in its very great success up to a point, has been based precisely on the idea—the simple idea—of helping people to help themselves. There is a tendency (I have noticed it even in some speakers here this afternoon) to talk about giving aid as if the givers of the aid were to settle how and when it was given and for what. That is only settled after the country itself has nominated certain schemes which they desire to carry out and have indicated that they themselves are willing to make sacrifices to provide a certain amount of the cost. It is then that the Colombo Plan Consultative Committee get to work; and that is why, with the greatest deference, I am not sure that I would entirely follow the noble Marquess or other speakers in talking of the danger of co-ordination.
If the Colombo Plan or the United Nations organisations were really going to settle, from beginning to end, how this aid was applied, and when and so forth, then I would be against co-ordination, for I believe that it would be dangerous. But I see no harm in coordinating an organisation whose chief function is advice, help and training and the lending of experts. It seems to me that it might well be that co-ordination would render that work more efficient.
I have recently been reading an article by Mr. Paul Hoffman, Managing Director of the United Nations Special Fund. It is of absorbing interest. The Special Fund, as your Lordships probably know, was started on January 1 this year and it is the newest agency of the United Nations. Its purpose, once more, is to help the under-developed countries to provide themselves with the basic knowledge indispensable for economic development. The Fund takes its place in the family of United Nations organisations besides those others which deal with offering advice and providing expert staff, and the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, which provide capital for investment. The Special Fund fits in between, providing capital not for commercial investment but for the prior stage of research survey and training.
The Fund does not initiate projects, but may I say once more, Governments decide for themselves which projects they wish to submit. The Fund's responsibility is to conduct investigations to establish
322
whether a project is technically feasible and economically justifiable. The actual execution, again, will be left to others. I should mention also that this Fund will participate only when the Government concerned are willing to be responsible for a portion of the cost involved, their task being in this particular way to discover new resources and to help people to develop new skills. As the people of undeveloped countries develop new skills they will produce more, they will save more and will attract more capital assistance from outside.
The final issue, as I have said, is no less than the peace of mankind. The task, of course, is immense, but the result of effective aid is cumulative—and that is the one encouraging feature about this. If one had to look only at"the petty undone, the undone vast", which characterises the field of this effort, there would indeed he room for despair. But because the help that one gives effectively is cumulative there is no need, I suggest, to despair at all. Perhaps the present season is a particularly suitable one to appreciate that good will among men is the final ingredient of peace on earth. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, whose absence I again regret, quoted from Mr. Strachey as his authority and said he knew nothing to equal that. Personally, I would prefer to go to a slightly older source, and I would conclude with the words of Mr. Rudyard Kipling, whose prayer ran:
"One stone the more swings into place
In that dread Temple of Thy Worth,
It is enough that through Thy Grace
I saw nought common on Thy Earth.
Take not that vision from my ken—
Oh whatso'er may spoil or speed,
Help me to need no aid from men
That I may help such men as need!"
6.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I feel I should explain at the outset that my two noble friends who have spoken this afternoon have both been obliged to leave to fulfil engagements. My noble friend Lord Pakenham had an engagement in another part of London connected with his Bank at which he was billed to speak. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has had to catch a train to the North. That explains their absence and the reason for their not having waited, as I am sure they would have done, to hear the noble Earl wind up this debate.

323
Clearly, the next thing one must do is, with great respect, to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on his speech in introducing this Motion. It was impressive, as are all his speeches, and I found myself in agreement with a great deal that he said. Particularly I was glad that he emphasised the unwisdom, in giving aid, of having any strings or the appearance of strings, and the necessity that givers should be under no suspicion of using the gift in order to get something they want. All too often there have been cases of gifts of that kind being looked at with suspicion—indeed, from classical days on. The noble Marquess emphasised that the personnel who are selected to go as the instruments for distributing this aid must be most carefully chosen. As he said, there are no academic qualifications that can be laid down as necessary. What is needed is a common sympathy with other human beings, a readiness to give and to treat as equal and reasonable human beings the people with whom they are dealing. I have never heard anything to the effect that there have been any unwise selections, or that anything has gone wrong in the case of the Colombo Plan in all the years that it has been in operation.
I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said something which seemed to convey a slightly wrong emphasis about the initiation of the Plan, because he said that it was intended to cover only Commonwealth countries in South-East Asia. I see that the first Annual Report said that the intention was to provide
"the framework within which an international co-operative effort could be developed to assist the countries of South and South-East Asia to raise the standard of living of their peoples."
The Committee were comprised initially of Commonwealth countries only. The Report continued:
"It was intended from the beginning, however, that other countries in the region should also be invited to participate as full members in the preparation of plans for international action and in the continuing activities of the Consultative Committee. Moreover, it was hoped that other countries from outside the area would wish to assist in the area's economic development which, it was recognised, would require resources considerably greater than the Commonwealth itself could make available."
324
So the Plan has gone on in the way it was designed, and I think we can extend our congratulations to those who take part year by year in the work of the Consultative Committee, as well as to all those who, in the various countries, do the enormous amount of preparatory work for the development plans on which the assistance, the aid, is based. It cannot be too often said (it has been said by several speakers this afternoon) that it is helping countries to help themselves. To the best of my belief, the greatest trouble has always been taken to ensure that the aid, when given, is not wasted. There may have been cases of misuse and mis-application of funds, but with the careful scrutiny that the individual development plans receive, I should have thought that such cases were rare.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, gave us an impressive selection of figures. Halfway through I gave up the attempt to grasp them; I confessed myself beaten. I wondered whether that was, perhaps, his intention in giving such a stream of figures. But we shall hope, I suppose, that in a very few weeks the new Annual Report will come out, with the latest figures. The noble Marquess told us that 2,600 student places had been provided in this country in the eight years or so since the scheme began. Only a day or two ago we were discussing the Commonwealth Scholarships Bill, and in that connection the United Kingdom were going to allow 500 scholarships at any one time. It seems to me that the new Commonwealth Scholarships scheme is going to add very greatly to the rather small trickle that has passed through our institutions and technical colleges in the last eight years under the Colombo Plan. He told us that 360 experts had been sent out to the Colombo Plan countries. But, of course, without knowing what sort of experts they were and in what sort of fields they were, what level of experts they were and what their tasks were meant to be, it does not really tell us very much. He told us also of the help that the United States had given towards the technical assistance plan.
The noble Marquess went on to tell us about a new scheme, of the setting up of a new committee (as I understood it) by a number of private firms to study, I

325
believe, technical help to Colombo Plan countries. My Lords, that brings up, does it not, the question of co-ordination, because this is one more body being set up to work in a field where there are already quite a number of bodies in existence. The noble Marquess who moved this Motion mentioned co-ordination. If I understood him aright, he was against any central direction but was in favour of regional schemes. I should venture rather to question that. With need for aid in so many parts of the globe, ought there not to be some channelling of help from the giving countries to the receiving countries? I know that there is the World Bank to deal with finance, but in the matter of technical assistance, is there not a danger that too many bodies will be operating? There are the various economic Commissions. In Africa, there is the special one of Technical Co-operation for Africa South of the Sahara, and no doubt there may be others in the West Indies or Latin America. I suggest, therefore, that there is a case for some co-ordination, and that it should not be confined to purely regional co-ordination, because of the need to take a world-wide view. That, I would suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Home, is deserving of a little thought.
Then there was the question of the teaching of English; and the noble Marquess, quite rightly, emphasised the urgent need to increase the numbers of teachers of English. Whether it is necessary for English always to be taught by an English person from the United Kingdom, I am not sure. If it is restricted to Englishmen from the United Kingdom, obviously the rate at which the world will learn English must be very much slowed up. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that we should make sure that the teaching profession knows of the opportunities that exist all over the world in meeting this need of so many countries for more instruction in the English language. But it is not just a question of choosing an adventurous career, or of spending an adventurous spell in a teaching career by going to South-East Asia. What about the pay? What we should have preferred to hear from the Government is that they were going to assist the British Council in their work in these countries of setting up and staffing their institutes for the teaching of English.
326
The jobs must be well paid, because there are disadvantages, as well as great advantages, for a young man with his family in living abroad in tropical parts of the world.
This question of teachers brings up once again the matter that we referred to only two days ago—that of people keeping their place on the promotion ladder in the academic world. I suspect that it is a subject that will hit us more and more often now, as we talk of teachers and doctors and scientists taking jobs in different parts of the world. We must find a way whereby not only will they not suffer by absence for a few years from the promotion field but they will be quite confident, and it will be well known throughout the profession, that nobody will suffer by reason of taking a job abroad.
There is one other question that I think I should ask the noble Earl. There is the question of the World Malaria Fund, set up by the World Health Organisation. One of the biggest projects undertaken by the World Health Organisation and U.N.I.C.E.F.—the United Nations Children's Fund—is the plan to eradicate malaria in a campaign which is going to cost a total of £600 million, the bulk of which will be found by countries situated in the malaria areas. I am told that the fund was initiated some four years ago, but that Her Majesty's Government have as yet made no contribution. We know the ravages of malaria, and of the spectacular change that comes about in the outlook for the populations in places where malaria has been attacked and conquered. This, surely, is one of the major fields in which we can give help to the under-developed countries. I hope that we may hear from the Government that, if they have not made any contributions yet, they have the best intentions of making them.
I do not want to keep the House any longer from hearing the reply of the noble Earl; but I do not think my noble friend Lord Pakenham needed to make any apology for putting the case on a moral basis—that we owe this to our fellow human beings in the rest of the world. The standard of living, the comfort, the expectation of life, and everything else that we enjoy here, is something so much better than it is in those countries that surely we, as human beings, should feel bound to share it to

327
the best of our ability. Then, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said, as well as the moral there are the economic and political aspects of it.
As to the economic aspect, we know that much of the world is starving; and, moreover, that there is the vicious circle—that they are unable to buy the food that exists in surplus in other countries. I think it is the case that certain food grains are being so overproduced in some of the Western countries that the quantities in stock are going up by millions of tons: and yet there are people going hungry in the rest of the world. It seems to me that we are getting rather dangerously near the situation that existed back in the 'thirties, when wheat was dumped in the sea and coffee was burned because it could not be distributed, as the poor countries had not the foreign exchange to buy it. So let us bear that in mind, to give us, if we need something beyond the moral motive, an economic motive.
Then, if we want something more still, there is the political motive. I think that anything like competition in giving between us and the Communist world would be a disastrous development of the cold war; and that is why I think that if we can channel whatever we can give through the United Nations, that offers the hope that we can co-operate and not compete with the Communist world.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, a speech by my noble friend Lord Reading is always something to which we look forward with keen anticipation; and particularly so to-day, when he was speaking on a subject and about a part of the world which he knows so well. No one has a closer knowledge of the Colombo Plan than he; and no one, by personal contact and personal exertion, could have demonstrated a more clear understanding for the needs, and sympathy with the ambitions, of the people of Asia. He has spent many years, and much of his time, working out schemes to benefit their economies and to help to raise their standard of living. I hope that he has found this debate peculiarly well-timed, because it enabled my noble friend Lord Lansdowne to give an up-to-date report on his return from the
328
meeting of the Consultative Committee. I hope, too, that the House was impressed by his account of the community of purpose which he found around the table among the nations who are parties to the Colombo Plan; and also some evidence of progress—which, though it may be limited, is nevertheless real.
One element which, of course, is basic to the social betterment of all these countries was mentioned by one noble Lord after another, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—that is, agriculture. In the twentieth century, of course, when the world is industrialising fast, there may be a temptation in any development plans to neglect it; but any country in Asia does that at its peril. And it is encouraging to note that the Committee on which my noble friend was present were able to record an expansion in agricultural output. But as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, and as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, also said, one cannot be complacent in this matter. There must be no let-up at all in organisation, because at best this is a close race, almost a desperate race, between the increase in agricultural output and the increase in the number of mouths which have to be fed. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there is no field in which scientific and technical knowledge can pay higher dividends than that of agriculture and farming methods in the Asian countries.
The Committee also noted, and your Lordships' House will have noted, too, an improvement in recent years in the international commodity markets. Again I was extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the necessity for stability in the prices of the primary products of the Asian countries—in the price of rice, which is very difficult to organise; of rubber, for which the prospects seem to be good, and of tin and other commodities—because it is on these commodities that the whole ability of these countries to earn foreign exchange rests. It is out of that foreign exchange that they can equip themselves with industries which eventually will raise their living standards, so helping to bridge the gap described so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he said, quite truly, that the income per capita in the

329
United Kingdom was something like £300, while that in India was something like £28.
From the inception of the Plan, which we like to remember was a Commonwealth initiative, the donors have sought no political advantage, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, reminded us. There are no political strings, and therefore there is no danger of a feeling among these countries that by accepting aid they would find themselves in any way tied by chains which they did not desire. In this disinterested and objective application of aid to undeveloped countries, the United Kingdom has been well to the fore and we hope that we have played a worthy part.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, spent part of his speech in describing the organisations which help the backward and under-developed countries and in which the Colombo Plan has a part. Of course your Lordships are familiar with the main bodies—the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank and the United Nations Fund—to all of which the United Kingdom subscribes. Then, more intimately connected with this country, is our economic assistance through the Regional Pacts, the Commonwealth assistance loans and the loans and grants to colonial territories. We have very good hopes of the International Development Association, for which the noble Lord, Lord Salter, reminded us there is a demand because there are development projects which may not be fully completed by strict banking practice. If, as we hope, there is agreement shortly on the structure of the International Development Association, the United Kingdom Government have promised to subscribe £50 million to it. I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what the noble Lord, Lord Salter, said on the proper way in which this should be organised and directed, and I will certainly hand on his ideas to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
So, my Lords, there is a great deal of machinery. There is a large United Kingdom contribution through public funds, and of course there is the United Kingdom contribution through private investment. At this time, when overseas investment and aid are substantial and rising, noble Lords have been right, I
330
think, to ask themselves in this debate how we can keep our contribution at the maximum. We wish to do that from a moral urge to assist the under-developed countries to raise their standard of living, and we wish our aid not only to be generous but also to be steady and long-term, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, underlined. We do want to see our aid not limited but expanding steadily.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, had been here because I feel bound to issue a reminder that when we are thinking in terms of investment overseas, that investment can come only from a surplus of wealth which is earned and saved. I think that this is a timely caution, because when we look across the Atlantic, we see that even a nation as rich as the United States—which has done wonders and has been extraordinarily generous in its programme of overseas aid—cannot ignore an adverse balance of payments. If the surplus in our balance of payments falls, there is less for investment and aid overseas; and if it rises, there is more available.
Even though the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is not here, I should like to give an illustration of this in the last few years. The surplus in our current account in 1957 was estimated to be £252 million. In 1958, it rose by over £100 million to somewhere over £350 million. From January 1, 1958, to November 30, 1959, our reserves rose by £250 million. These favourable factors enabled us to do just what the noble Lord is asking us to do. We were able to pay double our subscription to the International Bank, and to increase by 50 per cent. our subscription to the International Monetary Fund. Moreover (these are the figures for which the noble Lord asked), our contributions from public funds to economic and technical assistance rose by one-third from £75 million in 1957–58 to over £100 million in 1958–59; and if I were to make an intelligent guess, I think it would be found that there will be an increase of the same sort this year.
The lesson from this, my Lords, seems to be clear. I suggest to the Party opposite that we cannot earmark a percentage of the national income in all circumstances to be applied to overseas aid. First, we have to earn the surplus and then be as generous as we can in the aid which we give overseas and in

331
what we spend overseas. The answer really is this. So far as this country is concerned, all overseas aid depends upon this country being competitive and strong industrially. That is the source from which all overseas aid will come, and when we are in receipt of a surplus of income, we can invest a proportion in the underdeveloped countries.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think that the main thesis which the noble Earl has just been advancing is quite sound. We cannot get increased investment overseas unless we have a prosperous economy at home with a margin available for the purpose. But I should like to look at the noble Earl's figures very carefully. I should like to look at the figures over a few more years, and not just go back to 1957. because we have to pay attention to our expenditure in other directions and at the same time to the reason why there should be this steep increase in the year 1958–59. I want the noble Earl to feel assured that we know that we have to make a surplus by saving for investment, but I do not accept his figures prima facie and shall study carefully the reasons for this statistical progress.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am glad that the noble Viscount accepts my general proposition. I am not so sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, had he been here, would have done so. He did not seem to me to appreciate that you have to have a surplus before you can invest it, and that the secret for overseas investment is a surplus—although perhaps I am doing him an injustice, because he is a very eminent banker.
On the importance of technical assistance, I agree strongly with all that was said by my noble friend Lord Reading. It has seemed to me—and this was borne out certainly in our experience in the Commonwealth Economic Conference at Montreal—that probably the best value for money which we can give, or which the recipients can get, is money spent on technical help and on training in the whole field of agriculture, industry and administration, and particularly in teaching. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, is quite right in saying that we want to send many more teachers
332
overseas. I would add to what I said on Tuesday in another context, when we were talking about Commonwealth education, that I hope that local authorities, who are the employers of teachers, will realise that two or three years abroad teaching would be of great value to a teacher, and will make arrangements so that a teacher if he wishes to return to this country will not suffer in his career. As for the teaching of English, again I agree that there ought to be a great effort, in which I hope the Americans will join, because English ought to be, if it is properly organised, the international language of science and of administration in the years to come.
Therefore, if, as my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has said, from a very gradually rising income per head in the countries of Asia they are able, as they are doing, to mobilise more capital from their own countries for development; if they recognise (and the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton made this point in an interruption) that capital must be attracted, and the surest way of attracting capital is to find political stability and to give fair treatment to the investor; and if the donor countries can keep their economies sound and expanding, then we ought to be able to achieve a sustained programme of investment and aid in the under-developed countries which will help to bridge the gap of which all your Lordships have taken notice to-day. I think I can say that, so far as the United Kingdom are concerned, the goodwill is there and that a great deal of the machinery is there. I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Reading rather than with the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that regional bodies, possibly coordinated in their activities by the International Bank, may be the best solution for this problem for the time being. I have no doubt in saying that I believe that the climate is right, and that, both in the United States and in this country, and I hope in Western Europe, too, there will be mobilised a great effort to try to raise the standard of living in the under-developed countries, and that in any such organisation the Colombo Plan will play an important part.
6.54 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am obliged to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly to Her Majesty's Government for contributing two players to the team. I hope that the debate has proved as interesting to the House and as useful to the Government as it has proved gratifying to me personally. I had to select from a very wide field a relatively small number of topics which seemed to me of outstanding importance, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have in the course of the debate filled up some of the gaps. I rather eschewed figures, because I was trying to cling to the main points; and I most carefully avoided the question of what I am now being educated to call"family planning", because I mentioned it in the course of another fairly recent debate on foreign
334
affairs and I did not want to repeat myself—nor did I want to give noble Lords any opportunity to go off at a tangent upon that absorbing subject rather than to continue along the main lines of the discussion. I think it has been a productive debate, and I hope that the country will learn and appreciate something of the effort that is being made in what, certainly not less as the result of this debate, I continue to regard as one of the outstanding questions of the moment. That is all I have to say.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if the noble Marquess has any hesitation about withdrawing, I am sure that the Government and the Whole House accept this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.