Sitting of 11 April 1960

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
SAINT MARTIN'S PARISH CHURCH BIRMINGHAM BILL
SAINT PETER'S CHURCH NOTTINGHAM (BROAD MARSH BURIAL GROUND) BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
LONDON AND SURREY (RIVER WANDLE AND RIVER GRAVENEY) (JURISDIC TION) BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time and committed.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

TYNE TUNNEL [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise variations of the works authorised by the Tyne Tunnel Acts, 1946 and 1956, including the construction of new works, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any grant or advance by way of loan made by the Minister of Transport under or in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session.
Resolution agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Fuel Oil Imports
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that fuel oil imports for the first two months of 1960 were nearly double those for the first two months of 1959, what measures he proposes to take to reduce this, in view of the danger it causes to the coal industry and to the balance of payments.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): None, Sir. In this period home refining, the main source of our fuel oil, showed an increase over the previous year, fuel oil exports and bunkers were also up, and there are signs of a recovery in the demand for coal.
    Mr. Wyatt: Yes, Sir, but as the exports were only up by 50 million gallons and the imports were up by 170 million gallons, the exports are far more than accounted for by the increased imports, and as for the first time now we are importing net more fuel oil than we are exporting, surely the Minister should do something about it?
    Mr. Wood: I think it is too short a time to be able to form any conclusion on broad grounds. In fact, the imports in this period exceed exports and bunkers by a very small proportion of inland deliveries. I intend to keep a watch on the position, but I cannot agree that this would be the time to take any action to curb imports, particularly in view of the coal situation, to which I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman.

    Power Stations (Coal-firing)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Power whether arrangements have now been made to prevent conversion to oil at the electricity generating stations at Little Brook (B) and Brunswick Wharf.
    Mr. Wood: I cannot yet add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) on 28th March.
    Mr. Wyatt: In view of the Minister's answer to the previous Question, where

    857
    he made it clear for the first time that the Government admitted that they were importing more fuel oil than they were exporting, surely they should get a move on with stopping electricity stations converting to oil—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is very bad for our balance of payments and for our coal industry to continue to import fuel oil when we can produce coal more cheaply here.
    Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to get a move on. I announced to his hon. Friend a fortnight ago that discussions were taking place. I cannot say anything further now, but I will do so as soon as I can.

    Gas Sales
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Power what general directions he has given to the Gas Council to improve the sale of gas to industrial and domestic consumers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): None, Sir.
    Mr. Roberts: If the House is not satisfied with the selling arrangements for gas, ought it not to be a matter for our responsibility and not that of a local authority or consumers council?
    Mr. George: My right hon. Friend and I have visited various gas boards since we have been at the Ministry, and we are satisfied that the gas boards throughout the country are more than eager to promote sales of gas and that no encouragement is needed from my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Roberts: Has the hon. Gentleman been to my constituency, where the selling arrangements are, to say the least, completely out of date? If not, is he prepared to visit the area and report to me on the salesmanship there?
    Mr. George: I intend to visit the area board concerned at some time in the future. I have already been in communication with the hon. Gentleman on this issue It is inconceivable that gas boards should build showrooms in every village. Gas boards must be left to judge every instance on its economic situation.

    Steel
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Power how the level of steel imports to the latest convenient date in 1960 compares with steel imports for a comparable period during 1959.
    Mr. Wood: Steel imports in January and February, 1960, amounted to 112,000 tons, against 33,419 tons in the corresponding period last year.
    Mr. Lee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if this continues it will make a very great difference to our balance of payments problem? Is it the case that among the imports which he has mentioned there is a very large percentage of sheet steel? If so, why is it that the British steel industry has not managed to keep abreast of our suggestions for the expansion of the industry?
    Mr. Wood: The imports of sheet and coil for re-rolling account for about 94,000 tons out of the total of 112,000 tons. If this shows anything, it is justification for the judgment of the Iron and Steel Board in the moves it took at the end of 1958, and also the arrangements which were made under the 1953 Act.
    Mr. Lee: Is it not remarkable that we should hear of an increase in the importation of sheet steel of that magnitude? Apparently the Government are now bent upon disrupting a great nationalised section of the steel industry which is about to embark upon a very big programme of sheet steel production.
    Mr. Wood: What the Government have done is to give loans, which have been extensively discussed in the House, and they are intended to meet precisely the shortage to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing our attention
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Power what other types of steel products in addition to sheet are in short supply; and what action he is taking to increase home capacity.
    Mr. Wood: The Iron and Steel Board has had a few reports from steel users about shortage of supplies of cold-rolled strip, wire rod and certain types of billets. The Board expects the output of these products to increase sufficiently during the year to match the expected increase in consumption, and it is watching the position carefully
    Mr. Lee: We are grateful to hear that, but can the right hon. Gentleman say which firms will increase their output to take care of the problem?
    Mr. Wood: I could not say that without notice. I can say that the additional output in 1960 of the three products which I have mentioned is likely to vary between 15 and 23 per cent.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the shortage is being artificially created through stock holders building up stocks for future use in order to obtain higher prices?
    Mr. Wood: I cannot answer that question. There may be some of that element in it, but it is difficult to be precise about it.

    Gas Production, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Power (1) what was Scotland's share of total gas production in Great Britain in 1948 and in 1959;
    (2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in total gas output in Scotland between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. George: The Scottish share of total town gas available was 8·5 per cent. in 1948 and 7·4 per cent. in 1959. Town gas available at gasworks in Scotland in 1959 was 0·2 per cent. higher than in 1948 while gas available in the rest of the United Kingdom was 16 per cent. higher.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer to these two questions once again shows that Scotland is falling very seriously behind the rest of the country in its industrial development? Will he not tell his right hon. Friends that it is time they did something about it?
    Mr. George: In fact, Scotland increased its share of industrial supplies of gas by 75 per cent. compared with a 67 per cent. increase in the rest of Britain.

    Steel Production, Scotland
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Power (1) what was Scotland's share of total United Kingdom crude steel production in 1948 and in 1959;
    860
    (2) if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in Scotland's crude steel production between 1948 and 1959; and if he will compare Scottish growth or decline over this period with that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. George: The Scottish share of total United Kingdom production was 15·2 per cent. in 1948 and 9·7 per cent. in 1959. Scottish crude steel production in 1959 was 12·9 per cent. less than in 1948, while production in the rest of the United Kingdom was 44·4 per cent. higher.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are now dealing with a private industry which shows how serious the position of Scotland is becoming? Is he not aware that more than 1 million tons more production would be required for Scotland to get back to its customary figure of 15 per cent. of United Kingdom steel production?
    Mr. George: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to draw a wrong picture of Scotland's steel position. When he compares production in 1948 and in 1959, he is comparing full production with a very low level of production. I am sure he will be pleased to note that in the first quarter of this year Scottish production was 12·1 per cent. above the 1948 level, representing 10·9 per cent. of United Kingdom production, and that it is expected that Scottish capacity will be 11 per cent. of United Kingdom capacity in 1962 and 12 per cent. in 1965.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that on any unbiased judgment those figures show a steady decline in Scotland's share of steel output? Is not this a very serious matter indeed for Scotland, a country from which the hon. Gentleman comes?
    Mr. George: The comparisons which the hon. Gentleman has made relate to the very much larger United Kingdom output of today, and it is right to say that the prospects for Scotland's steel production have been considerably enhanced by the developments at Ravenscraig.

    Fuel Oil, Scotland
    Mr. Smallasked the Minister of Power (1) what was Scotland's share of Great Britain's consumption of fuel oil in 1948, and in 1959;

    861
    (2) if he will state the percentage increase in the consumption of fuel oil in Scotland between 1948 and 1959; and if he will give the comparable figure for the rest of Great Britain over the same period.
    Mr. George: Figures of fuel oil deliveries in Scotland have been collected only since 1955. Between 1955 and 1959 deliveries in Scotland rose by 108 per cent., compared with 160 per cent. in the rest of Great Britain. Scotland's share between these two years fell from 6¾ to 5½ per cent.
    Mr. Small: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that his reply evidences the declining situation in Scotland, and that, while Scotland is having most of the pit closures, we are not getting the benefit of the industrial expansion related to the increased fuel oil consumption?
    Mr. George: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have been delighted that oil was not capturing the coal market in Scotland as quickly as it is in England.
    Mr. Lee: Will the Parliamentary Secretary remember his Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt)? Will he not agree that if we now gear our industrial methods to the burning of oil, to the exclusion of coal, and then find that the continued increase in the importation of oil means that our balance of payments position runs into trouble again, we shall be placed in an impossible position, having neglected our own indigenous fuels, such as coal?
    Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the future possibilities. No one intends to gear our industrial production to fuel oil as against coal. The use of oil is undoubtedly increasing. While imports exceed exports at the moment, it must be remembered that new refineries are coming into operation so that that position will be rectified.

    Prices
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of Power if he will give the percentage rise in the price of industrial coal, electricity, gas, fuel oil, and steel from 1949 until the latest convenient date, taking 1949 as 100 in each case.
    Mr. Wood: Approximate percentage increases from 1949 to 1959 are as follows: coal 81 per cent., electricity 33 per cent., gas 70 per cent., fuel oil 27 per cent. and iron and steel 96 per cent.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of those figures and the continued campaign by hon. Members opposite against nationalised industries because of increasing prices, can we now expect the Government to turn their attention to private enterprise, especially the steel industry, so that we can get steel cheaper and in the greater quantity which the nation needs?
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. We shall not turn our attention in that way because of these figures, because the lowest and the highest percentages both refer to non-nationalised industries.

  COAL

    Privately-owned Mines
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that privately owned coal mines bore none of the loss involved in the former imports of United States coal, if he will ensure that in future financial liabilities will be fairly shared between the publicly owned and privately owned sectors of the industry
    Mr. Wood: The terms on which licences are granted to private operators are a matter for the National Coal Board and the operators.
    Mr. Fitch: Is the Minister aware that during the period when the National Coal Board was importing coal from the United States at a financial loss, the private, licensed mine-owners exported 1 million tons of coal at 25s. a ton more than they could have got on the home market? If this situation arises again, will the Minister ensure that both sides bear their fair share of the liabilities?
    Mr. Wood: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, the National Coal Board is responsible for the licences. It would take a number of factors into consideration, and the terms of the licences would certainly reflect the general condition of the industry.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Power how many persons were employed

    863
    in licensed small coal-mines in England and Wales, respectively, at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Wood: On 26th March, about 2,850 and 1,900, respectively.
    Mr. Gower: As these small mines employ large numbers of men and are producing coal economically, and as the reduction of National Coal Board mines in production is to be only 7½ per cent. in the United Kingdom with none at all in South Wales, where production is to be increased, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that both the royalties to be extorted and the enormous cut-back in production are unreasonable when one has in mind the long-term problem? Does he think that the system of licensing, in which the Board is really judge in its own cause, is the happiest arrangement that we could have? Will he consider legislation to alter this?
    Mr. Wood: On the general question, I do not think I can add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) in the Adjournment debate last week. With regard to the details of the matter, discussions are still continuing to which I shall probably refer in answer to a later Question today. I do not think it would be at all right for me to go into the details before agreement is finally reached.
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Power if he is aware that, because of the conditions recently imposed by the National Coal Board on the small mines in South Wales, the output for 1960 will be reduced, as compared with the 1959 output, by 22 per cent. and that for 1961, 1962, and 1963 will be reduced by 35 per cent., 40 per cent., and 47 per cent., respectively; and if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the part to be played by the small mines in the national economy.
    Mr. Wood: The level of activity in this sector of the industry must be settled by the National Coal Board which has statutory responsibility for the licensing of privately-operated coal mines. I am told that agreement has been reached between the National Coal Board and the leaders of the Small Mines Federation, which the Federation has recommended its members to accept.
    Mr. Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no agreement between the National Coal Board and the small miners in the South Wales coalfield? Has he no comment to make about the massive disruption of the small mines by the Board, notwithstanding that they have given a very good account of themselves during their existence without any help or encouragement in the past from the Board?
    Mr. Wood: We had an extensive discussion of this matter in an Adjournment debate last week. I think it would be quite improper if I commented upon this, because it seems to be a matter for the Federation of Small Mines, which, I understand, is ready to recommend acceptance of this agreement, and the small mine owners. I think the House would be the more pleased the sooner an agreement is reached.
    Mr. Davies: I am sorry that I have to give notice to the House that I shall raise this matter again on the first opportunity given to me.
    Mr. Fitchasked the Minister of Power the number of licensed coal mines in Lancashire on 31st March, 1960; and how many persons were employed in them.
    Mr. Wood: I am told by the National Coal Board that there were 22 mines employing 629 men.
    Mr. Fitch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 1st April twenty-five men were given their notice at one of these small mines and were immediately taken on by the National Coal Board without losing a day's work? At the same time twenty-five and twenty-nine men employed by two other small mines were given notice, but when it became known that the N.C.B. could absorb all these men those notices were withdrawn? Was this not irresponsible action on the part of the small mine owners? Does he not also agree that the twenty-five men who have been found work by the N.C.B. will now enjoy pit-head baths and canteens in a nationalised industry, something which they never got under private enterprise?
    Mr. Wood: All that may be true, but I think the purpose of that supplementary question was more to give information than to receive it.

    Poland (Prices)
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his recent consultations with the Polish Government concerning the selling price of coal in foreign markets.
    Mr. Wood: I recently had the opportunity to discuss with members of the Polish Government a number of matters concerning the coal industry. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the possibility of some agreement on export prices, I would refer him to the reply given on 8th March by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden).
    Mr. RobertsNo doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Polish Government purchase a sizeable amount of capital goods from this country, and he will appreciate the difficulty of Polish trade at the moment. Would it not be possible for him to approach the Board of Trade so that it might make some arrangement with the Polish Government to ensure that they charge a true price for their coal instead of one which is, I would say, far below the economic price?
    Mr. Wood: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would help the Poles in their difficulty in having insufficient currency for imports into Poland. The Board of Trade is certainly very much in touch with the situation, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Lee: We are pleased to know that the right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with the Polish Government. Would he agree that the reason why the Polish Government are dumping coal in the way they are doing is because they are very short of foreign currency? In the course of his discussions, has the right hon. Gentleman made any suggestions about credit facilities for the Polish Government?
    Mr. Wood: These are matters for the Board of Trade. I think there may be further conversations on trade matters with the Poles.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Since some of the agreements under which Polish coal is
    866
    being sold at dumping prices, purely because the Poles are desperately anxious to obtain currency, are with countries within the Seven, will the right hon. Gentleman talk to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend.

    Stocks
    Mr. Ginsburgasked the Minister of Power what is the present level of undistributed coal stocks; and how the stock change this year so far compares with expectation.
    Mr. Wood: 32·7 million tons at 26th March. The reduction of undistributed stocks by 3 million tons since 1st January is up to expectation.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Would not the Minister agree that this is a most satisfactory result and a welcome justification of the policy of the National Coal Board in this matter?
    Mr. Wood: Naturally, I and the House would like to see a further reduction of these stocks, but, as I say, what has happened is up to the expectations on which I based my estimates in the debate last November.
    Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Minister of Power if he will give the price, on the basis of information supplied to him for the purposes of compiling table 22 of his Statistical Digest, at which coal from stock has been sold at the most recent date; and how far the realization has compared with the cost of producing the coal and the allowance made for the cost of stocking it.
    Mr. Wood: I understand from the National Coal Board that coal from stock has been sold at a variety of prices according to its quality and size. Separate figures are not available, but the coal has been sold quality for quality at the same prices as coal from current production. The Board considers that the experience gained in stocking and selling this coal confirms the adequacy of the allowances for the cost of stocking which it made in its published accounts.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Again, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a most satisfactory result? Does it not

    867
    show that the National Coal Board was right in this matter as against the irresponsible attitude taken by its critics?
    Mr. Wood: I think that as far as sales have gone already—and the Board is satisfied with this—the provision the Board has made for the various losses in stocking has been adequate.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power how many million tons of undistributed coal and coke were held by the National Coal Board at the end f the coal winter 31st March, 1960; what was the aggregated inventary value of such stocks at that date; how that inventory value compared with the figure at the commencing of the coal winter 1st November, 1959; and what estimate he has made of the position at 1st November, 1960.
    Mr. Wood: The Board informs me that on 26th March it held 32·7 million tons of coal and 5 million tons of coke which it valued at about £130 million. This valuation compares with a figure of approximately £140 million at 1st November, 1959. Between now and 1st November next the position will be affected by seasonal stocking, but I expect the estimate of a net stock lift of about 1 million tons during the year 1960 as a whole to be fulfilled.
    Mr. Nabarro: Do not these figures reveal that almost throughout this calender year the taxpayers will be maintaining a stock of £125 million worth of coal and coke, undistributed, unsold and perhaps unsaleable by the Board?
    Mr. Wood: I think they probably do.
    Mr. Nabarro: Thank you very much.

    Losses
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power whether he will state the method of deficit financing to be employed by the National Coal Board in respect of losses; and when he proposes to lay last year's accounts of the Board before Parliament, having regard to the elapsing of fifteen weeks since the conclusion of the chargeable accounting period concerned.
    Mr. Wood: The accumulated losses are financed by the Board from its own
    868
    resources. The Board's Accounts for 1959 will be laid before Parliament and published about 1st June.
    Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say what is his long-term policy on the substantial losses forward of the National Coal Board, which he himself estimated at £50 million on 31st December last? Having regard to the precedent now created by transferring the loss forward on the railways this year to above-the-line financing in the Budget, which is a direct subsidy, can my right hon. Friend say whether he proposes to adopt that precedent and apply it to the National Coal Board, so that we have a subsidy for coal stocks as well as the railways? Is that his intention?
    Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend asked me what the position is at the moment, how the accumulated losses are financed. I have told him that they are financed by the National Coal Board's internal resources. That is the position at the moment. I would prefer not to speculate about the future, because the future, as always, is uncertain.
    Mr. Lee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the assets of the Board are such that there is no need to think in terms of the same kind of financing which is now necessary within the transport system?
    Mr. Wood: It is certainly true, as I have said, that the accumulated losses of the Board are, in my opinion, adequately covered at present by the internal resources of the Board.

    Output, Scotland
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power what was Scotland's share of total United Kingdom coal output in 1948 and in 1959.
    Mr. George: Twelve per cent. in 1948 and 9½ per cent, in 1959.
    Mr. Fraser: Can the hon. Gentleman say why there has been this decline in the Scottish share of United Kingdom coal output?
    Mr. George: Indeed, yes. The reason why the percentage has fallen is that there has been a serious drop in productivity in Scotland. In 1948 the output

    869
    per man-shift was 1·14 tons, but by 1959 it had fallen to 1·04 tons—hence the reason for Scotland's loss of position.
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Minister of Power if he will state the percentage increase or decrease in the Scottish output of coal between 1948 and 1959, giving comparable figures in this respect for the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. George: A decrease of 21 per cent. in Scotland and an increase of 1½ per cent. in England and Wales.
    Mr. Fraser: In view of these figures and the fact that Scotland's mining manpower ran down by more than 7,000 last year and that we have 92,000 unemployed, does not the hon. Gentleman consider it should be the duty of his right hon. Friend to discourage the closure of further coal mines in Scotland until his colleagues in the Government with responsibilities in other Departments have found alternative employment in the coal mining districts?
    Mr. George: The position of manpower in the mining industry is not what would seem to flow from the hon. Member's remarks. In 1948 81,400 men produced 23·8 million tons of coal, and in 1959 81,000 man were still employed but produced only 18·9 million tons.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of 1959 the mining manpower was very considerably less than 80,000 men? It was down to about 75,000 to 76,000 and has declined very considerably in the earlier months of this year. I ask him to look forward and not backward. Would he not agree that it is undesirable that further mines should be closed and further miners put out of work until the Government take steps, which they are obliged to take under other Acts, to see that alternative employment is brought into those areas where there is heavy unemployment?
    Mr. George: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark that every effort should be expended in order to bring industry into mining areas where there is likely to be unemployment, but it must be recognised that in Scotland the National Coal Board has been investing capital at a rate greater than Scotland's share of production. That capital expenditure must, in the end, show results and will eventually lead to fewer men being employed.

    Exports (Denmark)
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Power whether he is aware of the unsatisfied demand for coal in Denmark; and whether he will take steps to improve the arrangements between the two countries so as to facilitate the export of coal from the United Kingdom to Denmark.
    Mr. Wood: I am told by the National Coal Board that, apart from one or two grades in which there are seasonal short-tages, it has no difficulty in meeting Danish requirements. So far this year exports have been twice as high as a year ago, despite intense competition. I am anxious to help the Board and the exporters to increase their sales to Denmark in any way I can, and I will certainly consider any suggestions the hon. Member may have to make.
    Mr. Jeger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall correspondence which I have had with him about exports of coal from the Humber? Is he aware that the latest figures which I have had show that exports of coal from the Port of Goole have shrunk in two years from 400,000 tons to 53,000 tons and exports of coal from Hull have declined from nearly 500,000 tons to 100,000 tons? Is he not aware that Polish competition, because of quick delivery of coal in Denmark, is seriously hitting our exports to that country, which is within the Seven?
    Mr. Wood: I am anxious to take any step I can to increase exports, but it is not open to me to make bilateral price agreements with Poland or with any other country. The Humber exports are a matter depending very largely on buyers. Although the Humber ports suffer in foreign trade, Goole in particular is very well placed for coastwise trade.
    Mr. Snow: As my hon. Friend has said, there is an unsatisfied demand in Denmark. Is the Minister satisfied that the National Coal Board is taking active salesmanship steps in those receiving areas to see that our interests in the sale of coal are put forward properly so that possible excess stocks in this country can be disposed of to those receiving countries?
    Mr. Wood: I understand that the only unsatisfied demand for British coal in Denmark is in respect of East Midlands

    871
    Doubles, for which there is a keen demand at home. I do not believe that there is any deficiency in the Board's efforts to export coal to Denmark. The Board has been remarkably successful, since exports this year have been twice as high as they were for the first two months of last year.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Guided Missiles (Report)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Aviation if he will name the firm of contractors which, in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on guided missiles, is stated to have failed to provide the degree of leadership expected and to apply the requisite amount of effort.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to his supplementary question on 21st March.
    Mr. Allaun: Has this firm received any subsequent contracts? Since the Estimate for this missile alone rose from £1½ million to £40 million—and I understand that it has now gone to £50 million —are not certain private armament manufacturers enjoying a lovely racket because of Government laxity?
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman would have to give notice of his first question, because I am not in a position to say whether other contracts have been given. One must be careful about choosing figures which are comparable.
    Mr. Strauss: Was not the Answer to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred that this matter was before the Public Accounts Committee and that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to wait until the Committee had considered it before commenting in the House? Is there any reason why something before the Public Accounts Committee should not be discussed in the House, since theoretically neither he nor I knows what is before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee?
    Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question refers to the next Question. I have been asked
    872
    only to give the name of the contractor. My right hon. Friend pointed out in the course of a fairly long discussion on the earlier Question that it was not the custom to give the names of the contractors in these cases, although in this particular case it is not difficult to ascertain it.
    Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. Since the previous Answer referred to this matter as being before the Public Accounts Committee, is it not out of order for any Minister, or any Member, to refer to anything being before the Public Accounts Committee, or any Select Committee, if that Committee has not reported to the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I imagine that the Question is based on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the items in which the Public Accounts Committee may or may not consider as it sees fit. In the present state of affairs, the Minister is not debarred from referring to the matter.
    Mr. Wilson: Can we be quite clear about this? Is it not the position that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is made to the House and it is then perfectly competent for any Member, or any Minister, to refer to it if he wishes, which one Minister recently said he could not do because the matter was before the Public Accounts Committee? Consequently, would it not be out of order, if a Minister specifically said that a matter was before the Public Accounts Committee, to refer to it?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not appreciate that. That might be out of order as being an infringement of the privacy of the Committee's proceedings.
    Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. We must ask your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the mere fact that some matter was being considered by the Public Accounts Committee or any Select Committee of the House was no reason why Members should be prohibited from asking questions, because a matter might be before a Select Committee for many months or even years. If a matter is before the Select Committee, does that mean that we are prohibited from asking Questions?
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I do not have my earlier Answer before me, but my recollection is that I said that I could not answer the Question, not because I understood that it was out of order, but because the House would not wish me to anticipate evidence which was to be given to the Committee by my Accounting Officer.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I could not remember accurately or inaccurately what he said without his aid. Proceedings being before a Committee before it reports, being a matter not publicly revealed, an hon. Member may be out of order in referring to those proceedings and to what may not be publicly known. There is an item in the Question referring to those proceedings, but the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported to the House on the matter enables the House, if it thinks fit, to refer to the subject matter of his Report at any time, although, no doubt, the House would find it convenient in ordinary circumstances to follow the ordinary practice, rather on the lines which the Minister has indicated. I hope that we can now get on.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the nature of his reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General's request for the reasons for the substantial increases in estimated costs of development and production of missile Type B.
    Mr. Rippon: I suggest it would be better not to anticipate now the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the Minister give an assurance that, at the same time, he will make a statement to this House? Is not that the least he can do in view of the fact that on this missile the estimate rose from £2½ million to £27 million, according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and I now understand it is £50 million, and also in view of the fact that the Minister himself said in this House that there had been absurdly incorrect estimates?
    Mr. Rippon: Once again, the hon. Member must be careful with these figures in order to be sure that he is comparing like with like. The Public Accounts Committee is the chosen instru-
    874
    ment of the House for examining these matters and can examine witnesses and report to the House if it thinks fit.
    Mr. Strauss: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in saying that he is unprepared to give an answer to the question referring to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General he is preventing the House from having information which it desires, maybe for many months, on the grounds that the Public Accounts Committee is to consider it? That is a quite impossible position in which to place the House. Why cannot he give a reply to the question now?
    Mr. Callaghan: What is this tenderness that the Parliamentary Secretary is showing? Is it because private enterprise is involved that we are not allowed to have this answer? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman at least tell the House whether or not this firm is in fact getting more orders? Has he come here so unprepared that he cannot even give us an answer to that, and, if so, is he surprised that we should be suspicious that he wants to cover up his friends in private enterprise, because we do not believe that he would show the same tenderness to a nationalised industry?
    Mr. Rippon: The House knows that this is one of the principal firms in the country. It may be assumed that it is receiving further orders. The difficulty, I think, is that the nature of these matters is so complex that it would be very much better for them to be dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, which may examine witnesses and go into details, rather than to give a short and possibly necessarily misleading answer.
    Mr. Strauss: That may be so, in the opinion of the Minister, but if the House, or a large section of it, wants to know in brief what the Government's excuse or reply is to the very serious criticisms put before the House by the Comptroller and Auditor General, surely the House is entitled to know shortly what that answer is? Why cannot we have that answer?
    Mr. Rippon: However that may be, I think the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) seemed to believe that it was probably best that these matters should be left to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, will he now get me right? What I said was that, while I suggested it would be out of order while such an important matter was before a particular Select Committee, I further said that any matter on which the Comptroller and Auditor General had reported to the House is within the province of this House to deal with at any time without waiting for a report from the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Rippon: This Question asked what reply was to be given to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That will necessarily be a lengthy and detailed reply.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say on which leg he is standing? Is he basing his refusal to reply to the question on the ground that this matter will shortly be reported on by a Select Committee or by the Comptroller and Auditor General, or is it because there are complexities in this matter? Will he recall what he said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about comparing like with like, and that he could not compare these figures? Is that the leg on which he is standing? Is he standing on one leg or two?
    Mr. Rippon: I hope I am standing on two. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question referred to two matters— the question of the figures, which did not arise directly out of the Question, and the nature of the reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General's request. That reply has been given. It is a full document, and it is before the Public Accounts Committee, which will hear witnesses and in due course report to the House.
    Mr. Wilson: Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman, correctly or incorrectly, to say anything about a document which is before a Select Committee which has not reported to this House?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that is within the principle laid down just now.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of these exchanges, Mr. Speaker, will you assure the House that none of the powers which the House previously held in this matter are being limited?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the material word.
    Mr. Rankin: That none of the powers which the House formerly had in regard to these—Committees, on Procedure, of Public Accounts and so on—are now being limited?
    Mr. Speaker: Nothing in that respect can be changed except by the House. There is no such change.
    Mr. Callaghan: Would it be in order to suggest that the Chairman of the British Transport Commission might inquire into these matters?
    Mr. Speaker: With respect, this is taking up time.

    Accident, Spain
    Mr. J. Howardasked the Minister of Aviation how many flights the captain of the Dakota aircraft G-AMZD, which crashed on Montseny Peak, Spain, on 19th August, 1959, had made from London to Barcelona and back, either in charge of an aircraft or in a subordinate capacity.
    Mr. Rippon: The operator has informed us that since the captain joined their service in 1956 he had not made any such flights. He had, however, passed the tests required by the regulations as to his knowledge of the route, including the terrain, and the air traffic and navigational facilities.
    Mr. Howard: May I ask my hon. Friend two points arising out of his reply. First, I understand that even though pilots may have an adequate briefing, B.E.A. still demand that a supervisory captain should be carried on this route if the captain of an aircraft has not previously flown to Barcelona. Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the existing regulations in that respect? Secondly, in view of the fact that a very large number of people travel by charter aircraft from this country to Spain and elsewhere on holiday, would my right hon. Friend assure himself that the regulations are being properly observed, and also satisfy himself that no new regulations are required in order to increase the safety standard?
    Mr. Rippon: We are satisfied that the existing regulations are proving generally satisfactory, and we do take steps to see

    877
    that they are observed. There is a difficulty in regard to non-scheduled flights in making quite the same provisions as the hon. Member has referred to.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the investigation into the accident to aircraft number G-AMZD, a Trans-Air DC3, in Spain, the report of which was issued recently by his Department in a translation from the Spanish; and whether, in view of the loss of this British aircraft with all on board, he will consider publishing a more detailed report which will help to explain the events that led to the accident and which will allocate responsibility for it.
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir. This accident was investigated by the Spanish authorities in accordance with international agreement, and I have no reason to believe that any further report would throw more light on its causes.
    Mr. Goodhew: Does not my hon. Friend feel that much greater publicity should be given to the results of this investigation, and some effort made to allocate responsibility, in the interests of public safety?
    Mr. Rippon: The report in this case has been published and is available.

    Aircraft Engines (Noise)
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Aviation what was the amount spent by his Department in 1959 on research into noise abatement in connection with aircraft engines; and what progress he can now report of co-operation with aircraft manufacturers in devising means of silencing or quieting aircraft engines.
    Mr. Sandys: Considerable efforts are being made in industry and Government research establishments to reduce the noise of aero-engines. Much of this forms part of wider development projects. Consequently the expenditure attributable to this aspect cannot easily be separately assessed. The development of corrugated jet nozzles and other forms of noise suppressors and turbo-fan engines of lower noise-to-power ratio are important examples of the fruits of this work.
    Mr. Hunter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that
    878
    finance is not limiting research work? With the growth of air transport, aircraft noise is a constant worry to the residents around London Airport. The matter has now become one of paramount importance.
    Mr. Sandys: The problem is not so much lack of money as lack of ideas. We still know very little about the fundamental cause of jet aircraft noise. There is a limit to the amount of money that can be devoted to basic research on this subject, but if there are any promising lines which should be explored and are not being explored I will certainly consider arranging with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make more money available for that work.
    Mr. Lipton: Was all the interesting information that was contained in the two replies just given by the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to the deputation which called to see him at 7 o'clock the other morning?
    Mr. Sandys: It was a little early to go into technical matters.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As we do not want irate citizens living near London Airport descending upon Members of the Opposition at that early hour, can he say whether he is in contact with United States authorities to see whether they can find some solution of this problem?
    Mr. Sandys: I can assure the hon. Member that we are in touch with all the research establishments that are working on this problem. I have very great sympathy with those who are disturbed by this noise. I heartily dislike noise and understand the feelings of these people. But I must make it clear that I cannot promise that aircraft noise will decrease in this age. What we can and must do is try to keep it within bounds. At the moment, I am having an exhaustive study of the whole problem undertaken from every possible angle. But I cannot promise that we can find an answer which will be satisfactory to those people who live on the edge of aerodromes.

    B.O.A.C. (Board)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now make a statement on the future composition of

    879
    the Board of British Overseas Airways Corporation, with particular reference to the post of Deputy Chairman.
    Mr. Sandys: I have no statement to make at present.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As the Deputy Chairman is due to retire soon and the Chairman is due to retire within a year, is not this the right time to appoint at least a Deputy Chairman—perhaps with a view to his taking over as Chairman next year?
    Mr. Sandys: This is the right time, and that is what I am doing at the moment, but the choice of a Deputy Chairman is inevitably linked with other future appointments, and it is important to get them right. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept a little delay in this appointment, if there should be a delay, because it is better to go slowly and get the correct set-up.

    Britannic Aircraft
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Aviation when the contract for the Britannic freighter will be signed.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the development of the Short Britannic 3.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware of the anxiety in Northern Ireland over the long delay in finalising arrangements for the Britannic freighter; and whether he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to expedite this.
    Mr. Sandys: The contract negotiations are far advanced, and I hope they will now soon be completed.
    Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the great importance of this contract to the future of our Forces, can the Minister say why it is taking such a long time to get the matter finalised? Can he say when we may expect this freighter to be in service? How many will he order?
    Mr. Sandys: The delay is due to the fact that we are anxious to get a fixed-price contract. Before the price can be finally agreed on, detailed specifications have to be settled. This is taking a little longer than we had expected, but the process of getting a fixed-price contract is necessary for the sake of protecting public funds.
    Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the House appreciates the importance of getting a fixed-price contract but is also aware that the Army is very concerned to get an aircraft? Is he further aware that a year ago, when he made his first announcement, he said that the aircraft would fly in 1961, and the company said that it would fly in 1961 and be in operation by 1962? Is it not now clear that it will not be operational before 1966? Is not the real reason for the difficulty the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, when Minister of Defence, took into account not military considerations but only economic and financial considerations?
    Mr. Sandys: I am assured by Messrs. Shorts that progress in this contract is not being held up in any way by reason of the fact that the final specifications have not yet been settled and the contract not yet signed. This is a normal process. Work is going on, tooling up is going ahead, and all the preparations for production are going ahead. I have asked about this on several occasions and I have been assured that nothing is being held up. I am not sure where the hon. Member gets some of the dates which he has quoted.
    Mr. Wigg: From you.
    Mr. Sandys: I cannot verify the exact dates the hon. Member has given, but I am assured that the forecasts given by the firm at the outset still hold good.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. As the Minister has challenged the accuracy of my statement, is he aware that on 11th February, 1959, he made a statement that the aircraft would fly in 1961—
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the remarks made in a recent debate in another place, this aeroplane will be in service before the end of 1963; and that it is a potential world beater, in terms of range, operating costs and load? Does my right hon. Friend further realise that it is imperative that the contract should be signed without delay? Finally, is he aware that, despite the fact that the contract has not been placed, the firm

    881
    has gone on at its own expense so that development will not be held up in any way?
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. G. Jeger: On a point of order. Am I now inhibited from asking a supplementary question to my Question No.44?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.

    Comet 4
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Aviation how many accidents involving structural damage have occurred to the British Overseas Airways Corporation Comet 4 aircraft on passenger-carrying flights since this type of aircraft was introduced to service late in 1958; how many of these accidents occurred whilst the aircraft was approaching to land or landing; and to what extent he attributes any of these accidents to defects in the aircraft or its engines.
    Mr. Rippon: There have been five such accidents since 1958. One occurred shortly after take-off and four during the approach or landing phases of the respective flights. Of the four accidents so far investigated, none has been attributed to defects in the aircraft or its engines.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by all those who think that this is here the greatest aircraft in the world today for civil purposes? Has the Ministry been represented in all these investigations, and will the findings be published? Is there some doubt whether even experienced pilots are not finding difficulty in estimating correct angles of approach for this aircraft?
    Mr. Rippon: It is not envisaged at the moment that any report should be published. No loss of life has been involved. As a result of discussions which have taken place between our officers, the aircraft manufacturers, the Corporations and the Air Registration Board, however, operating techniques have been reviewed and amended. They will be further examined when we hear the report of the fifth accident, in Madrid.

    Estimates (Reduction)
    Mr. Wiggasked the Minister of Aviation what is the basis of recalculation of expenditure for the financial year 1960–61 which will result in the saving of £10 million from the figures shown in his published estimate; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Aviation which items in his Estimates are to be reduced by £10 million.
    Mr. Sandys: As a result of a recent review of the development programme, it appeared that we had budgeted for more than we were likely to spend in the coming year to the extent of at least £10 million. An adjustment will be made in Vote 9 of Class VI.
    Mr. Wigg: As it has been the right hon. Gentleman's custom both in his previous office and in this one to waste money with a lavish hand, why is it that he has to make a special announcement that he is to save £10 million unless he is once again covering up something? Will he give the House a specific assurance that this special economy is not related to any amendment of the TSR.2 or the Blue Streak programmes?
    Mr. Sandys: The purpose is not to cover up something but to disclose something to the House.
    Mr. Strauss: Does what the Minister has just said mean that there has been a review of the amount which it is possible or likely to be spent on the orders which the Ministry has in hand during the coming year, or has a decision been made to defer or cancel any of the existing development or other orders?
    Mr. Sandys: We under-spent very seriously last year in comparison with the Estimates of development projects, and the figure of £10 million is made up of reductions in our Estimates for this year's spending on a number of contracts with various firms. I think it would be contrary to well established practice to publish figures of expenditure in regard to individual weapons and aircraft.
    Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. I asked whether this meant there had been a deliberate deferment or cancellation

    883
    of any of the orders which had been contemplated. Does that account in any way for the reduction of £10 million?
    Mr. Sandys: As a result of the review of the programme, we came to the conclusion that we had put down in the Estimates a larger sum than we thought we would spend.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Does this mean that the right hon. Gentleman's Estimates Department, which has been so wildly out in the past, is getting better and there has been an improvement?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that £10 million is so wildly out on the size of the programme that we are discussing.
    Mr. Wigg—
    Mr. Jeger: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Frank Allaun: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Earlier in Question Time considerable dissatisfaction was expressed at the refusal of the Minister to give the House certain information. I am in this difficulty. I tabled another six Questions last week. I assure you that none of them involves security measures relating to these contracts. In view of the Minister's Answers this afternoon, it is almost certain that his reply to my Questions will be, "I can give you no information".
Is it in order for a Minister to refuse information to the House when a miscalculation of at least £110 million is involved, and actually far more than that?
Mr. Speaker: I am concerned with rules of order, and not, with respect, with speeches attached to them. So far as the rules of order go, it is in order for the Minister to refuse to answer in certain circumstances. I cannot order him to do so.
Mr. Shinwell: We had just now a repetition of an incident that occurred during Question Time one day last week when a number of Questions were telescoped and answered by the responsible
884
Minister. Before one of the hon. Members who had asked one of the Questions could put a supplementary question, another hon. Member who had a Question of a similar kind on the Order Paper gave notice that he proposed to raise the matter on the Adjournment. The first hon. Member was therefore prevented from putting his supplementary question. There have been two similar occurrences today.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would look at the matter again to clarify the position, because it inhibits an hon. Member from putting a supplementary question which, not only to himself but to the House, may be of some importance. At the moment, he is prevented from asking his supplementary question if another hon. Members interrupts to give notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's grievance, but it has been like that for all time and it is not for me to change the rules of the House. If the House likes to change them, it is for the House to do so. I hope, as I said the other day, that hon. Members will not lightly adopt the process of giving notice, because of its effect upon the rights of other hon. Members.
Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. When a point of order is raised, or notice of an Adjournment is given, must you automatically accept that, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that a good many hon. Members might want to put supplementary questions? Is the acceptance of the notice not within your discretion?
Mr. Speaker: No. I receive, as the House as it were, notice from hon. Members. I cannot resist the process of receiving it. If I were very quick in calling the next hon. Member I might get out of it that way. That happened on one occasion, but I was not quite quick enough to dodge it this time.
Mr. Gaitskell: May we have your advice, Mr. Speaker? I think there is some genuine concern in the House about the possible abuse, if that is the word, of giving notice of the Adjournment. You told us that it was not within your power to change the rule. Could you advise us in what way some modification might be made? For example, it

885
might be out of order to give notice to raise the subject on the Adjournment if an hon. Member who had a Question down had not had an opportunity of asking a supplementary question. Could this be considered in some way, and could you tell us how it could be done?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I cannot consider it. It would have to be considered by the House through the usual channels if it wanted a change in the practice. So far as those who advise me could help me, I would be delighted to assist on any point where request was made to us for a suggestion. I had better not say much about it in case I find that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not in fact as attractive as it sounds to me.
Mr. Callaghan: May I revert to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on Questions Nos. 27 and 28 about the nature of the reply of a Minister where the matter is in front of the Public Accounts Committee? My hon. Friend has intimated to you that on this very serious matter, in which many millions of pounds of public money are involved, he has put down a further six Questions. The point I want to put is this. It is quite clear that the Minister is entitled to shelter himself under the guise of what is necessary in the public interest and say that he does not propose to give the House any information. May I ask whether you would at least advise him in this sense, that he is not entitled to say to the House that because the matter is before the Public Accounts Committee he is not willing to give the House the information for which my hon. Friend is asking?
Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what he would be entitled to do, as I understand it. What he is not entitled to do, on what we were discussing earlier, is to give as the reason for not discussing the matter in the House the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General has reported about it.
Mr. Wigg: Further to the point of order about giving notice of the Adjournment. Surely there is no Standing Order about it. It is the custom for the Chair to accept notice by a Member, as in this case. I apologise to my hon. Friend the
886
Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). If an hon. Member puts down a Question and thinks that all the Questions have been exhausted, out of courtesy to the Minister he gives notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment, but there is no reason why the Chair should from that moment cease to accept supplementary questions.
The second point is one of very great substance. The Minister of Aviation presents Estimates to the House and they are printed. Then, before they come into operation, the right hon. Gentleman can come to the House and, without exposing policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement, rather by way of an aside, announces that those Estimates are to be reduced. All we are permitted to do, in the cut and thrust of Questions, is to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what major change of policy has taken place since he tabled his annual Estimates and before their coming into operation. Is it not a grave abuse of the traditions and procedure of this House for right hon. Gentlemen to adopt the method which has been adopted in this case?
Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order. I should like to deal with the point made about the Public Accounts Committee. There is nothing to conceal because all this will come out in a report to the House. [HON. MEMBERS. "When?"] There is no question of concealing matters, but I was rather anxious not to cause offence or to commit an impropriety by reading to the House what in fact would be a summary of a letter sent to the Auditor General as a result of the Public Accounts Committee's inquiries. Perhaps I could take your advice on this, Mr. Speaker? If you consider that it would be proper to do so, I should be happy in reply to a later Question to give that information.
Mr. Speaker: It is not from the point of view of order improper for the Minister to do that, but, as the House knows, it would be unusual, because I think in the past it has been usual to adopt the method of awaiting the information from the Public Accounts Committee, merely because I suppose that is a more complete opportunity of investigating a particular point. It is not out of order for the Minister to do that if he wants to do it.

887
To go back to the first pant of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I am afraid I cannot agree with the view he put. It is not a Standing Order but the practice of the House to give notice, and that brings into operation our rule against anticipation. That is why it is done.

GOVERNMENT TRAINING CENTRES (APPRENTICE TRAINING)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. R. CARR: To ask the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the training of apprentices at Government Training Centres.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer Question No. 87.
I am proposing to set up a small number of classes in Government training centres to provide first-year apprenticeship training. This training will only be given to boys accepted as apprentices by firms. Preference will be given to boys from firms which have hitherto found it impracticable to undertake apprentice training or to increase their present number of apprentices.
No charge will be made for the training provided, but employers taking part in the scheme will be required to give an undertaking to pay the wages of apprentices during the year, and to continue the boys' training afterwards under the normal industrial arrangements. The usual provision for day release will apply during the year.
This scheme has been approved as a whole by the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. The establishment of classes in engineering has been agreed by employers and trade unions in that industry. I propose to extend the scheme to other trades and I am already in touch with the building industry.
The first training places will be available early this summer at eight Government training centres. I expect to set up classes at other centres later this year, making a total of about 300 training places.
888
This scheme will not in itself make a large numerical contribution to the expansion of training for skilled occupations during the "bulge" years. It is intended primarily as a demonstration of a pattern of training which should appeal particularly to the smaller firms with only limited opportunities for undertaking training themselves. I hope that in this way the scheme will encourage industry to increase its intake of young people into skilled occupations.
Mr. Carr: I wish to welcome the action my right hon. Friend has announced. May I ask two further questions about it? Are we to understand that the proposed courses in Government training centres will last for a whole twelve months, full time, so that the employers of these apprentices will have no responsibility for their training during the whole of the first year?
Secondly, may I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he has taken to encourage recruitment to these courses so that full advantage can be taken of facilities?
Mr. Heath: The course will be a full-time one for the whole year except for the normal arrangements I mentioned for day release. The employer will have no training responsibility during the year, but we hope very much that employers will visit training centres from time to time to see the scheme in operation; and we ourselves from time to time will be sending reports on the apprentices to the employers.
From the point of view of publicity, we have prepared a leaflet which will be distributed to all firms concerned within the range of the individual Government training centres where training takes place, and I am glad to say that the engineering employers have undertaken to inform all their members about this scheme. I hope that employers in other industries will do the same as classes are provided for them.
Mr. Albu: Can the Minister say, first, whether this scheme, which I also welcome very much, has been accepted by the employers and the trade unions as the first year of an apprenticeship, or is it the pre-apprenticeship year? At what date does it start? Secondly, if the scheme is successful but the rate of expansion of apprenticeship in industry

889
is not so fast as most of us would like, will the right hon. Gentleman extend the scheme?
Mr. Heath: We are providing the first year of apprenticeship. It is not a pre-apprenticeship scheme and, therefore, it is governed by the normal industrial arrangements. As to expansion, we shall have to wait to see what the response is from the industries involved.
Dame Irene Ward: While I also welcome this scheme, may I ask what is to happen on the North-East Coast in future, in view of the fact that that is the only region which has not got a Ministry of Labour training centre? Am I to understand from the very forthright statement of my right hon. Friend, and as we have a large number of small employers in the North-East, that my right hon. Friend has won his battle with the Treasury and that, on Wednesday, he will be able to announce that we are to have a training centre there?
Mr. Heath: I am aware of the Question that my hon. Friend has tabled for answer on Wednesday and I am giving consideration to that matter. That also applies to this scheme so far as it concerns the North-East. Of course, it will be possible for apprentices to go to Government training centres outside their own areas. The only provision is that they must be accepted first as apprentices by particular firms.
Mr. Robens: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to publish a full list of Government training centres which are prepared to carry out these courses? Will he also say whether he will consult his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade with a view to seeing what apprenticeship training can be given in those areas of declining employment in some stable industries, so that the sons of cotton workers and miners may be trained in other trades in which, later, they might find employment?
Mr. Heath: I shall publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the first eight training centres with these classes, and the right hon. Member will find that they are widely spread. One is in Scotland and another in South Wales. That, I think, will deal with the point about areas of high unemployment.
Mr. Lawson: In view of the fact that in Scotland there are many boys who have gone through pre-apprenticeship training, and that after that training is completed they are unable to find work, will the right hon. Gentleman keep that point in mind and not exclude from such training facilities boys who cannot find work at their own trades?
Mr. Heath: I shall keep that in mind. I think that that emphasises the need to ensure that a boy is apprenticed with a particular firm before he undertakes a year's training.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can debate this matter now.
The first centres at which it is intended to set up classes are:
Aintree, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Hillington (Glasgow), Leeds, Letchworth, and Long Eaton.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to raise a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I express my regret to you that I have not been able to inform you beforehand, because the newspaper was placed in my hands only since the beginning of this sitting of the House.
I apologise to you for the personal nature of this matter, but it is a matter which, I think, reflects on the women Members of this House. I have been asked by a woman hon. Member, who regards it as a matter of delicacy, to raise this matter. I do so in the interests of the women hon. Members of the House and also possibly for the protection of the male Members of the House.
This is a copy of a paragraph which appeared in the Sunday Express yesterday. It reads:
"Lady Hylton-Foster, wife of Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, who became Speaker of the House of Commons last October, holds strong views on women Members of Parliament. ' I can't think why they do it' she tells me. ' I just don't understand them. Women don't have enough education to become politicians'."
I do not wish to comment, Sir.
The paragraph goes on to say:
"I know that many Labour M.P.s who have had no education have done extremely well, but they have bothered to find out things for themselves and read up what they don't know. Women don't."

891
I do not wish to press you to give your judgment today, Mr. Speaker, but I respectfully submit that this is a question of Privilege, and ask you whether you would give your views on it tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should bring the newspaper to me.
Copy of newspaper handed in.
Mr. Speaker: I will not conceal from the House that I have already read it. Under our new Standing Order I am allowed to take 24 hours to consider the matter. That I will do.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.42 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill stems from two things—the experiment of the Pink Zone last Christmas and the debate in the House on 10th December, which was an excellent debate and very constructive. That debate showed two things. The first was that the public were rather tired of the traffic chaos in our urban areas, and the second was that the Government should do something urgently. The Bill was conceived last December and born in March, so I do not think that that is an excessive period for its gestation.
  There may be blemishes in the Bill— I am bound to admit that—because it was prepared in a hurry; there are 31 pages of it and it includes a large number of the suggestions made during that debate. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will assist, in Committee, to remove whatever blemishes there may be. We have tried to reconcile the urgency of the situation with proper legislation. I realise that we have an extra hour for this debate today, but I will try to be as brief as possible. My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will wind up the debate and one of the Joint Undersecretaries of State for Scotland will intervene in the middle of the debate to deal with the Scottish aspect of the traffic problem and how the Bill applies to it.
  The Bill falls naturally into three parts: first, how it affects London; secondly, how it affects the rest of the country; and thirdly, enforcement. But before we come to the Bill I think that we should put it in its proper perspective.
  At present, a great deal is going on in road building and road improvement in this country—motorways, trunk roads and work in the urban areas such as London, Birmingham and other towns. In 1960–61, for the first time, the total being spent by the Government in England and Wales on roads will be over

  893
  £100 million. When we are discussing the Bill we should not think that this is the only thing that the Government are doing. A vast amount is going on, although I am aware that there is much still to do.
  May I, first, turn to that part of the Bill which deals with London? Under the 1924 Act the Minister of Transport has responsibilities which mean that he is responsible for London's traffic, yet, at the same time, by a unique situation, he is not the traffic authority. The traffic authorities are 28 Metropolitan boroughs, six county councils and three county boroughs. The London County Council is not the traffic authority; it is an improvement authority. This situation is unique in this country.
  I believe that the set-up at present is wrong. There are too many traffic authorities, they are too small and they do not consider London's traffic as a whole. This is not to denigrate the efforts of the Metropolitan boroughs, the county councils or the county boroughs. It is merely that the structure under which they are supposed to operate is not suitable for the work. I want to make that clear from the outset.
  One or two of these authorities sometimes decide to use the right of veto. I mentioned on 10th December a case in which we at the Ministry wished to eliminate a right-hand turn and a local authority vetoed it. I am sorry to say that we have still not overcome that difficulty. Powers in the Bill will enable us to do so. We have set up in the Ministry a London Traffic Management Unit. The idea is that it will deal with London's traffic as a whole and that it will act quickly—as quickly as it can, especially in view of the number of cars coming on to the road.
  Under Clause 7, we deal with alterations. At present, the smallest regulation, even if it is only to alter a bus stop by a few feet, has to foe sent to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. That has 45 members, and I am bound to say that this procedure takes too long. In some cases, it has taken two years from the initiation of an idea to the completion of the scheme. This ought to be altered, and the Bill gives the Minister power not to submit it to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee.
  894
  Here again, the difficulty is not the fault of the Committee. It has done excellent work, but it was set up in 1924, thirty-six years ago, when the traffic was a very different proposition from what it is today.
  Under Clause 7 (2), the Minister has power in London to control pedestrians. In some cases, it might be necessary to insist that pedestrians use an underground passageway which has been specially constructed for them, or to prevent them from crossing at places which are dangerous to their own lives. These powers are included in subsection (2). Subsection (4) of the same Clause allows some cars to be exempted from the waiting restrictions which will be inevitable if we are to make London's traffic viable.
  There will be no privileged classes of people who will be allowed to be exempt from the waiting restrictions. The people we have in mind are such as doctors, where perhaps it may be a matter of life and death that they should attend to a patient. But there is no intention of introducing a privileged class. Exemption will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure and the House will, therefore, be able to debate it and say whether they think it a proper procedure.
  There was a leading article in the Daily Express, by Lord Beaverbrook or somebody else, in which it was said, "We must not create a privileged class." I can assure the noble Lord that we do not intend to create a privileged class and that there is no intention of giving carte blanche to the Members of the House of Lords.
  Under Clause 7, we have introduced an innovation. The motoring interests have pressed on me that we should adopt in this country the disc system which is used in Paris. I will give my own views on the disc system. I have investigated it in Paris. I do not think that it will work here and I think that it would be exceedingly difficult and extremely expensive to enforce. But as all these bodies have pressed it on me, I have taken powers in the Bill so that any local authority which is persuaded by the motoring organisations that the disc system can be operated, can try an experiment.

  895
  One thing about traffic is certain. It is an empirical process. One never quite knows whether what one is doing is right or wrong. One has to keep an open mind and be prepared to reverse one's decision if one is proved wrong. I certainly do not want to give the House the impression that everything we, as a Government, say in traffic matters is good for all time, because it is not necessarily so.
  Mr. Dudley Williams: My right hon. Friend is taking powers under the Bill to introduce such systems as the disc system. Will all local authorities automatically be given power to carry out this experiment, or will each authority, in due course, have to apply to the Minister?
  Mr. Marples: Each authority will ask for it. If authorities ask for it, I shall certainly try an experiment. I have brought back from Paris with me many things, on some of which I have paid duty. I have also brought one of the discs which they have. I have placed it in the Library so that hon. Gentlemen can look at it and read in French the regulations and some advertisements on the back. Then they can decide for themselves whether it will be suitable. The Government are resolved that this system will not be tried in the area of London for which I am responsible, but I am quite prepared to see it tried anywhere else if the motoring organisations can persuade a local authority to do it.
  I come now to Clause 8. I mention this because I believe that we have had great difficulty in the Ministry in erecting signs in London. I want the House to remember that I am talking only about London. Sometimes the local authority is unable to do so in time; it may be waiting for a meeting of its finance committee, or something like that. We have taken powers to do it in such cases.
  Also, we can rephase traffic lights— for example, from Notting Hill Gate to the City of London. One of the things which has impressed me a great deal is the system they have in Baltimore for phased traffic lights controlled by electronic computers. Cars passing a given point entering a congested city are counted by an electric eye. The information is then fed into an electronic computer which decides the length of time which the traffic can flow from that
  896
  particular direction. It can vary the length of time from as little as 60 seconds to 120 seconds. That, in itself, makes a great contribution to Baltimore's congested traffic problem in the tidal periods, which are early in the morning, when everybody is coming in, and in the evening, when everybody is going out.
  Clause 9 is another result of the Pink Zone. During the Pink Zone period, we provided a number of free off-street car parks for motorists, because it was felt that it would be unfair to prohibit parking in certain parts of the streets of London unless we gave motorists somewhere else to park. We gave them the Horse Guards Parade. It turns out, in practice, that that will cost us £4,000 to put right, because some motor cars which were parked there leaked oil and all that sort of thing. It will cost us that sum to reinstate the Parade.
  That sum fell upon the Vote of the Ministry of Works. One of the greatest victories of my life was when the Ministry of Works agreed to pay £4,000 for car parking for the Ministry of Transport. Under Clause 9, the Ministry of Transport can now pay on its Vote for that sort of thing. In addition, it can rent temporary sites which may be so used.
  I come on now to London. The critical Clauses are Clauses 14 and 16. At the moment, block grants from the central Government cover improvements on classified roads. Clause 14 enables me to make grants direct to the authority for minor improvements to classified roads. I emphasise "minor", and not "major". It would not be possible, under this Clause, for me to make a contribution to the Hyde Park scheme or the Hammersmith flyover, but I could make a contribution to a minor scheme which might by itself make a major contribution to the through traffic of London. If a major contribution was made to the through traffic of London, it is only right that the central Government should be allowed to make that contribution to the highway authority concerned, which is mostly concerned with looking after its own finances and its own ratepayers. Therefore, I have the power to make grants towards minor improvements.
  Clause 16 goes with Clause 14. Clause 16 gives the Minister default powers, in

  897
  effect. If a local authority refuses to carry out a minor scheme which will help through traffic, or if it is slow in carrying out a minor scheme to help through traffic, the Minister can do it himself and recover the cost from the local authority. I am sure that local authorities will co-operate in every way, and I can give the House the pledge that I intend to work through local authorities as far as is humanly possible.
  I must make an apology to local authorities. I was not able to consult them on the Bill in the same way as we consulted them on Bills when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. My only excuse is the pressure of time to get the Bill before the House. We have seen the various local authorities and their associations and, in general, they have welcomed the Bill.
  I promise that there is no intention of using what I call "the big stick". All I hope and pray is that Clause 16 will never be used. At any rate, it will protect us from stalemate. Stalemate is the one thing that one cannot afford to have when traffic is pouring on to the roads as it is at present. The number of cars sold in January and February was 50 per cent. more than it was last year. With this avalanche and deluge of cars coming on to the roads, the normal processes of consultation between the central Government and local authorities have not been possible.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is desirable to have this on record at this very early stage. When the Minister says that local authorities extend a welcome to the Bill, is he speaking of the Metropolitan boroughs of London?
  Mr. Marples: The associations of the local authorities and of the county councils and the councils concerned were consulted as soon as they possibly could be by my Department. In general, they welcomed the provisions of the Bill and thought that public opinion would support it. Naturally, they will have individual points of difference. One never quite gets the county councils agreeing with the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Boroughs, but, generally speaking, they welcome the Bill.
  For example, the minor improvements which I have mentioned do not involve
  898
  widening the road. It may mean that, in some cases, we can carry out traffic improvements which are necessary, but not allowed under the existing law. There is a public lavatory in Rochester Row which takes 50 per cent. of the road and is rarely used as a public lavatory, because people cannot get there. They are generally killed before they get there, which is very inconvenient indeed. If it is unreasonable for traffic interests to override well-founded local objections, Clause 16 will not be used, but it is there so that we shall not have stalemate.
  I come on to one other point concerning London. We had a precise scientific analysis made of the results of the Pink Zone. The results were extremely helpful. The London Transport Executive and my own officials made reports. Quite a number of things flowed from the analysis.
  The first was that the experimental regulations were successful in speeding up the flow of traffic within the Pink Zone. They speeded it up considerably.
  The second was that loading and unloading by commercial vehicles on main traffic routes appears to be a more important factor in giving rise to traffic congestion than has perhaps been realised. Therefore, we must look at that carefully.
  The third was that the Pink Zone itself, hurriedly contrived though it was, was too small and should be enlarged if it is to be effective.
  The last was that cars parking illegally came back into the Pink Zone and that parking meters, traffic wardens and reinforced police powers seemed necessary for effective enforcement. I thought that the House would like to know that the results of the Pink Zone Scheme have been analysed scientifically, and have yielded quite a number of results.
  I do not want to speak for too long, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides want to take part in the debate, so I now turn to the country outside London. Outside London, the traffic authority is not normally the Minister of Transport, as everyone seems to think—not in this House, but outside it. Everyone writes to me and says, "Can we have a pedestrian crossing?"— in Liverpool, or Manchester, or wherever it may be. But the traffic authorities in

  899
  Liverpool and Manchester are the Liverpool Corporation and the Manchester Corporation.
  We must try to give those traffic authorities more help, if we possibly can, and we are trying to do so by the Bill. First, let me mention parking meters. I believe that, at present parking meters are the most effective way of seeing that motorists can use that part of the street that can be made available for parking. I am sure of that. At present, I can authorise only certain selected towns to be what I call parking-meter authorities and, when I do that, each scheme that they put forward has to be approved by the Minister. Frankly, I do not see why a Minister of Transport should approve a scheme in, say, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham; he has not the necessary local knowledge. Therefore, by Clause 5, I am taking the power, at any rate, to push the whole business of parking on to the local authority.
  Clause 11 deals with off-street parking for the rest of the country and for London. If we are to use the streets properly, we must, first, designate part of the street that is to be used for moving traffic, and for temporary parking or loading and unloading; and permanent parking for the whole day should be off the street, and not on it. Until we do that, we shall always be clogged up in the centre of the cities. We must, therefore, encourage off-street parking. There are two main points about that. First, off-street parking must be in the right place. The Pink Zone scheme showed that some car parks were not used, while others were used to the full. Secondly, it should be of the right size.
  There is no point in having an off-street park that is too big, because when everyone moves from it the street is immediately clogged and it is very difficult to get from one end to the other. That happens in many car parks in the United States. To get from one end of the Disneyland car park to the other one has to have public transport—it is so big. It houses 10,000 cars, and the whole effect of off-street parking has been spoiled because of the hugeness of that single car park.
  Therefore, in the Bill we have allowed local authorities to undertake what I call composite development. They may have to take over a site because of the
  900
  physical conditions. If it is too big for a car park they can develop part of it for a car park, and develop the rest in another way. I want to make it quite clear that it is not the intention of this Clause that the local authority shall move into business other than that of car parking. There is no intention that local authorities shall move into trading in a big way.
  To make that quite clear, the powers have been limited to five years, and the Minister will have to approve of the particular proposal. Subsection (2) of Clause 11 lays down the grounds for the Minister's approval. It says:
  "The appropriate Minister shall not approve proposals submitted to him … unless he is satisfied that the extent to which those purposes will be served by the building is no more than reasonable to ensure the economic operation of the parking place."
  In other words, the object is off-street car parking—
  Mr. John Parker: Does that mean that a local authority can provide garages for parking, and can charge an economic rent for the garaging facilities?
  Mr. Marples: Yes—and that provision is included in other Clauses as well.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Maryle-bone): Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if these off-street parking places are to be adequately used it is most important that there should be sufficient publicity, in the streets and in other places, to let people know where those places are? Will my right hon. Friend take steps, perhaps in the Bill, to ensure that?
  Mr. Marples: That will be dealt with when we come to the question of traffic wardens and the enforcement aspect. We are hoping that the traffic wardens will be able to give that sort of advice to motorists coming to the centre.
  I turn now to Clauses 12 and 13. In practice, at the moment, two types of cars are dumped on the road. The first are good vehicles, and the others are abandoned and bad vehicles. I have looked into this with the police, who have been most helpful, and I must say that there are some curious examples of what people do to avoid paying garage fees.

  901
  There is a man who owns a Rolls-Royce—possibly a member of the Liberal Party—and he leaves his car in a central street in Kensington and goes on a cruise to South Africa for about four months. By Clause 12, if he does that in future, first, he will be charged £2—because the vehicle will be towed away—and, secondly, he will be charged a scale charge for storing the car. Therefore, when next he comes back from South Africa he will have a reasonable bill to pay for inconveniencing all those people in Kensington who want to keep their cars moving in the streets.
  Another case that Clause 12 will cover is one which we found in the Pink Zone. During the Pink Zone period we found a man in Hanover Square—I know his name, and I know the number of his car—[Interruption.] No, I will not divulge them—[Interruption.] No, he is a Labour man, I think. He used to leave his car in Hanover Square, and the police used to take it away to Tottenham Court Road. The man would then ring the police and ask them, "Where's my car?" He would be told, and would collect the car. The point is that that man was using the police as chauffeurs for himself—[Interruption.] Oh, yes, because he had plenty of car-parking space to use, but he preferred to drive his car there, leave the key in it, and let the police take it away. In future, Clause 12 will bite on that sort of person.
  Clause 13 deals with the disposal of abandoned vehicles. Such vehicles are most difficult to deal with, because sometimes they bear no means of identification; the police do not know to whom they belong, nor does the local authority. The law at present is doubtful both for the local authority and for the police, so Clause 13 gives the authorities power to sell or dispose of an abandoned car— if it appears to be abandoned—but they must wait for not less than six weeks. If the owner can be identified, it is the duty of the local authority to notify him.
  Mr. Frank Tomney: There is another growing parking anomaly. It affects suburban towns, in particular, and especially those areas designated for residential purposes only. I refer to the growing practice of hauliers allowing their drivers to park their vehicles in front of houses, and to take their heavy lorries home at the
  902
  weekends. Will the Minister take powers to remedy that situation as well?
  Mr. Marples: If the police think that the vehicle causes an obstruction they will be able to take it away and charge him under the Bill. In that respect, therefore, the Bill will help the local authorities and the police.
  There is one other thing that I would like to mention—
  Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) asked about local authorities having powers to provide garages, but being limited as to their powers to supply other services. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that local authorities will be able to supply garage space, but not oil and petrol? If not, why not?
  Mr. Marples: No, they will not be allowed to go into business in that way, but what they can do is to buy the property, erect the garage, let someone else run it and provide the services— [An HON. MEMBER: "At a profit."] It will not be a question of profit or loss for the local authority. It will be providing a service for the community.
  Mr. Mellish: Let us assume that it is a Tory council. Why should it not be allowed to do this? Why should the law be so drafted as to bar the council from doing this?
  Mr. Marples: The emphasis is on off-street parking and not on trading. The Westminster City Council is doing this now; it is doing exactly what we want to be done under this Bill. It is providing off-street car parking, which is the object of the exercise. The object is to free London of traffic congestion—not to set up local authorities as trading concerns. Therefore, I do not think that they should have that power.
  I wish to say a word about accidents. According to information that I have received from the experts, some of these minor improvements are likely, if carried out, to reduce road accidents. Between the beginning and the end of this debate today there are likely to be 350 accidents involving personal injury. These will lead to about nine deaths and 450 injuries, and of those injured about a quarter will be seriously injured. Those figures are based upon a scientific calculation.

  903
  I only hope that these new minor improvements that we are making will be such as to reduce that accident toll. If, during the debate, any hon. Member has any suggestion to make about reducing the number of accidents, the Government will be delighted to listen to him. It is not possible to legislate for human behaviour. Half the causes of accidents are human error, impatience, and so on. All the laws in the world will not help. It is a question of education and of conscience.
  I now come to the question of enforcement, and I do not wish to take too long over this. The first point is that all the traffic rules that we make are quite useless without effective enforcement. One motorist who is selfish can make many others selfish. The average motorist is not a criminal. He is quite decent, but the point is that if he sees somebody else doing something he says, "I can do it, too." During the operation of the Pink Zone I kept watch at Stratton Street, which is the only major right-hand turn out of Piccadilly. I saw the first motorist stop. He locked his car, looked round hurriedly and ran—in fact, he leapt— the first six or seven paces. When he had dissociated himself from his vehicle he strolled away calmly and unconcerned. In about five minutes Stratton Street was full of other cars because other drivers said, "If that man can stop there I can stop there." In ten minutes Piccadilly was in a state of chaos, because people could not make the right-hand turn into Stratton Street.
  Therefore, we must have methods of enforcement which are swift and salutary and which will make that first motorist, when he does the wrong thing, pay for it. Then, I think, the rest will behave themselves as reasonable citizens. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the police who have worked hard on Clauses 1 and 2, which are solely the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is he the best Home Secretary available?
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Member is the best leader on traffic for the Opposition who is available.
  904
  The Magistrates' Courts Act, 1957, allows a driver to plead guilty by post, but I am told that that is totally inadequate as a solution of the problem in London. Therefore, my right hon. Friend proposes two measures. First, where there is no doubt of guilt—and when one parks a car there is generally no doubt of guilt, because the car is there in the wrong place—it can be disposed of without involving the courts. Secondly, the parking regulations should be enforced by a body other than the police.
  Mr. Mellish: Who is to determine guilt?
  Mr. Marples: I do not wish to be too subtle, but if a notice says "No Parking", and a motorist parks there, I should have thought that he was guilty of parking in the wrong place.
  Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman must not be too clever about this. We are dealing here with an entirely new approach to this problem, and it is a very serious matter indeed. Even the Press are very concerned about it. People are to be fined on the spot, or are to have the option of paying a fine, or to be charged with an offence on the spot, which is very serious. Surely the Minister will say something more on this point rather than just speak of parking signs.
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. People are not to be fined on the spot, or given a summons on the spot. If the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have dealt with the Clause he will see that that is so. If it is decided that a certain area, such as Stratton Street, should be marked with a yellow line to indicate that no parking shall take place there, and if somebody parks there, I should have thought it was crystal-clear that an offence had been committed.
  Under Clause 1, it is proposed that certain minor traffic offences shall be punished without recourse to the courts, but only where the offender elects not to go to the courts. If he wishes, he can go to court in every single case. That right is not taken away from him.
  The second point is that it is not a case of fining on the spot. No money passes at all to anybody. Indeed, it is an offence for money to pass. A constable will hand to a person or will attach to a vehicle a notice informing

  905
  the person liable that an offence has been committed, and it will specify briefly the offence. It is up to the driver to decide. He can either pay the fixed penalty within 14 days, or he can wait to be prosecuted. If he pays the penalty within 14 days the police cannot prosecute.
  Mr. Norman Cole: I think that my right hon. Friend has omitted a word. It will not be possible for a county court clerk to notify an alleged offender that an offence has been committed, because otherwise there would not be the option of going to court. It will be an alleged offence. My right hon. Friend did not say that; he referred to an offence having been committed.
  Mr. Marples: If the person pays the penalty there will be no conviction and no sentence. It will be the justices' clerk who receives the penalty. If the person concerned pays the fixed penalty within 14 days the police are not entitled to take out a summons against that man. If, on the other hand, he waits to be prosecuted, the summons will be issued in the ordinary course, as it is now.
  The ticket is different from the ticket issued in the United States, in this respect. The notice itself does not constitute a summons. It is an option to pay a fixed penalty. If the police took 30 days to apply for a summons, and the £2, or whatever was the penalty, was paid within the 30 days, before the summons was taken out, the police could not prosecute. It is 14 days at least, and in certain cases it may be longer. The fine will be £2, or whatever sum is fixed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but it cannot be more than half the maximum penalty for the first offence.
  On the question of the fixed penalty, the justices' clerk will treat it as a fine. There are precedents for this. In 1825, I am informed on the best authority, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise were given power to mitigate penalties by accepting monetary penalties instead of taking proceedings. The local authorities can now do that where people have failed to take out certain Excise licences. It is also done to some extent by the local authorities who now operate parking meters in the West End. If a person stays beyond the prescribed time—an
  906
  hour, or two hours—he is given a ticket. Again, I have a copy, which I will place in the Library for hon. Members to look at. A person has the option of paying the excess charge of 10s. under the Road Traffic Act, 1956. It says in block letters, underlined in red—it is my underlining and is not on the normal form—that in no circumstances should the charge be paid to a parking attendant.
  I find, on investigation, that 70 per cent. of the excess charges demanded are paid by return, or within a few days. A further 20 per cent. are paid either after a letter has been sent asking for payment, or as a result of court proceedings. In about 10 per cent. of cases, for one reason or another, because the case is not an exceess charge case, no action is taken. Those are very rough figures, but I thought that the House would like to have them as a guide to what has happened in practice.
  Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman said that there is to be no conviction under this. Is any record to be kept? Can a person go on committing these offences for a dozen times or more and still be liable to only half the penalty, at the most, for a first offence?
  Mr. Marples: That is right. There will be no record kept that can be brought before the courts.
  Mr. Ede: I am not concerned with what happens before the courts. Is there no record to be kept at all so that the person serving the notice, and the clerk of the court receiving it, will not know what is the record of a particular person?
  Mr. Marples: The police keep a record. If a man is a persistent offender they can prosecute him instead of issuing a ticket. If a man is a persistent offender there must be another way of dealing with it. The idea of this is to do away with a great deal of the clerical work that is taking place on parking offences, which is clogging the courts and the police.
  Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. Marples: If I have been rather reluctant in giving way, it was because I wanted to give time for other hon. Members to take part in the debate. I did not want to speak for too long.

  907
  This is an innovation and, therefore, it is an experiment in a limited area. My right hon. Friend proposes, in the first place, to designate London, where the need is acute, as the area. It will be for the Commissioner of Police to decide how to make use of the powers within that area. I am informed by my right hon. Friend that, at first, he proposes that the area shall be where there are parking meters, that is, in parts of Westminster and St. Marylebone. It must be remembered that St. Pancras, Holborn and Woolwich have parking meter schemes under consideration. When experience has been gained, the system will be made available elsewhere. My right hon. Friend thinks that this will be a valuable means of dealing with minor offences and will relieve both the courts and the police of a mass of cases, without depriving the driver of any right that he enjoys at present.
  Mr. Albert Evans: I understand that the Secretary of State will have to come to the House with his Order for every area to which he decides to apply the provisions of Clause 1. Do I understand that the Secretary of State will have to come to the House with a separate Order for the area to which he is to apply the provisions of Clause 1?
  Mr. Marples: I think that that is right. My right hon. Friend comes to the House for every area which he proposes to designate. It is no good the rest of the country thinking that the Secretary of State can insist of designating an area. It will be largely for the local authority to take the initiative and say, "We should rather like to have such an area within our local authority."
  I come to Clause 2, which deals with traffic wardens. At the moment, the volume of work falling on the police in dealing with traffic is a great burden on them. Ten per cent. of the Metropolitan Police are engaged full-time on road traffic. That has increased in the last four or five years by 3 or 4 per cent. In the last four or five years there has been a tremendous increase and in the next four or five years there will be a bigger increase.
  I do not think that the answer is to recruit more police, because it is not in the national interest that we should take
  908
  fit young men to do part-time work on the roads, routine stuff, which can be done by older men who are seeking employment at present. A fit young policeman, well-trained for his job, should not be doing this routine work in the present state of our extended economy, but the police must do part of the work on the roads where there is great concentration of effort, such as at weddings, the Coronation, or the visit of President de Gaulle, and it is clear that we cannot have two different forces enforcing the traffic law. The local authorities have thought that they should be responsible for traffic wardens. That would mean divided responsibility for road traffic. As it stands at present, the Government are quite clear that the police should retain responsibility for road traffic and, it follows, responsibility for the traffic wardens.
  There are a few more points which I should like to make. The first is that my right hon. Friend has not yet decided precisely what duties should be undertaken by the traffic wardens. He has said that he would rather like to listen to the views that hon. Members on both sides of the House may express, remembering that the debate on 10th December was most valuable in this respect. But I should have thought that the first category that would come into their duties would be that of stationary vehicles. The second point is that they are to have distinctive uniforms and these will be decided upon in due course.
  The third point is that only the powers needed to operate the fixed penalty procedure should be given to them. They cannot ask for names and addresses or call upon a vehicle to stop. They will give advice where to park because one of the difficulties of the motorist arriving in Central London is that he does not know where to park. They will give advice, and the experiment, in the first place, will, like that of the ticket system, take place in the central areas of London.
  Mr. Mellish: I must say that, although the time factor is important, we are entitled to a rather fuller explanation of the traffic wardens than this. We understand that the traffic wardens which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes will be only, in effect, parking meter attendants and school crossing patrols. Is that

  909
  exactly what the Government have in mind, no more and no less, with power to apply these fixed penalties? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that before giving them any more powers he is simply waiting to hear what the House has to say?
  Mr. Marples: The exact nature of the traffic wardens' duties will be decided by the Home Secretary later. What he has in mind is that they shall be responsible for all the duties where a vehicle is stationary. It is one class of thing to decide an offence when a vehicle is stationary and another when it is moving. It requires a different type of skill and, therefore, my right hon. Friend has in mind at the moment to confine the traffic wardens' duties, in the first case, to stationary vehicles. If it is the wish of the House that he should extend it further, then he will take that into consideration. The parking meters at present are dealt with by the local authorities with their attendants. Therefore, the traffic wardens will not come into that at all, but their duties will be where the cars are stationary.
  It is hoped that with the good will of both sides of the House the Bill will apply on 1st September, 1960. It may mean that by next Christmas—and we are already going into the Pink Zone for next Christmas—we shall see a much greater freedom in traffic than in the past, in spite of the increased number of cars on the roads. The Bill by itself does nothing. It gives powers to the Minister. It entirely depends on the way in which the Government use it. I can assure the House that we intend to use it widely and well.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman took great credit to himself for getting the Minister of Works to pay £4,000 for the damage done to Horse Guards Parade and I notice that the Minister of Works is not one of the sponsors of the Bill. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing in the Bill, although my congratulations fall a little short of the note of self-congratulation with which he introduced it.
  Broadly speaking, we support the Bill as far as it goes. We have a lot of questions to ask and a lot of reservations to make. As the right hon. Gentle-
  910
  man said, the Bill contains blemishes— and it does—which we shall very closely examine in Committee and in this debate, and we shall have major criticisms to make about the adequacy of the Bill. It has had a good Press, but then, of course, the Minister understands that sort of thing. I think that on the whole what is good in the Bill is second-hand and that a good deal of it is a facade which, when we come to examine it closely, does not add up to a very great deal.
  I begin with what I might call the Home Secretary's part of the Bill, dealing with law enforcement and the legal rights of the citizen, mainly the question of ticket fines and traffic wardens. Both of these are grave changes to make in our normal procedures and we must not make them lightly. It is repugnant to our traditions that a man should be punished without trial, even with his own consent, and that other law enforcement agencies than the police should be set up.
  On balance, and facing the grave problems that exist in traffic and parking, one must approve these two ideas in principle, although there are a number of points that must be made in reservation. The Minister is correct in saying that neither of these two principles is wholly new. There are precedents for each of them, and therefore, we have experience of the working of this sort of idea. We must, however, watch these things with great care. In Committee, we on this side certainly will be extremely careful to safeguard the legal rights of citizens and, indeed, the rights of Parliament.
  The ticket system clearly is not an on-the-spot ticket fining system and the person concerned has a right to go to the court if he wishes. There are, however, a great many dangers against which we must guard. One is that we must avoid a two-tier fining system by which the courts set up a practice of fining a person more than the level he would otherwise be charged if he causes trouble by going to the court. It is extremely important not to have that kind of thing.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: My right hon. Friend is making heavy weather of this. Surely, it is a fact that in any court, a person who pleads guilty

  911
  will be fined rather less than somebody who makes a fuss about it. That is a fact in magistrates' courts. It is an abuse of justice. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not a fact."] I have sat as a magistrate and I have watched other magistrates perform. If my right hon. Friend has not noticed that, he has not noticed much.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I have not had the pleasure of appearing before my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). Of course, there are magistrates and magistrates and courts and courts, and one cannot be sure that they are all as humane as my hon. Friend.
  The main point I wish to raise is the one made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), which the Minister did not answer. In his second reply, I understood the Minister to say that records are to be kept by the police. I am now talking about cases where a man does not go to court but pays the fine without going to court and where there is no conviction under the Bill. The Minister said that the police will keep records and will prosecute if a man has too many of these, not offences, because they will not be convictions, recorded against him, but too many of these flat-rate fines. It seems to me dangerous that there should be an accumulation of guilt when a man has not been convicted by a court. If we have this system of fining people without going to court, I am not sure that it is right that these incidents should be treated like convictions which, apparently, can be cited against a person or taken into account by the police in deciding whether to prosecute. I hope that the Minister will give a careful answer on this point.
  I certainly do not like the powers of the Home Secretary to increase the penalties by Order, even with the possibility of a Prayer against them in the House. It does not seem to me right that penalties which are imposed through the courts and potentially by the courts —because there is always that sanction behind them—should be altered or increased by executive action. I do not like that.
  Traffic wardens certainly will be a valuable adjunct to the police. They will
  912
  help the police to do many other things which they ought to be doing, including other forms of controlling the traffic. Traffic wardens must, of course, be selected with immense care and carefully trained. We do not want a lot of ticket-happy traffic wardens who do not behave in the sort of way that the police behave towards people. They must be carefully selected and trained. A valuable source of recruitment will, no doubt, be retired police officers. Will there be any difficulty concerning pension when the same authority that employs a man as a traffic warden is responsible also for his pension? If so, this would be most unfortunate. This is a matter which should be thought about if it has not been considered already.
  Subsection (1) of Clause 2 states that traffic wardens
  "shall be deemed to be employed by the police authority"
  What does "deemed" mean in this case? Does it mean, for example, that Members of Parliament can ask Parliamentary Questions about the actions of traffic wardens in the Metropolitan Police District as they can about the action of police constables, or does "deemed" mean something other than that they are under the palace authority? May we have an assurance also that the Royal Commission will be at least invited to consider the answerability to Parliament of traffic wardens in the provinces as part of the general question of the answer-ability to Parliament of provincial police forces?
  What worries me most about traffic wardens is that we must be more careful than the Bill is about conferring powers upon them. This is an untried and, possibly, dangerous experiment. We must watch it carefully as we go along. There are two things in particular that I do not like. The first is the implication that, whatever the Minister has said, traffic wardens can deal with oars on the move. The Bill refers to cars used without lights. That, surely, must include cars which are being driven without lights. There is also a provision that traffic wardens can be given the right to carry out the functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of traffic. The right hon. Gentleman said that their only powers would be those of dealing with stationary

  913
  vehicles. That may be the intention of the Government, but it is certainly not stated in the Bill.
  The Bill implies that traffic wardens should have rights, almost certainly straight away, concerning cars moving without lights or reflectors and that soon the right hon. Gentleman will be able, apparently, to give them all the powers possessed by the police regarding the control of traffic. This seems to me to be completely wrong. I am sure that at first we should impose a restriction, not simply by being told that this is what is in the minds of the Government, but by the Bill, to limit the powers of traffic wardens to stationary vehicles— in effect, parking offences and the like. The stopping of cars on the road should be a matter for the police proper and until we have greater experience of these things, we should not go further than that.
  I strongly oppose the provision in Clause 2 (3) which gives the Secretary of State power to confer by Order upon traffic wardens all the traffic powers of the police. The extension of powers to traffic wardens is a very grave matter. We do not want a uniformed second-class police force alongside the police force proper. If we are not careful and if we pile all these powers upon the traffic wardens, we may get just such a thing happening.
  If the powers of traffic wardens are to be extended, it should not be done by Order in any form. It should be done by Parliament. This is an important matter of law and order. It should not be done by the Executive getting these things through with very little debate, no amendment, and so on. It is not much to ask that if powers in these respects of law and order are extended, it should be done by a short Bill brought before Parliament, at least for some years yet until we know how things go.
  Furthermore, in spite of what the Minister said, I am alarmed by the provisions of Clause 7 (4), which seem to give power to create a privileged class of motorist. Whatever the intention of the Minister, this provision is drawn in wide terms. If the Bill becomes an Act, by the use of these powers the Minister or his successor or anybody else certainly would have the right to create a privileged class of motorist. We must
  914
  examine this extremely carefully and closely in Committee. The Clause is far too widely drawn. I am not sure that we may not come to the conclusion that it should be struck out. Certainly, we must define it far more clearly. We do not want a privileged class of motorist.
  Now, I come to the Minister of Transport's part of the Bill. It is broadly right that we must treat London's traffic problem as a whole and increase the powers of local authorities outside London. These are the two basic ideas behind this part of the Bill; but in many ways the Bill is inadequate. Although there are steps in the right direction, they are rather faltering steps.
  One step, in my view, seems to go too far. The Bill is over-drastic against local authorities in London. The Minister tells us that it is his intention to work with the local authorities, but the Bill takes from the local authorities many of their rights to be consulted and to advise. I regard this as wrong. Local authorities should not be allowed to fragment the traffic problem of London, of course, and they must not be allowed to hold up developments for improving the flow of traffic in London, but they do know a great deal about local conditions and problems and the Minister in all these matters ought to consult them. There can be a short time limit, if he likes; if, after a certain time, the local authorities do not make their views known, his powers can come in. I do not, however, like the idea of taking away powers from the local authorities in many of these matters.
  I cannot understand why local authorities which provide service stations should not be able to sell the products at those service stations. This seems to be a little bit of cheap, selfish doctrine. The local authorities, if they provide the stations, should be allowed to sell the goods at their own stations.
  The Minister likes to portray himself as toiling manfully against the delays created by dilatory local authorities. He gave us examples of that today and on 10th December last. But, on many occasions, the converse is true. If he searches the pigeon-holes in his Department he will find them full of proposals from London local authorities for improvements which were held up by the Minister for financial or other reasons.

  915
  In the debate of 10th December, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) described how, in Bristol and in Birmingham, the local authorities are undertaking great imaginative schemes and plans to solve their traffic problems but have been held up continually by the delays and indecisions of the Ministry.
  My major criticism of the Bill is that it really is, to much too great an extent, a thing of palliatives and plasters. It will do no more than just enable us to keep pace with the developing problem of traffic. We can never solve the problem unless we can get ahead of it and really anticipate the predictable movement of the tidal wave of traffic which is coming upon us. If we do no more than just keep pace with it, we shall remain for ever in the state of near chaos in which we are today. The Bill misses many opportunities. In five years, the great provincial cities will be in much the same position as London is today. Why are there not powers for them to have traffic management units set up now? If we could have had one five years ago in London, we should have been in a much better position to deal with our problems here, and, in a few years, the provincial cities will be in the same sort of "gummed up" state that London is in today.
  The Minister ought to have taken powers to give really large grants for traffic research and study. The problem which traffic presents is largely a predictable one, though not, of course, wholly so. One can foretell a good deal of what will occur in two, three, four or five years. Much can be done by people who study traffic scientifically, through traffic engineering and so forth, and we really ought to be creating a new profession in Britain.
  Mr. Marples: Local authorities outside London can now set up their own traffic management units; no new legislative powers to do so are needed.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I had not understood it, and I am glad to hear what he says. I hope that many of the big cities will do so. Nevertheless, I still say that he should have taken power to
  916
  make big grants towards establishing real research units into all traffic problems. As I say, we really must create a new profession. It does not exist in this country today, and it will not exist until the demand is created for it by the Minister; then the universities and other centres of learning will begin to teach and train for it.
  The Bill fails to deal with the long-term problem. The motor car presents us with a double challenge. On the one hand, it is a lethal weapon which seems to release the worst sorts of psychological feelings in people—the demand for dominance, competition, mastery and so forth—and it produces in consequence, appalling accidents. [Interruption.] There are more dangerous cars on that side of the House than this. The appalling feature about accidents is not, I think, their absolute number, though that is ghastly, but the fact that the rate of accidents is increasing more rapidly than the number of motor cars. There is an enormous increase in the number of motor cars, but the number of accidents is increasing faster still, I believe. In parenthesis, I must say that this is predictable, too. We can be fairly certain how many people will be killed next year and thereafter if we do not do anything about it in the meantime.
  In part, therefore, when we are dealing with motor cars, we have to think in terms of discipline, restriction, control, punishment and law enforcement. That is one reason why I favour the introduction of traffic wardens. I wish to see police officers released to put much more energy into enforcing considerate and orderly driving on the roads than they now have time to do.
  But, if the motor car is a lethal weapon, we can at least guard against mechanical defects in it. It is lamentable that the Government are still dithering about the inspection of motor cars, even those which are ten years old. This is a scandal. Other countries are far ahead of us. Germany, for instance, is far ahead of us. It is really a shame that this country, after all this time, cannot have a scheme going in respect of cars which are ten years old. In Germany, every new car is tested and every car is tested on a change of owner. The Germans are doing enormously better than we are in this respect.

  917
  The motor car is, in one respect, a lethal weapon and we must control it, but we shall never really solve any of the problems it creates simply by restriction and pushing the motorist around. One cannot even deal with the accident problem unless one comes to terms with the motor car and ceases to treat the motorist—we are all a bit guilty of this —as a sort of trespasser in his own towns and cities. The second challenge of the motor car is that, as well as being a lethal weapon, it is the major dynamic factor for social change in our country today. It is doing more to change the shape of our cities, roads and countryside than any other single thing.
  The ownership of a car is, I think, beginning to replace the ownership of a house as the expression of a man's sense of independence and self-respect. It is becoming a social necessity for people, and the number of cars on the roads will enormously increase. With much greater vigour, we must rebuild our whole environment of working and living in terms of the motor car.
  When I say "the motor car", of course, I mean not only the cars owned by private motorists. I have in mind, also, the man who earns his living by driving, the bus driver and the lorry driver. There are really no provisions for lorry parking and we are not making any, but a lorry driver has just as much right to park as a private motorist has. The provision for loading and unloading, for instance, is woefully inadequate.
  We cannot solve our road traffic problem unless there is a large scale co-ordination of transport facilities. The real reason why the Government cannot deal with the matter as they should is that they have a doctrinaire refusal to co-ordinate our transport system. They will not do it. They do not believe in co-ordinating road and rail transport. They are, therefore, deprived of the major means of tackling the nation's difficulties as a whole.
  Ours is a very small and compact country. We must not, therefore, neglect any resource of transport which is available to us. We have neglected our railways very badly, and, even more, our waterways. In Germany, 30 per cent. of goods are carried by water, whereas we carry about 0·6 per cent. of our goods by water.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to compare German canals with British, will he refer to the size of the German canals and the average number of locks on German canals compared with British canals?
  Mr. C. Pannell: We had better not reflect on the state of British canals. They are a disgrace.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The Germans have made a very much greater and more sustained effort to use their waterways than we have. I do not say that we could carry 30 per cent., as they do, but we could certainly carry more than 0·6 per cent. of our goods by water. There was a day when we led the world in canals. Now, I suppose, we are behind the whole world in that respect.
  We cannot neglect any resources for carrying goods about in this tiny little country with this flood of motor cars coming upon us. Even in the direct field of road transport we need more co-ordination. We must co-ordinate building with traffic. We cannot have offices and blocks of flats going up all over the place regardless of their impact on the traffic problem. A huge office block can at the end of the working day discharge a population equal to that of a small town on to roads which are inadequate to cope with it.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman when he has been in New York has ever travelled on the subway in the rush hour as I have on a number of occasions. The conditions there are absolutely bestial, because the Americans have built more and more of these cities going up into the air which discharge people all at the same time on to a system of transport which cannot cope with them. There must be co-ordination between the building of offices, flats, and so forth, and the programme of roads and public transport in the cities.
  There are so many interdependent factors in this matter that the problem cannot be solved simply by having traffic dicators, engineers, and so forth. I think that the only way of tackling the problem is by having a Cabinet Committee on transport consisting of all the Ministers concerned, served by a top level official committee. This is an extremely efficient way of getting things done. One of the great merits of our Cabinet system

  919
  is that the Cabinet Committee is an extremely efficient instrument. It is the only way of co-ordinating a whole lot of different views together. We cannot have a super dictator running the whole matter, and until we tackle the problem with this vigour and energy we shall not get our heads above the problems. Of course, machinery alone is not enough. We must have the will to put the public interest above the private interest, and the will to use our resources to the full. Our roads are universally inadequate.
  We are all to blame. The Labour Government, when I had some share of responsibility, are also to blame, although at that time, immediately after the war, the problem was to balance power stations against roads, and the real problem really started only in 1953. The present Government have had nine years in which to deal with the problem, but, as I say, I am prepared to accept our part of the blame. However, by far the most blame must rest on the present Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that expenditure on roads had gone up to £100 million a year. That is pathetic compared with other countries. West Germany spends 3·15 per cent. of its gross national product on roads, the United States spends 20·8 per cent. and Italy 1·17 per cent. whereas we in the United Kingdom spend only 0·66 per cent. of our gross national product on roads. In our great days we headed the world in all transport developments. Now we lag behind almost every comparable country in the development of our transport system.
  We could increase our expenditure on roads in the sure knowledge that the yield from the road taxes is going up steadily. Between 1960 and 1965 the yield of these taxes will rise from £600 million to £750 million a year. The projected road programme will go up from £120 million to £127 million. We think that the Government's plans and their performance are pitiful. I see little prospect of an improvement unless we make available the necessary financial resources.
  We had a Tory rebellion below the Gangway on the Budget, and the Chancellor has got cold feet. He has, in fact, said to the rebels, "All right, I really agree with you. I cannot do it this year,
  920
  but I will do it next year." He has accepted their doctrine, which is that all private expenditure is good and that all public expenditure is bad. If we translate that into terms of transport it means that it is a good thing to buy the private motor car but that any money spent on roads, railways and canals is bad because it is public expenditure. That is the doctrine which hon. Members opposite are preaching and which, in fact, the Chancellor has conceded. They really believe—
  Mr. Cole: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why this Government have been the Government responsible for making £1,600 million available to the Transport Commission to be spent on railways?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: That is one of the very things which the rebels are attacking. The rebels really believe, and honestly believe, in what Professor Galbraith described as private opulence in the midst of public squalor. We will have more and more motor cars as a result of reduced Government expenditure and reduction of tax and less good roads to accommodate them. That is why we are not going to get a solution to the problem in the remaining four years in office of the Government. But we cannot defer this issue for ever.
  If a country wills millions and millions of more motor cars, it must also will the expenditure of millions and millions of £s in order to accommodate them and to stop them being a public menace. There is no alternative to that.
  For the reasons that I have given, I do not think that the Bill does very much to tackle the real problems. We support it as far as it goes. I think that it is rather a fiddling Measure and that it is frittering away the very precious, irreplaceable time that we have at our disposal if we are not to be overwhelmed by the traffic problem.
  5.6 p.m.
  Mr. Clive Bossom: First, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for giving the order "Full steam ahead". I am sure that the new proposals will go a long way towards unblocking the roads in our towns and cities. But what is so important, I feel, is that the Bill has created real public interest. I believe

  921
  that both the motorist and the pedestrian will be prepared to accept a greater measure of personal discipline now that the gravity of the situation has been brought home to all of us.
  Whilst acknowledging that this progressive Bill is primarily one concerning large urban problems, I beg my right hon. Friend not to forget to help the authorities of the provincial towns and also our thriving market towns. It is no good having wonderful new roads if at the end of the journey one gets bottled up in a bottleneck. The Bill clearly shows that my right hon. Friend realises the urgency of the problem and is willing to take drastic steps to stop the appalling waste of time and money, and also loss of life.
  As this is my first speech in the House, I will endeavour not to be controversial; rather I will follow the road taken by the previous Member for Maid-stone who enjoyed 28 years of remarkable history in this House. I feel that he sadly misses the House and his friends on both sides of the Chamber. He, like me, is a new boy, but in another place. I will not be so ambitious with my suggestions as he was with his idea of a monorail. But I still believe that the Monorail has a future as over three-quarters of the people coming into our large cities to work do so by public transport. If we could lift this group off the roads we should leave the roads that much freer.
  I am fortunate to represent one of the most rural constituencies in the entire country, and, I do not hesitate to say, one of the most beautiful. It is a part of the country which is famous for its productive farm land, beef cattle, sheep cider apples and hops. It is obvious from what I have said that this area has a very thriving and prosperous community who are much sought after as potential customers by the City of Hereford and the market towns of Leominster, Kington, Ledbury and Bromyard. But if such towns do not make provision for parking and the flow of traffic, they will not get these customers who today, with widespread car ownership, are sufficiently mobile to be able to choose the towns which offer the best facilities. So it is of the utmost importance that even at rural level, we should consider every aspect of traffic control.
  922
  I have always taken a keen interest in road problems, having served for several years on the roads committee when I was a county councillor. Since the war I have been a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Paviors, who in their wisdom support a lecturer in highway and traffic engineering at the University of Birmingham, which today is the main school of highway and traffic engineering in the country. Those who are interested will find that it is well worth a visit.
  I really believe that the Government must do more with education grants in this new field of highway and traffic engineering. I also hope that our ever-expanding motor industry, and its allied industries, which already help to support this post-graduate school, will now feel it is worth their while to do more by giving greater grants to finance more students, and also by lending more lecturers and equipment. Money is not the only thing that is needed. As has been said already in this debate, there is an acute shortage of qualified highway and traffic engineers. We must have these men to carry out continuous research and make surveys of delays, density, parking, accidents and the habits of pedestrians; also to prepare forecasts of traffic trends.
  Then, I hope that my right hon. Friend will endeavour to improve the status of the highway and traffic engineers. They are vital men in any planning project and must be brought in at the very beginning. Local authorities, especially county councils, must realise the value of having and using, staff trained in these new techniques. The short-term solutions of our traffic problems, which can be achieved without vast expense, are that we must educate people, both pedestrian and driver, in the use of roads, followed by enforcement— such things as control of parking, the control of pedestrians and channelisation.
  The control of parking concerns the traveller, the businessman and the shopper who want to remain in a town for approximately one hour. These people must be catered for or else the town will lose business and, with it, its own prosperity. I do not believe that meters in county towns can be an economic proposition. They cost £30 each and £3 or £4 to install, after which there is the

  923
  cost of upkeep. So, unless they are fully used, they will not pay. That is the reason why I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friend is willing to experiment with parking discs. The French have tried this system for over two years, and it is also in use in Italy, Austria and Switzerland. Parking discs may not be the complete answer to the problem, but they are a check on long parking. It gives many more a chance and one can safely park 10 per cent. more vehicles compared with the meter system.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to look into the Dutch system which they hope to launch soon, and also into the Austrian discs, because they are the simplest—one just puts the time of arrival on the clock face. If any hon. Member wishes to see the discs I have in my hand, I shall be only too willing to show him after the debate is ended. The advantage of trying out the disc system is that if the experiment does not work nothing will have been lost. We could then turn over to the meter system, for which the staff could easily be adapted, and no money would have been wasted.
  In my view, the Ministry of Transport should press local authorities to improve their signs. These should be uniform throughout the country, and great care should be taken with their size and clarity. Most important of all, we need more signs directing motorists where they can park. The painting on roads should also be uniform throughout the country. Yellow and black means that you cannot park and blue and white means that you can. Many more signs should be fluorescent, and street lighting should be improved, especially at pedestrian crossings.
  I welcome the idea of traffic wardens. In the large country towns they will be able to combine their duties with those of the school crossing patrols. These wardens should be selected carefully and receive adequate training. The motorist should be able to look upon the traffic warden as a friend, someone who will help him and not goad or torment him. Selection and training is, therefore, vital if the scheme is to be successful.
  A long-term policy is certainly needed. By the end of this year there will be approximately 9 million vehicles of all types. Of these, close on 6 million will
  924
  be four-wheeled vehicles. It is forecast that by 1966 the number could be 14 million. It is obvious from such figures that planning for the future cannot be delayed or left to chance.
  There will have to be major construction of highways, large multi-storied parking garages and by-passes. Every dwelling and building must have a garage planned; it will be a fixture, like a bathroom or telephone. Here again I stress the importance of making full use of highway and traffic engineers, whose advice is scientifically based.
  I know America well. I have lived there and I travelled right across it on several occasions. We must not be hypnotised by America, although we can learn a lot from her costly mistakes, and we can adapt many of her first-class ideas. However, I always think it is difficult to compare our two countries, because the distance between towns and the width of the layout of the streets are so different.
  I believe that the quality of our road surfaces are certainly better, and so are our driving manners. The main reason why we should not be discouraged over our new projects is that it is only during the last ten years that America has really completed her major road programmes in their cities. Time is not on our side. Many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House will have seen what the Belgians achieved only two years ago right in the centre of Brussels. What can be done in Brussels can and will soon be done in a great city like Birmingham.
  With the accelerated growth in the number of cars, I feel our daily habits are bound to change, and so will our ideas on town planning. Soon in the country our weekly shopping will be done under one roof—in supermarkets, which are opening at the rate of ten a month. We must site the supermarkets on the outskirts of our provincial cities and county towns, with car parks under, on top and around the building, not just for 20 or 30 vehicles but capable of holding 200 or 300. Drive-in cinemas, drive-in banks, schools and fire stations, are just a few which could be re-zoned on the outskirts.
  I have another long-term suggestion for those who must take their cars into the cities and want to avoid crawling

  925
  slowly along congested streets. I see no reason why we should not cover our main line railways at the outskirts with roads into the centre; in other words, double-deck road and rail. When one arrives in the centre of the city, parking could be provided over the railway station. These car parks would be more expensive than those on the outskirts, but they will have to be provided. A useful illustration in this regard is that the two main stations in Birmingham occupy 10 per cent. of the total city centre area. Here is wasted space where one could build a heliport and parking accommodation over the actual railway.
  At the other extreme, with vision we do not have to destroy our more historic and picturesque towns, built centuries ago, by completely altering the main character and façade of the high streets in order to accommodate the ever-increasing traffic. Here I suggest two methods for widening without destroying. One is arcading, as is seen in Paris. One removes the pavement and takes it back about 6 ft. into the shop fronts. One preserves the outward appearance of the old building and gets an extra 10 ft. or so of roadway. Another method of widening our streets is well demonstrated at Chester; where they put the pedestrians on the first floor level.
  Without having gone into great detail, I have tried to show the value of highway and traffic engineers, and I have also registered a plea that our market towns shall not be forgotten in the Bill. I hope I have shown that, although great problems face us, it is certainly not too late if we act now. I believe the Bill is the beginning of a new traffic era, but it will mean that both motorist and pedestrian will have to co-operate in making the Bill work, and, above all, they must not be selfish.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I am sure that every hon. Member who sat in the last Parliament and previous Parliaments will envy me the opportunity of welcoming the son of one whom we knew and respected as a colleague during many years and of saying how glad we are to see him here and hear a speech so full of knowledge on the subject which he has chosen for his maiden speech. We hope that the hon. Member for Leomin-
  926
  ster (Mr. Bossom) will enjoy his life here as much as his father did. We look forward to hearing him again. I can assure him that in his maiden speech he has established his position in the House as a person who speaks with knowledge and modesty.
  I welcome one phrase which the hon. Member used, that we must not be hypnotised by America. That is very sound advice to give when we are considering this subject. We have a country which has been built up over a long period of years and we have a great population in proportion to our area, and we cannot attempt all the things that America has done. I recollect being on the outskirts of Cleveland in the United States in 1956 and seeing that to drive a new turnpike through they had ruthlessly destroyed a section of the city which had been built only in the previous decade. I am certain that any attempt to do such a thing in this country would be received in a very different spirit from that shown by the inhabitants of that part of the United States.
  I intend to confine my remarks mainly to the parts of the Bill which, I understand, it will be the duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the main to administer. The Minister was quite modest about the Bill in introducing it. He said that there might be blemishes in it. I think it is as well that we should recognise that there are not so much blemishes as gaps in it which need to be filled, particularly gaps in definition and closeness of expression which, from the point of view of the Secretary of State, will have to be remedied if the Bill is to be at all workable when it becomes an Act.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill had been prepared in a hurry. Having sat recently on the Standing Committee dealing with the Betting and Gaming Bill with my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who played a conspicuous and worthy part in the consideration of that Measure, and other hon. Gentlemen, I can only say that we shall spend a very long time between Easter and Whitsun on the Report stage because that Bill was obviously prepared in a hurry and insufficient definition was given to many

  927
  of its provisions, with the result that the Government have reserved to the Report stage all the major issues in it. I hope that when this Measure goes to the Committee the Government will be better prepared to say how the gaps can be filled and the blemishes removed than they were in the case of the Betting and Gaming Bill.
  I am not quite satisfied with what the Minister has told me about the use of the ticket provision. In 1958, in Pittsburg I was in a car driven by a reader in a university, and we had with us his son, my sister and a friend. When he went down a hill and reached a main road at the bottom, he turned to the right into a no-entry street instead of turning to the left, and he was served with a notice by a waiting police officer. The 10-year-old boy who was with us took a great interest in the proceedings, and when the police officer had moved off he said, "Now you are level with mummy. She had one last week, but she has not told you yet."
  We must be very careful that by this method of dealing with what is a very great problem—I do not want the Minister or anyone else to think that I do not recognise the magnitude of the problem—we do not establish the idea that there are certain breaches of the law or of regulations that one can commit if one is prepared to pay a tariff for doing so. The £2 tariff for this matter may increase rather than lessen some of the problems connected with parking and the other offences that can be dealt with in this way.
  I regret—though I think it inevitable —that we have had to part with the idea that before a punishment can be inflicted there must be a judgment of the court, and I particularly disliked what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to my questions about what happens to persistent offenders. As I understand it, the record is to be kept by the police. There are about 140 police authorities in the country. Is there to be co-ordination between them on these records?
  It is quite clear that the person who moves about the country may commit a number of these offences before, in the area of one police authority, they amount to a very large number. Then, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, I
  928
  understand that at some stage, a police authority—presumably the chief constable—will conclude that he has become too persistent an offender—I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested after half a dozen entries on a person's police record—and will decide to prosecute.
  It seems to me that it would be very difficult under any such arrangement really to do justice as between one offender and another. If a man uses only one parking place in the area of one police authority, his sixth offence, or whatever the number which is to be prescribed, can be committed fairly speedily, but if he likes to avoid this idea that paying a tariff is better than going round to look for a parking place, he may have a very long run before he goes before a court.
  I suggest that anything that tries to set a tariff for a particular kind of offence ought not to be welcomed in the administration of English law, for when a man goes before a court of magistrates to be dealt with for any of these offences a good many considerations have to be taken into account. What is a trival penalty for one man with a big income may be a very heavy penalty for another man whose income is limited, and the courts, in these last years, have taken a good deal of trouble to make quite sure that the punishment fits the offender as well as the offence. That will not happen in the kind of case dealt with on the lines the right hon. Gentleman indicated.
  He also said that the traffic warden would not be able to take names and addresses. Surely that places him at a very serious disadvantage. It is true that he can take the number of a car. but sometimes people have borrowed a car without the owner's consent. What happens when no name and address have been taken? The warden, according to the right hon. Gentleman, can deal only with cars that are stationary, though it was at once pointed out to him that lighting offences can be dealt with by traffic wardens. As a rule, this offence is discovered when the car is in motion. Will the Minister tell the House what will happen in this kind of case?
  I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State will also consider the case of a stationary car found in a place where it is not expected one would be found.

  929
  A traffic warden goes to it and finds a driver inside, sleeping over the wheel. The warden suspects that the man may be sufficiently under the influence of drink as not properly to be able to be in charge of a car. What is he to do? This is not one of the offences that apparently he is supposed to deal with. Is he to wait until he can find a constable—who is not always very easy to find in the late hours?
  I suggest that the whole question of the exact power of a traffic warden and his relationship with the ordinary police force has to be better thought out than it is at present, because one thing which I regard as essential is that if a man is discovered in a motor vehicle in such a state of Intoxication that he is likely to be a danger to other people on the roads, he should be put in a position where he cannot use his car until, at any rate, the police have carried out some investigations and have had a medical inspection of the man. Unless they can do that we are really encouraging dangerous conditions on the roads.
  That brings me to what is an omission from the Bill. There is nothing in it which deals with the problem which confronts us all too frequently—that of the person who is committing an offence under existing law by being in charge of a car when he is so much under the influence of drink or drugs as to be unable properly to control the vehicle. I shall encounter some opposition from some of my hon. Friends by saying that I am not in favour of having the issue determined by some mathematical calculation of the amount of alcohol he has either in his blood or in his urine.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends think that this is an infallible test, and I am not in a position to offer any personal evidence on the point from my own experience. But my experience of watching other people—outside the precincts of this House, let me make it clear—is that the effect of any given quantity of alcohol is a thing that seems to vary from person to person within the most amazing range. Some people seem to be able to consume quantities of alcohol which would reduce another person of similar build, activities and upbringing to a state either of frivolous hilarity, or the most mournful pessimism, and in either state probably quite in-
  930
  capable of being properly in charge of a lethal weapon like a motor car.
  However, the Government cannot shut their eyes to the importance of this problem. As I go about the country during the evenings and see car parks outside country hostelries crowded with cars and then note the hours at which accidents are most frequent, it seems to me that we must admit that all our efforts to deal with this matter so far have failed.
  In the old days, when the person accused of being drunk in charge of a vehicle was the carter returning home from the market, no doctor had any hesitation in saying whether the man was drunk or not. For a time, I was a regimental policeman in the Army. I never had any doubt as to whether a man was drunk—at least, that was in the Army with which I was connected. If he could take off his boots before he was got into bed he was not drunk, but if he was found with a strong smell of drink and was in bed with his boots on there was no doubt as to what his condition was.
  I do not suggest that in civilian life we could take anything quite as ready as that, but it is a very serious thing that so many cases should be heard at quarter sessions in which there is conflicting medical evidence, and when all 12 of the jury are motorists it is very difficult to secure conviction. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has been a chairman of quarter sessions. I am sure that he will support my assertion, for even in Wales some Englishmen do not seem able to live strictly in accordance with the Nonconformist traditions of that country.
  In a speech which admirably stated the case for reforming the Bill in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick referred to the fact that possession of a motor car had now become one of the criteria of social status. I have never driven or owned a motor car. Therefore, I realise how much inferior I am in social status to my right hon. Friend and, apparently, to nearly every other hon. Member. However, I implore hon. Members to remember that even now motorists are a minority in the community. They may be a steadily growing minority, but they are not yet a majority. If our laws are to be justly framed, they must take account of such considerations.

  931
  I hope the House will realise that it is one of the worst signs of our times that the appalling figures of casualties in dead and injured should be growing every year and that although all of us denounce them nothing happens to stay them. That is one of the matters which will be the real test of the efficiency of the Bill when it comes into operation.
  I fear some of the things in the Bill. I dislike Ministers being given some of the powers which are being taken under the Bill, and I regret to see some of the distrust shown by the right hon. Gentleman for the great local authorities. I deplore what has recently happened in Berkshire over the building of one of the great through-roads of the country. It is essential that great authorities should have sufficient work of the highest importance to enable them to employ planners and administrators of sufficiently high technical qualifications to assure that the best possible work can be done.
  I can recall, unfortunately, taking part 46 years ago in a discussion in the county council about the claiming of main roads by urban district councils. A very wise county official said that it was as well that the urban district councils should be able to claim responsibility for financing main roads which they had to administer, because that enabled them to have plant, equipment and technical skill adequate to deal not merely with the main roads, but with the other roads in their areas. If the Minister is not to employ the great county authorities as his agents in the construction of these important roads, it may be that some of them will not be able to employ the sort of staff which in these days every sort of road requires.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to restore the confidence in his administration, which has been largely destroyed by what he has done in the case of Berkshire. I hope that the Bill will enable him to use all local authorities to deal with the problem of the appalling loss of life and the appalling injury which occurs on the roads.
  5.48 p.m.
  Sir Richard Nugent: I thank you for calling me to join in this very interesting debate, Mr. Deputy-
  932
  Speaker, and I thank my right hon. Friend for giving us a very lucid exposition of some of the Bill's main features. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) welcoming, in principle, the main features of the Bill, although I heard him say, ominously, that he had some reservations which would be developed in Committee. I suspect that the passage of the Bill will be very interesting, but may be rather long.
  I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with whom I have had common experience on the great local authority of which he spoke. It is on that aspect of the Bill that I want to say a few words to start with. I should like to comment on many aspects of the Bill, but there is obviously not time for all of them and I shall refer only briefly to the two major aspects which have been already mentioned—traffic wardens and the ticket system.
  I welcome both, but reluctantly. I agree that they are the second-best to the kind of system which we now operate, but sheer, practical necessity drives us to these expedients if we are to civilise the motor car, which is rapidly becoming the universal motor car and which may one day even become a possession of the right hon. Member for South Shields. [An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Gentleman rides a horse."] There it is. It is the practical problem, and we have to deal with it.
  My right hon. Friend is seeking opinions as to what offences traffic wardens and the ticket system might be applied to. My own opinion has been for some time that both should be reserved for non-moving vehicles. I have always seen their main job to be concerned with parking offences. I am quite certain that if they dealt with these alone they would relieve the hard-pressed police forces of a very heavy and very tiresome function which they have to carry out at present.
  Let me then turn to what I see as the main purpose of the Bill, which is to confer these powers on my right hon. Friend for dealing with London. These are practically dictatorial powers which my right hon. Friend is seeking to take over the next five years, and it means that, in giving these powers, if it. is the will of the House to give them, we shall,

  933
  in fact, be short-circuiting the powers that Parliament has given in the past to the local authorities concerned; that is, principally, the Metropolitan boroughs, and to some extent the county councils concerned.
  It is a very big change of the law to give a Minister such powers as these, subtracting as they do from the powers of local authorities. In the main, I think that all of us would prefer that the local authorities should continue to discharge their own powers in the ways that Parliament intended when giving them. Therefore, there has to be a very strong case to justify giving my right hon. Friend these powers.
  In my opinion, that case does exist. A new situation has grown up, in particular over the last ten years, which our predecessors here, in giving these powers to the Metropolitan boroughs, had never foreseen, and that situation or condition is the density of the traffic in our cities today. That has created a new situation, one which, twenty or thirty years ago, no one had foreseen, and which today demands new powers, if we are not to suffer very severely by it. A new function is necessary; that is, the function of a central traffic authority with overall powers.
  The fact is that the traditional method of dealing with traffic in our cities—and this, curiously enough, applies to provincial cities as well, although, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, they now have powers to set up traffic authorities if they wish them—still obtains, and it is the piecemeal method of dealing with it junction by junction and allowing vehicles to go as they please by whatever route they like to their destinations.
  The result of all that is the situation in the minds of all of us today, that congestion is growing worse, the average speed of city traffic becomes slower and slower, until, in London, it is between 8 and 9 m.p.h. on the average, and even reaching a complete stoppage at times. Along with that, there is what the right hon. Member for South Shields referred to as the appalling toll of accidents. Accidents occur mainly in urban areas— over three-quarters of them occur there— and these are the two main consequences of the heavy density of traffic in our cities
  934
  today and the present inadequacy of the powers and the methods for dealing with them.
  The solution which my right hon. Friend evidently has in mind is the setting up of overall traffic authorities for cities, equipped with traffic engineering units, and 100 per cent. enforcement to make the regulations effective. Already, reference has been made to the situation in American cities. There, some of them have had twenty or thirty years' experience of using this method, and the results are impressive. It is true that the geography may be different and that temperaments may be different, but, nevertheless, there are fundamental similarities from which we could learn. There is nothing more impressive than to see the smoother movement of traffic, and even more welcome the progressive reduction of accidents, in cities like Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore, to which my right hon. Friend referred.
  The Bill, therefore, is, I believe, justified by the direness of our need. I think that all of us here realise how great are the powers that we are proposing to give to my right hon. Friend and just what that means in terms of the local authorities concerned. My right hon. Friend is asking for these powers for only five years, and five years is none too long to show results. The experience of American cities is that a period of five to ten years is usually more likely. These regulations cannot all be brought in at one fell swoop. They have to be brought in one by one, and we have to see what are the results and the way they are working out as we go ahead, because we cannot always be right. Before they are brought in, a long period of time is required.
  Mr. Mellish: While recognising the great interest of the hon. Gentleman in London, particularly because he was chairman of an important body which went into the whole problem of London, may I ask him whether he is aware that the boroughs themselves had to streamline their consultations with the Minister, but that they did, in fact, make counter-proposals? Is he aware of the proposals?
  Sir R. Nugent: I should like to say a word about the future. A Royal Commission is sitting to consider the future structure of the London local authorities,

  935
  and no doubt will have some valuable advice to give to the House on what the permanent solution should be. On the whole, I do not favour the idea of even such a competent Minister as my right hon. Friend having these responsibilities. I think that probably a separate authority for traffic is better, and I shall wait with interest to see what the Royal Commission has to say.
  In the meantime, I should like to pay a tribute to the Metropolitan boroughs, and especially to their Standing Joint Committee, for the heroic way in which they have struggled to try to make their system work, despite its obvious defects. Similarly, with the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which is an enormous body representing all these differing interests, it takes a very long time to get the machinery working, but that is no fault of the Committee. Under its Chairman, Mr. Alex Samuels, it has done a fine job in trying to make the system function.
  There is no doubt that we should now make this experiment of giving my right hon. Friend these powers. I quite realise that as I was part of the previous Administration I might be asked why I did not do something about it. I did have a shot at doing something rather more modest than this two or three years ago, but it was a stillborn infant, I regret to say. I struggled, but I struggled in vain, and my scheme foundered on the rocks of the Establishment. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend on the greater power that he has been able to exert in cutting through the Gordian knot which eventually downed me, because down me it certainly did. The number of interests and existing authorities that my right hon. Friend had to cut through is very substantial indeed, and I congratulate him on having done it.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member is being far too modest about this. He is saying that he consulted these people whereas his right hon. Friend did not. It is as simple as that.
  Sir R. Nugent: It was more than that.
  The chief enemy to safe and smooth traffic movement is the conflicting movement of vehicles and pedestrians. The worst enemy of all is the right turn across
  936
  the traffic. Those who are familiar with accident records will know that that accounts for more accidents than any other single feature. Then there is overtaking—another fruitful source of accidents—and pedestrians who cross the street while traffic is moving on the same surface. It is the specific job of the traffic engineer to study the movement of the traffic in his city, to see where the conflicting movements are taking place and then work out fresh and better patterns which will progressively remove those conflicting movements.
  As my right hon. Friend said, with 28 different highway authorities in London—the 28 Metropolitan boroughs —it is quite impossible to achieve a coordinated plan of improved patterns of traffic movement. I recall one Metropolitan borough with which I had to struggle, trying to get it to agree to a one-way traffic system on two parallel roads which were quite close to each other and both so narrow that two vehicles could hardly pass each other. Year after year that borough refused to make those roads one-way roads. Finally, I went to the area myself and discussed the matter with the local police, and in the end a decision was taken that the police should introduce an experimental system.
  But the Metropolitan borough was not done. It got an hon. Member to ask Questions in the House and to raise the matter on the Adjournment. It fought us to the last ditch. That improvement, which was so important to the people in the neighbourhood and also to the traffic, took four or five years to bring into being.
  There is a traffic sign in my Borough of Guildford—which is in the Metropolitan district—which I want to see moved. I asked for it to be moved eighteen months ago, but it has still not been taken away. It merely affects parking, but it still wants doing.
  These are just a few examples of the delays and obstructions which are bound to occur with a system of fragmented authority. In future, with the authority in the hands of my right hon. Friend, he can co-ordinate the picture and work out patterns of movement. He can see what the traffic does and can work out a better system. He has the chance to deal with the problem as a whole. The

  937
  most important thing is to design the traffic arteries which lead to the centre of this Metropolis and carry the very heavy morning and evening commuter flow so as to make sure that it flows safely and smoothly in and out.
  My right hon. Friend has referred to the techniques adopted in one American city. We are familiar with the technique of reversible lanes, which can be used on these main traffic arteries. There are some techniques which our traffic engineers can use which can make an enormous improvement in the traffic flow, and it is not too much to say that with a major plan of this kind, particularly if it is accompanied by control over parked vehicles on traffic arteries, my right hon. Friend will achieve a 50 per cent. improvement in the traffic flow in London in the next five or ten years. That is a measure of what can be done by these methods.
  The Bill will allow for the setting up of traffic engineering units, and that is a good thing. They will provide the technical advice that my right hon. Friend will need in making the new regulations to provide a better and safer traffic movement. But the second feature, which is equally important, is the question of the public relations which my right hon. Friend will have to establish to make the new regulations effective. I am thinking of relations with the Metropolitan boroughs, the London County Council, the other county councils involved, the driving public, the walking public, the shopping public, the shops and the trading premises. It is vital that every regulation shall be preceded by a period of education and propaganda, so that those who are affected will understand what benefit will be derived.
  Each regulation, however good it may be, is bound to interfere with somebody's convenience, and unless the community as a whole is convinced that, on balance, the regulations will benefit them, they will not co-operate—and co-operation is the key word in this situation. My right hon. Friend must get the co-operation of all concerned to make these regulations effective. A 100 per cent. enforcement is only the long stop. These regulations will become a benefit to us, and will provide better and safer movement, only if the
  938
  public understands and gives its full co-operation.
  I would offer one small word of criticism of my right hon. Friend. His démarche with the U-turn was not a successful one, for this reason. I am quite sure that it will have to be banned as part of a general campaign to stop vehicles moving across the traffic, but it must come as part of a more general picture—the stopping of all right turns in many important traffic streets in our Metropolis. When it comes it must be preceded by a full propaganda campaign, so that everybody understands that it will be a benefit to him and to everybody else.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick asked about provincial cities. My right hon. Friend is to be given powers to carry out his schemes in London. London will be the experimental area for the great changes which the Bill foreshadows, not only in terms of traffic engineering but also in terms of enforcement, with traffic wardens and the ticket system. My right hon. Friend's hope is that he will be so successful in London that other big cities will wish to copy those modern methods of handling traffic This is giving a lead, which I hope the whole country will copy.
  I would point out that the big cities could already have set up traffic authorities if they wished to. They are highway authorities. But with one or two exceptions, like Birmingham, with that great highway engineer, Sir Herbert Manzoni, few of the big cities have done anything in this direction. I hope that the city councils in those of our big provincial cities which have traffic problems bordering in severity upon those of London will watch what is going on here and gird themselves to introduce similar systems. I hope that they will start training their bright young engineers so that they have a supply of traffic engineers to enable them to survey their traffic problems and begin, progressively, to gain control of the traffic in their cities and bring about a safer and smoother movement.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. I extend to him my best wishes in his handling of this huge problem. He is backing himself not only to solve it in respect of London, but to demonstrate to the country at large what can be done by these methods. I also extend my best wishes to him for

  939
  the Committee proceedings, during which we may have some very interesting discussions.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). I am in agreement with almost everything he said. I hope it will not be out of place to pay tribute to the hon. Member for the splendid work he did during his stay at the Ministry of Transport. Although on occasions we held different opinions to him in our approach to transport problems, we all appreciated the sincerity and the understanding with which he carried out his important duties at that Ministry. We look forward to his continued interest, as shown this afternoon, in transport matters, because I am sure that with his vast experience he will make still further valuable contributions to our debates on transport. Because of his association with the Ministry of Transport and his ability to make a first-class contribution to our discussions on transport problems, I am pleased, as I said earlier, to follow the hon. Gentleman.
  My major criticism of the Bill lies in its limited scope. I welcome all its provisions, but it falls far short of what is required to reduce the toll of death and injury which is increasing month by month. In my own City of Bradford, the total killed and injured on the roads in the first three months of this year increased by 128 over the corresponding period last year. It is fair to make the point that the same story is told all over the country, where one hears reports of ever-increasing deaths and injuries. We appear both in this House and outside to have become so indifferent to the loss of human life that we are incapable of finding a remedy.
  The three causes of the heavy toll on the roads are clearly known to the Minister, the Ministry of Transport, and to any hon. Member who has taken the trouble to examine the problem. They are excessive speeding, drivers affected by alcohol, and youthful motor cyclists. They are the three main categories responsible for our difficulties and the death and injury inflicted on the roads; yet there is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, which is intended in a practical way to deal with them.
  940
  It is lamentable that year after year the House has presented to it these figures of death and injury on the roads and does nothing about it. It is all right to talk about improving roads here; about the appointment of traffic wardens there; and for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and with crocodile tears in his eyes say how sorry he is. how alarmed he is, how distressed he is, about this terrible, ever-increasing toll of death and injuries, but it is alarming that the Government are doing practically nothing about it. The Government know the class of people responsible for our troubles, but for some unexplainable reason they are not prepared to deal with the problem. The time has come when hon. Members on both sides of the House must bring pressure to bear on the Government so that they get down to tackling this serious problem.
  We are suffering today from what the present Minister of Transport called "pressure groups". I think it was the present Minister of Transport who said that until he came to the Ministry of Transport he was not aware of the large number of pressure groups which existed. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must get down to the solution of this problem of road deaths and injuries because, apart from the tragedy of death, productive capacity is decreased to an extent which is not reasonable and fair by the numbers injured every year.
  The Government know what would provide the greatest contribution towards the congestion of our roads. They know as well as I do that if by some method we could get more co-ordination between rail and road we might by that stroke alone cut road accidents considerably. Our roads are far too congested. The volume of traffic and the number of cars on the roads is increasing by leaps and bounds each month. The roads are so congested that if a person speeds unduly he causes danger not merely to himself but to the rest of the travelling public.
  In a previous debate on the difficulties of road congestion, I made an earnest appeal to the Minister and to the Government to call a conference of industrialists to see how far we could use a combination of road and rail services for the benefit of the industrial life of the nation and at the same time cut down the volume of traffic on our inadequate roads. I do not know whether it was a

  941
  question of offending vested interests, but nothing was done. My suggestion was not even commented on by the Minister during that debate.
  If we play about with this kind of half-hearted Bill—and this is a halfhearted Bill if ever there was one—we shall waste hours of Parliamentary time, both here and in Committee, but we shall make no material improvement in the position. The time has arrived when Parliament must say clearly to the Government that there has got to be an attack upon this problem of road deaths and injuries equal to any effort we would make to win through in a war. This requires a first-class war effort regardless of pressure groups from one side or the other and regardless of anything except the saving of life and limb. Unless we have the courage to do that, we are unworthy of being representatives of the nation in this House.
  When shall we be prepared in the interests of the nation to push aside all the petty political ideas and prejudices we have as between nationalised railways and ordinary commercial private enterprise on the roads? When shall we put away our political prejudice and try to find a common solution which will be to the benefit of the whole of the industrial and social life of the nation? Are we, in 1960, incapable of finding some common ground of agreement instead of doing all the silly things which have been done since the railways were nationalised in 1947? I have stood here pleading with Ministers of Transport one after the other to apply a commonsense policy to the problems of transport, but I have found that all the time they have been playing political games to placate their political supporters.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham) rose—
  Mr. McLeavy: No, I shall not give way. When the Tory Government started to take away from British Road Services the road haulage services on the ground that they wanted to give free enterprise an opportunity of providing road haulage, that may have been a good political move from the Tory point of view, but it was bad business for the nation.
  942
  I want to deal with the thirty pages of this Bill. Clause 1 deals with the ticket system for payment of penalties. I do not know what the exact details of the system will be when the Home Secretary brings in regulations. It is difficult to understand why a Bill of this character should be presented to the House with so many provisions to be brought before us under the affirmative Resolution procedure. That will make it almost impossible for hon. Members not only reasonably to discuss and examine the regulations but to get Amendments made by the Home Secretary.
  The Minister said that this Bill was produced in a hurry. We see there is no doubt about that when we read the Bill. It will cut out the ordinary Parliamentary debate and examination of important regulations which the Home Secretary brings forward. These things should be in the Bill even if that would mean delaying the Bill. They could then be properly considered on Second Reading and upstairs in Committee. Without those facilities, we shall not be able to see that the regulations are in accordance with the proper practice and provide a sensible solution of the problem.
  Clause 2 relates to traffic wardens. As I read the terms of the Bill, this seems reasonably satisfactory, but I am very alarmed about what the Minister said as to the duties of the proposed traffic wardens. I was very sorry when my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) suggested that traffic wardens could be recruited from retired policemen. I do not know anything more absurd than that.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): Why?
  Mr. McLeavy: Because, first, we want traffic wardens to be active and to have the capacity to do the job. I presume we not only want them to act as traffic wardens but to deal with school crossings and the like. It would be fatal if we accepted the suggestion that they should have no authority to stop a vehicle. A traffic warden should have all the powers which normally are authorised to be applied by a police constable. Then they would be able to do the job efficiently and we should get

  943
  the right type of person. If we say that these traffic wardens are to be retired pensioners, from the police force or elsewhere, we shall be approaching the problem in an entirely indefinite way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because dealing with traffic problems is not an old man's job.
  I presume we want these wardens to take over very largely the duties relating to traffic which are now done by ordinary constables. It would be wiser to give them more or less the traffic powers possessed by a policeman. Presumably we shall make them subject to police control and police training. There is a very serious danger, unless we are most careful, that they will be cheap labour. Then we should not get efficiency and the men would not receive the wages, pensions or status which are essential if we are to tackle this new departure in the right way.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member must appreciate that many policemen retire at the age of 50, when they are in the full vigour of life. At the age of 50 they could deal with a job like this.
  Mr. McLeavy: I appreciate that many policemen retire at a reasonably early age, but that was not the impression created in the minds of the House when it was suggested that retired policemen should take on the job. This is not a job which should be relegated to retired policemen or anyone else retired from active service. It should be done by physically able men, there should be a proper rate for the job and the pension should be similar to the police pension. To all intents and purposes they ought to be police constables with powers restricted to traffic problems.
  Clause 4 deals with parking meters. The introduction of more paking meters is extremely important in trying to solve some of the congestion on the roads, but I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his reply, will make a point clear which is not clear in the Clause. It is not clear whether the Minister will be required to use the surplus receipts from the parking meters for the same purpose as that for which local authorities are compelled to use them. Will the proceeds of the parking meters put up by the Minister of Transport be used for the provision of off-
  944
  street parking facilities, as they are by the local authorities?
  I agree entirely with the hon. Baronet about Clause 7 and the five-year period of control of traffic in London by the Minister. I hope that it will be successful. The scheme will be judged by the Minister's success. If he makes a good job of it, it may well become a permanent feature.
  I am glad that the Minister clarified the question of those who will be excluded from specified streets and those who will have exemptions. The fact that the Minister said that those who were exempted would, for example, be doctors on urgent business met some of the doubts we have. It was a reasonable explanation.
  I want next to deal with a point which is outside the Bill but which ought to be included in it. I recently appealed to the Minister to take powers to enable him to override local authorities in respect of the construction of roads in order that work on the roads can proceed more speedily. The classic example is the delay on the M.1 extension to Yorkshire. There was a considerable delay as a result of disagreements between the local authorities concerned.
  Apparently, the Minister had no power to deal with that situation and was reluctant to press his point of view. As a result, there has been considerable delay in the construction of this part of the motorway—a part which is essential to the business life of Yorkshire. The delay arose simply because local authorities were at loggerheads about the precise line which the road should take. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with me when I say that it would be of value if the Minister took powers under the Bill to allow him in the last resort, where there has been undue delay, to say, "This is the line which you will have to accept."
  Another point, akin to this, which ought also to be considered concerns the taking over of land required for road construction prior to the settlement of compensation to the owner. I understand that on the Continent this is done extensively and that there is no disadvantage to the owner arising from the fact that the Government have said, "We will take over the land first and settle the price afterwards." I agree that every possible provision should be included to

  945
  ensure that the owner of the land is at no disadvantage on account of the speed with which the land is acquired for road construction, but in our desire to meet the shortage of road space and to catch up with our past failings. I feel that the Minister should take powers, subject to reasonable safeguards for the property owner, which would enable him to take over the land prior to the settlement of compensation.
  Mr. Hay: I assure the hon. Member that we already have those powers and exercise them. There is a procedure, which has been in operation for some time, whereby 90 per cent. of the purchase price on compulsory purchase can be advanced to the owner of the property prior to the entry on to the land and to our taking it over on the completion of the conveyance. The point has been covered in previous legislation.
  Mr. McLeavy: I am glad the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that, but that information was not conveyed to the House when I raised this matter some months ago. It may be that the power is so sparingly applied that we have almost forgotten its existence.
  Sir R. Nugent: It was introduced only last year.
  Mr. McLeavy: I must be excused for not knowing about it. I knew that it must be of recent date. It is certainly very valuable, and I congratulate the Ministry on having taken that power.
  I am sorry to have spoken for so long. In conclusion, I appeal to the Government in particular and to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we should try to reach a commonsense solution to this grave transport problem. Let us try to approach it in a policy of give and take to see whether we cannot find a solution to all these great difficulties which will be beneficial to the nation. Our very prosperity depends upon the industrial development of the nation and the cheap flow of goods and passengers. I urge the Government and hon. Members to realise that unless we stop playing politics with our transport system we shall continuously be in the difficulties which beset us today.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I shall not attempt to follow all the intricacies of the argument of the hon. Member for
  946
  Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). As far as I could make out, he imagined that road casualties could be reduced by means of integration, by which he meant the compulsory transferring of traffic from road to rail.
  Mr. McLeavy: I was not thinking in terms of compulsion immediately. I was thinking in terms of an agreement between industries and the British Transport Commission, based upon cost, and so forth. If it finally became a question of refusal to go on the railway, I agree that in the interests of public safety there should be some compulsion.
  Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is letting his imagination run away with him, because, short of a Communist State, that is an impossible policy. One cannot have a mixed nationalised and free enterprise society. That was the whole defect of the 1947 Act introduced by hon. Members opposite. When people had an option of using their own vehicles, they took it. The great competition nowadays is not between road and rail, but between public services by road or rail whether nationalised or not, on the one hand, and the private cars and C-licence vehicles of do-it-yourself individualists, on the other. I do not think that we should pursue that argument too far, because it does not have anything to do with the Bill.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: It clutters up the roads.
  Mr. Wilson: I will deal with that argument on another occasion.
  I welcome the Bill, although I think that many of its provisions are drastic. Hon. Members and the public are prepared to accept a drastic Bill at present. Traffic congestion and parking problems have become so bad, not only in large towns, but even in small towns and villages, that the public as a whole are prepared to consider a drastic measure. However, if the Bill is to have its maximum effect, it is not enough that it should have general acceptance from the public. It must have, also, the support of a considerable number of motorists.
  It is that aspect of the matter with which I should like to deal. I will leave to my hon. Friends, especially those who are members of the senior branch of the legal profession, the task of going into

  947
  the details of the Bill. However, I observe, in passing, that it appears from observations which have been made in the Press that some people are a little too anxious about Clause 1. I do not think that the legal purists need be too worried about it. It is clear that the intention is that the payment made on receipt of a ticket is not to be regarded as a fine on conviction, but to be more in the nature of the excess charge, which is already collected by this method for too long use of parking meter space. The provisions in Clause 1 are very similar to the parking meter system and no one need fear that he is being convicted without a trial.
  It has also been suggested in the Press, though it has not been mentioned in the debate so far, that the ticket system will lead to a greater temptation to the police to accept bribes. There is not much in that argument. We have all heard of cases when motorists, having been stopped by the police, have handed over their driving licence with a £1 note inside. I remember an instance from the days when I used to appear frequently in police courts in a professional capacity. A motorist got into very serious trouble for attempting thus to bribe a policeman. It can happen with a policeman who stops a man to warn him about a summons. I do not see why the policeman should be put under greater temptation if he is giving a ticket under the system envisaged in the Bill.
  A great deal of the parking trouble is caused by the resistance of motorists. They do not feel inclined to observe the regulations because they consider themselves a persecuted and over-taxed specialised section of the community. The Bill may intensify that feeling. They already feel that they are harried from place to place and fined for parking in streets, but not provided with any other places in which they can park.
  Many motorists also feel that they pay such high taxes that they are paying for the existing roads two or three times over and are not getting a square deal. We in the House should do everything in our power to get that idea out of people's heads. It is a much exaggerated view. We should not only ensure that the motorist gets a square dead, but try to persuade him that he is having one.
  948
  To begin with, I think that it is rather unfortunate that the word "motorist" is still in common use, because words acquire historic associations. The word "motorist" conjures up a picture of a specialised pioneer, an adventurer. That as what the early motorist was, but in modern days everyone is a motorist. We all have a special vested interest in the roads. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has. About four-fifths of the passengers who pass by land in this country travel by road. About 56 per cent. of the goods carried on land pass by road. Therefore, everyone, whether he owns a car or not, is interested and has a vested interest in the roads being kept free from obstruction. If there are obstructions on the roads, the school girl is late for school and the old-age pensioner has to pay more for his packet of tea, because of increased transport changes. We have now reached the stage when we are all dependent on roads. There is nothing very special about a motorist.
  The argument in favour of more and better roads and more and better control of traffic on the roads should not be confused with motor taxation. A legend has been built up around the memories of the Road Fund. The reason why motorists want better roads is that the present roads are not sufficient for their needs. We want drastic improvements because the roads are not adequate. It is nothing to do with the fact that the amount of money being spent on roads may not equal the amount collected in taxation from motorists.
  Fifty years ago, when the membership of the A.A. was about 10,000, most of our roads were water macadam, that is to say, they were composed of large stones and small stones with a carpet of dust on top. They were excellent roads for horses. The music hall song was quite wrong in saying that it was
  " the 'ammer, 'ammer, 'ammer along the 'ard 'igh road which "urts the 'orses 'eels".
  Horses could use those roads without discomfort and such a surface provided a very good living for crossing sweepers in towns on such roads in wet weather, but when dry the surface was absolutely disastrous for the few motorists there were at that time.
  Any hon. Member who was brought up from childhood on "The Wind in the Willows" will know what happened.

  949
  Every passing car raised a miniature dust storm. In those days, the motorist was someone who wore goggles, gaiters and gauntlets and his lady was swathed in veils like a Bedouin, to avoid the dust. In those circumstances, it was not unreasonable that the few motorists should demand that something should be done. It was done. Road surfaces were altered and improved for the benefit of the few. Therefore, when Lloyd George introduced his Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, he was quite right to allocate all the money obtained from motorists by special taxation to the alteration of road surfaces for their peculiar benefit. This was not then needed by other people.
  That is now all very ancient history. All our roads are motor roads; they have been for many years, and the public are themselves now motorists. We should not, therefore, confuse the present issue by introducing the vexed question of taxation. The roads, and the improvements to them, are needed because we need them, and not because of the amount of money that is collected from motorists.
  Motor taxation is, no doubt, too high, but some people think that the duty on beer is also too high—although that was reduced in the last Budget but one. However, there is really no more reason for saying that all money collected from motor taxation should be spent on the roads than there is for saying that all the money collected from the Beer Duty should be spent on the "pubs". I hope that we shall not so confuse the argument, but will confine ourselves to real needs.
  Another argument that will probably be used against the Bill—and a misleading one—is that we should not restrict street parking until we have enough off-street parking to meet the needs. That is the old argument of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Unless the State, or the municipalities, are to undertake the cost of providing off-street parking— and that would be a very big undertaking, and a very expensive one—we shall not get off-street parking until we have some greater regulation of street parking.
  One of the principal disincentives to private individuals trying to start an off-street park is the unregulated street parking. Such a case came to my notice
  950
  a few months ago. A group of young men, one of whom had some capital, wanted to start business in London and, very enterprisingly, wished to acquire a site in theatreland to develop as an off-street parage. On the face of it, the project looked very good; as I say, the site was in the centre of London, in the theatre and restaurant area, and one would have thought that people would be anxious for such accommodation.
  When they asked me about it, I suggested that they should ask one of the oil companies, which have great experience of that sort of thing and know the economics of garage keeping. That group of young men was strongly advised not to touch the idea at all, on the ground that it was quite hopeless to run such an off-street garage in the centre of London whilst street parking went on unchecked. I am sure that similar professional advice is at present being given to anyone contemplating running an off-street garage in the central areas of London.
  That advice will continue to be given until we have provisions, such as those contained in the Bill, that will make sure that there will be proper regulation of the facilities on the streets. Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act. 1960, is extended by Clause 11, and local authorities are enabled to assist in the provision of off-street parking. Quite apart from the money that may be collected from parking meters, I am sure that the moment the Bill is on the Statute Book a great number of other facilities will be provided by private enterprise. It will be done as soon as those people can be sure of a reasonable return on their money.
  Those who own motor cars, and those who are interested in clearing the streets —and that, surely, must be all of us— should welcome the Bill, as I do. It will certainly need a good deal of looking at in Committee, but we can all congratulate the Minister on having brought forward such a Measure at such short notice.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) in his historical survey, valuable as that was, but I join with him in welcoming this Bill, although I am convinced that it does not

  951
  go nearly far enough. It has not the vision necessary to deal with the growing traffic problem, especially in the urban areas, and it does not seem to reflect a full appreciation of the growing horror of the accidents on the road. I am sure that we shall need to go much further if we are to prevent accidents and promote road safety.
  There is a case for the warden system, and I am prepared to give it a trial. Great benefits could be derived from it. The selection of the wardens will be in the hands of the local authorities, who will need to exercise very great care. Obviously, these men must be people of integrity. Nor should they be selected only from the ranks of retired policemen. Younger retired policemen may be very suitable, but the door should not be closed to other acceptable persons. A man who had not, for instance, the height necessary to have been a policeman may be a very good and active person, taking an interest in road safety, and he should be selected because of that. Selection should not depend only on the job a candidate had before he retired.
  In some areas it will be very difficult to provide designated parking places. Our towns have grown in a very higgledy-piggledy fashion, with a mixture of industrial, residential, business and other purpose buildings, and it will not be very easy to find appropriate parking spaces. Nevertheless, in places where there is a sufficient volume of traffic, and where designation cannot be obtained—or until designation is obtained—some sort of action must be taken to obviate the present appalling rise in accidents.
  In our urban areas we have difficulties caused by the volume of traffic leading to bottlenecks, and vehicles just crawling along. Such conditions can lead to accidents just as much as can more swiftly moving traffic. In passing, I would say that our warden system should not deal just with stationary vehicles and with parking. I hope that these men are meant to deal with the proper flow of traffic. According to the Explanatory Memorandum the wardens will act under the
  "…chief officer of police and will discharge such functions in connection with the control or regulation of road traffic or road vehicles. …"
  952
  The right hon. Gentleman practically said that the flow of traffic will also be the concern of these people—
  Mr. C. Pannell: It is perfectly true that those words appear in the Explanatory Memorandum, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) expressed some disquiet about that. I certainly will not be prepared to vote in favour of traffic wardens unless they deal only with offences committed in respect of stationary vehicles. I disagree with the view that they should also work to ease the flow of traffic. I am not in favour of that a bit.
  Mr. Manuel: I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming, but it appears to me that the traffic warden is to be placed in that position. If my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will read Clause 2 (1) he will find that persons are to be appointed
  " in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic. …"
  I do not think he can get anything much clearer than that. Therefore, I say that active people are needed if that is the sort of function to be performed by traffic wardens.
  I was saying that the problem in the urban areas is twofold—the slowly moving traffic; and then the parked vehicles on main roads, still in the built-up urban areas but where the traffic is moving much more quickly. One sees this sort of thing repeatedly. Traffic is moving swiftly. There are vehicles parked on the side of the road, and a vehicle several places in front of a line of traffic has to move out to the centre of the road, with the result that an accident is caused. Something will have to be done about that.
  As I have already said, this traffic problem has come upon us as a result of the way in which the country has been built up. We have residential property and business property, including shop frontages. We have not yet reached the position where all the main urban roads have side service roads. Traffic stops for a variety of purposes on these roads. It stops outside house entrances and shop and business premises—possibly outside a small factory with a frontage on to the main road, with the pavement running between the premises and the main flow of traffic. Road accidents

  953
  are now commonplace and are increasing to such an alarming extent that the Minister must take some action.
  I do not think this Bill contemplates enough action or looks sufficiently forward in order to obviate the increasing dangers which are coming onto the roads month by month. As each month goes by, large numbers of new cars are going on the roads, and I shudder to think what this summer will bring. I have in mind certain roads in Scotland that I know particularly well, The roads are becoming increasingly cluttered up with far too much traffic that should not be there at all. Huge loads are conveyed by road, in vans of an appalling size. Any driver behind such a van cannot see past it. It is extremely difficult trying to edge out to see whether the road is clear ahead, if one of these vans happens to be moving particularly slowly. This problem must be dealt with.
  It is all very well for the hon. Member for Truro to say that we must not disturb the present arrangement. When we are getting this appalling toll of death on the roads, it is time that we dealt with this aspect of the problem. It is high time that we dealt with these various contributory causes of death on the roads by this lethal weapon, the motor vehicle. If it is possible for goods to be conveyed safely by the railways, which are losing too much money because so many of these loads are conveyed on the roads, ought not we to use the railway system instead of killing our fellow creatures, including innocent children and pedestrians who have just as much right to use the highway as the motor vehicle?
  Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. I did not say that we should not do it. In a Communist State it would be done. But what the party opposite did was to nationalise all the railways, one-third of the buses and one in a hundred of the lorries, and none of the private motor cars. Then the party opposite believed that the country had an integrated service, which in fact we had not got, because one cannot produce an integrated service with a minority of the vehicles in use.
  Mr. Manuel: I do not want to be put off my argument. The hon. Gentleman and I have argued this nationalisation matter before. I am dealing now with
  954
  bulky loads and dangerous vehicles which are difficult to overtake because of their size. I do not want to get out of order by dealing with nationalisation, but I hope that some day the hon. Gentleman and I may have an opportunity to discuss this subject.
  We must have regard to this problem of the restriction of vision, and to the fact that thousands of cars each day are being left parked on our main roads for long periods. Where a local authority finds it impossible to designate a parking place, whether we like it or not we should take steps to prohibit parking on certain stretches of road. Already local authorities have power, and many of them provide parking places but they do not use their powers to make people use these parking places. Consequently, the problem on the main roads still exists.
  I should be very happy if the Minister could tell me that he will take power to ensure that in local authority areas designated parking places, either those already in existence or those which are to be brought into being, are to be used compulsorily. I am very concerned about those areas where, possibly for a number of years ahead, it will not be possible to get such designated parking places, and I am wondering what can be done almost immediately to save life and prevent accidents.
  Our building has been all wrong. It is wrong that goods vehicles should halt outside business premises which front our main roads, to allow goods to be carried across the pavement into the premises, thus disturbing the flow of pedestrians as well as causing obstruction in the road. Obviously, in any new development we should make certain that there are rear service roads both to residential and business premises, especially shops where we get this aggravation of goods being carried in day in and day out. Many pedestrians are very annoyed and complain bitterly because of these loads being carried across the pavements and impeding their progress.
  I hope the Minister will look into the possibility of providing in any new development side service roads or, even better, rear service lanes, especially in shopping areas. In places where there are no service roads but where there is sufficient land, back service lanes should

  955
  be provided. That is where the goods ought to be discharged and where parking should take place, for whatever cause, including the parking of cars outside houses by people when they come home to lunch. That would be a definite step forward.
  I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically in opening the debate that he had his mind particularly focused, among all his problems, on this problem of accidents and road safety. There are far too many roads with far too great a volume of traffic, and road accidents are continually piling up. There is no real improvement taking place. The position is getting worse from year to year. Shocking accidents take place every day, with many innocent people being killed, and I do not think that we are getting to grips with this problem. I have mentioned in earlier speeches some of the actions necessary to grapple with this problem of death on the roads. I hope that the Minister has something tangible in mind to reduce this toll of the roads.
  I have before me the report of the chief constable for the County of Ayr, a small and lovely county where the teaching of Burns is so well known. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, I take it, knows this lovely county of Ayr and the poetry of Burns. I hope that he recognises the appalling situation that exists when a county with so many good roads has such an appalling report from its chief constable. He writes in his annual report for 1959:
  "The classes of persons killed and injured were: Pedestrians killed 21, injured 241; pedal cyclists, killed 1, injured 114; motor cyclists, killed 3, injured 213; drivers, killed 2, injured 268; passengers, killed 10, injured 568. Compared with 1958, this is an increase of 30, approximately 1½ per cent., in the total number of accidents recorded, and this has produced a quite disproportionate increase of 238, approximately 20 per cent. in the number of persons killed and injured."
  That is just an indication that, even in that rather peaceful county in many respects, the tendency of the rest of the country is shown in the number of deaths and appalling list of accidents which take place.
  I hope that the Minister will do something to try to bring about a radical change in penalties for road offences
  956
  which cause accidents. We have been toying with this matter far too long. I believe that we have far too many fines and not enough suspensions of licences. There are not nearly enough complete withdrawals of licences. We read of cases where an innocent child is carried on the bonnet of a car—I read of such a case the other day—and the driver leaves the child dead in the road and makes off. That driver was fined £30 with a suspension of licence for six months, or something like that. That is an appalling situation. I should like the Minister to try out a real system of licence suspension for road offenders. Each accident should be looked at very thoroughly.
  It is not enough for a person to say, "I was in the right; the other fellow was wrong." After all, many accidents could be avoided even if the driver were in the right if he were watchful enough to take what action he could. Perhaps this is a case for suspension of licence for a fortnight or three weeks for a driver who does not take evasive action. I think that the Minister would get terrific results in the black and bad spots of this country if there were more suspensions of licences instead of automatic fining as is happening in many of our courts.
  There are certain Clauses in the Bill which apply to Scotland, and I understand that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is to say something about them. I am very happy about that. We often get Bills in this House in which there is a little sentence at the end which states, "This Bill also applies to Scotland". There is a little more than that in this Bill, and I want to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State two question about its reference to Scotland. Can he explain why in Clause 1 (3) the words "by any constable" are omitted? I hope that he is seized of the point. In the Clause applying to England those words are in but they are omitted from the Bill's application to Scotland.
  Under Clause 2 (12, c) I take it—and I hope that I am right—that the expenditure on traffic wardens is excluded from the Exchequer grant in respect of Scotland—in other words, that the block grant is not to be eaten into with all the other things about which we have been quarrelling for a number of years with the Secretary of State and the Joint

  957
  Under-Secretary. Here Scotland is getting something which will not be in the block grant.
  My last point to the Joint Undersecretary is that he is well aware, as I am, that owing to the success of the tourism policy in Scotland many of the Highland roads are quite unfitted for a heavy volume of traffic, although in the summer-time they carry a very heavy load of traffic. It is getting worse each summer, and it is greatly aggravated by the number of caravans which are towed along those roads to the Highland counties. I hope that the Minister of Transport will recognise that in the summer months we have this huge volume of traffic touring into the Highland counties and that this will be aggravated very much if he closes many more branch railway lines.
  I hope that he has this matter much in mind because these branch railway lines could serve a very useful tourist purpose in the summer months. Following the Guillebaud Report, the Prime Minister said that the public needed to recognise that if the nation paid an additional £50 million, the public would be put to a great deal more inconvenience, and the railwaymen would need to recognise that the railways would possibly be much smaller than they are now. I hope that the Government will not apply the yardstick that every service in Scotland must pay its way from 1st January to 31st December, otherwise they can close down nearly everything north of Perth, and that would kill Scotland. I hope that they will recognise that the closure of railway lines is another means of killing the industrial potential of an area.
  I hope we shall keep these things in mind in connection with this Bill. I can see that in Committee a whole lot will have to be done if I am to be satisfied that the Bill has the necessary teeth to reduce the accident rate on the roads. I welcome the Bill and its introduction by the Minister of Transport and I hope that we can do something in Committee to make it really worth while for the country.
  7.19 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has made a characteristically
  958
  vigorous speech, with much of which I agree. He has laid great stress upon the need for the prevention of accidents. I was struck by the stress he laid on the fact that it was not only by riding a vehicle that accidents can be caused, but by leaving a vehicle in the road. I was glad the hon. Member made the point. The Bill deals largely with parking.
  As the hon. Member said, we will consider the various aspects of the Bill in Committee and we look forward to doing that in great detail. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the responsibility for the provision of parking places, and so on, concerning trunk roads lies in Scotland with the Secretary of State, whereas the highway authority has powers elsewhere. I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that in Clause 14 the Bill contains a provision concerning London— the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was, I know, speaking in wide terms and not dealing simply with Scotland—to pay grant for loading bays, which is very much in line with what the hon. Member had in mind.
  I may, perhaps, best serve the interest and convenience of the House, and, in particular, of Scottish Members, if I say at this stage, in broad terms, how the Bill affects Scotland. Generally, it affects Scotland to much the same extent as it affects England outside the London traffic area. A good deal of reference has been made to Clauses 1 and 2, both of which relate to Scotland. The proposal that traffic offences should be punishable without prosecution certainly has no more to be said in favour of it north of the Border than south of the Border.
  Scottish Members will be interested to know that in Scotland, we have consulted bodies such as the judiciary, the local authority associations and the police and that no objection in principle has been made to these proposals. In particular, the judiciary has accepted the proposal that where a constable finds that one of the offences relating to vehicles specified in Clause 1 (1) is being committed, the person in charge of the vehicle should be given the option of paying a fixed penalty instead of appearing before a criminal court. This does not affect the general rule of law in Scotland that corroboration is needed.

  959
  The hon. Member asked why the words "by any constable" were omitted from Clause 1 (3). The reason simply is that in Scotland, any proceedings in in courts would be brought by the procurator-fiscal and not by the police. The fixed penalties are not to be more than one-half of the maximum fine to which a person not previously convicted is liable.
  Mr. Willis: To what extent has the judiciary agreed to the appointment of traffic wardens? In the case of England, the Minister of Transport said that their duties were to be in relation to stationary traffic only. What has been the result of the hon. Gentleman's consultations in Scotland?
  Mr. Macpherson: I said that they had been consulted and that they have not raised any objections to the proposals of both Clause 1 and Clause 2. The system in Clause 1 can be brought into operation for an area only by an Order, subject to negative Resolution procedure, and the Order may cover all or any of the offences listed in subsection (1).
  I come now to Clause 2. It is not necessary to confer a new power to appoint traffic wardens in Scotland. The reason is that Section 13 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, already empowers police authorities to employ non-police staff to assist the police force and it enables them to obtain grants on expenditure which is incurred. That answers the second point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire concerning Scotland.
  Undoubtedly, we agree with the hon. Member that great care will be necessary in the selection of the traffic wardens. We also agree with him that one of the advantages of this system is that traffic wardens will not need to comply with the rather rigorous standards that are applied, certainly north of the Border. By that, I mean that the size and stature demanded in London is rather lower.
  As in England and Wales, traffic wardens appointed in Scotland will come under the direction of the chief constable. The functions which they may perform will be prescribed by the Secretary of State by Order, subject to negative Resolution procedure. I draw the attention of the House to subsection (1),
  960
  which says that the functions which traffic wardens may perform are
  "functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic or with the enforcement of the law relating to road traffic."
  The essential difference is that traffic wardens will not have the power of arrest and all that goes with it.
  Mr. Willis: This is an important point, which has caused concern and, possibly, misunderstanding. In the case of England and Wales, I understood the Minister of Transport, in opening the debate, to say that the powers were to be limited to stationary traffic. Subsection (1) of Clause 2 goes much wider and subsection (3) enables the much wider powers to be included in the orders that will be placed before the House.
  Mr. Macpherson: What my right hon. Friend intended was that the powers should, certainly at first, be limited to those purposes. Where the power of arrest is not given, it is much easier to exercise the functions for those purposes when a vehicle is stationary. This, however, is a Second Reading debate and we can investigate the matter a good deal more in Committee.
  Mr. Mellish: On behalf of Scotland, therefore, the hon. Gentleman envisages the position, as south of the Border, that the warden will be a person who is responsible for placing tickets—which means fines—upon vehicles which are stationary and he will also be a traffic warden in the school crossing patrol job, as now. That is all that the Bill lays down. What happens when further Orders are laid before the House will be another matter.
  Mr. Macpherson: The functions have to be prescribed by Order. Clause 2 (2) quotes particular functions which may be included. They are not exclusive functions. They are particular functions, among others, which have to be mentioned, because school crossing patrols are slightly different in that they are differently financed, for example, and arrangements must be made to cover that.
  Mr. Willis: In the hon. Gentleman's consultations, was the judiciary in Scotland agreeable to wardens undertaking the whole of the duties that can be included under Clause 2(2)?
  Mr. Macpherson: The bodies that were consulted were shown the Clauses and were asked whether they objected to them. They indicated that, in principle, they had no objections to them. It is quite correct that the two Clauses are widely drawn. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has explained how it is intended to operate them in the initial stages.
  The main effect of Clauses 3, 5 and 6 is to give the Secretary of State further powers in regard to the designation of parking meter places so that an Order may cover not only the actual parking meter bays, but the whole zone to be controlled under the Order. At present, the rest of it would have to be the subject of separate regulations in Scotland made by the local authority.
  The main changes here proposed are, first, to make it possible for an interim designation Order to be made, that is to say, a designation order relating to parking meters, dealing with part only of the sites contained in an Order against which objections have been made. If objections are made to part of it, the Secretary of State can confirm the part which is not objected to at once. Secondly, it is proposed to extend the power of the Secretary of State to make a designation Order with modifications so as to include power to make an Order with additions, exemptions or other modifications of any description. In other words, it gives him much wider powers.
  Thirdly, I refer simply to the power conferred on the Secretary of State to provide by Order for designation Orders to be made by local authorities either in a particular area or in Scotland as a whole, instead of, as at present, by the Secretary of State on the application of an authority, and such an Order, that is to say, the Order conferring power on the local authorities, would be subject to affirmative Resolution.
  At first sight, hon. Members will see that Clause 3 does not appear to apply to Scotland. There is an Amendment in page 27, line 22, of the Bill which has the effect of applying it. I thought that I had better mention that to make the position of Clause 3 quite clear.
  Neither Clause 3 nor Clause 5 will apply to a locality until the Secretary of State has exercised his powers under
  962
  Section 85 (9) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, which enables him to extend parking meter areas. So far, he has done so in only one instance in Edinburgh, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) will know.
  It may be asked why we are altering the law in Scotland when we have, as yet, no experience of designation orders. We are glad to profit by the experience gained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in London and to alter the law accordingly.
  Turning to Clause 10, the present procedure by which parking places other than parking meter places are established and controlled in Scotland is by orders and regulations made by the local authorities, orders dealing with the provision and regulations dealing with the use of parking places. Charges cannot be made for parking on the street except by parking meters. Where a local authority wishes to acquire land for use as a parking place off the highway, or to use a street as a parking place, there is at present a right of appeal to the sheriff.
  The effect of Clause 10 is this. In place of the local authority's power to make regulations as to the use of parking places and the right of appeal to the sheriff in the case of an order, Clause 10 provides a wider power to make Orders, subject to the usual procedure, for traffic regulation orders under Section 26 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and to make them without the necessity for confirmation by the Secretary of State.
  This will enable a local authority to include in an order provision for payment of a charge for the use of an off-street parking place and also, as my right hon. Friend has said, to provide for the use of a device, such as the Parisian blue disc, to indicate when a vehicle was parked, provided that the device has first been approved in an Order made by the Secretary of State. Any such order made by a local authority may be revoked, varied or amended by the Secretary of State after such inquiry as he thinks fit.
  There is only one other purely Scottish matter to which I need draw attention. My right hon. Friend has dealt with Clause 11. Subsection (6) of Clause 11 confers power upon a county or town council, if so authorised by the Secretary of State, to purchase land compulsorily

  963
  for the purpose of providing off-street parking places, subject to the usual safeguards contained in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act, 1947. This is a power which already exists in England and Wales.
  Powers to make a charge for the removal of vehicles from parking places or the highway, for their custody, and to dispose of them after not less than six weeks if they appear to the authority to have been abandoned, are contained in Clauses 12 and 13, which apply to Scotland, also.
  It is intended that the bulk of the Bill should come into operation in Scotland on 1st September, 1960, which is the date when the consolidating Road Traffic Act, 1960, comes into force.
  The Bill deals with many different aspects of traffic control, all of which will certainly be most carefully scrutinised in Committee. If any points of principle affecting Scotland are raised tonight, I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will deal with them. At this stage, I simply say that the theme running through the Bill is the theme of conferring additional powers to help the orderly flow of traffic and so reduce accidents. I trust that both the theme and its development will commend themselves to hon. Members from Scotland as to other hon. Members, even though the Bill contains much which is highly technical.
  7.36 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I have previously expressed the view that anyone who follows an hon. Member and says, "I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in his interesting speech" ought to be shot down and ruled out of order at once, but I am bound to be in that position now because, as I understood it, the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was no more than tedious repetition. I could not really understand in what way the practice in Scotland was different from the practice in England.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: It has to be explained to Scotland.
  Mr. Pannell: I did not really know whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking for himself, for the Hereditary
  964
  Standard Bearer of Scotland or the Lyon King of Arms in dealing with the Bill. I must confess that Scottish law is quite foreign to me as it applies to these matters. I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman because I do not know what he was talking about. I did once run for a Scottish constituency, but, after hearing the hon. Gentleman, I am rather glad that I did not get it. [An HON. MEMBER: "So are we."] Perhaps my loss was somebody else's gain. I do not know.
  Although we are discussing the Road Traffic and Road Improvements Bill, we are here speaking about the behaviour of people on our roads, and this is not something which we can lay at the door of the "Teddy boys". Whatever we may say about the young people of this country and their misbehaviour and delinquency, we are here, in the main, speaking about middle-aged delinquents. In another place, Baroness Wootton made a very good speech on this subject, which deserves study. If I understood her aright, she suggested that it was the lawlessness of the middle-aged when driving motor cars which instilled into the young the idea that they should do some breaking-up on their own account. I am reminded of the saying of Wilde that, when men are no longer young enough to set bad examples, they try to teach the young good ideas.
  It would be true to say that, when we consider the behaviour of motorists, we are considering the bad behaviour of our lime committed by middle-aged people. The general standard of driving of commercial drivers is very much higher than that of the private driver. Perhaps I say that because I earned my living in that way at one time. Although we may complain about lorries on the roads, nobody who has ever seen a long-distance lorry driver can doubt that, if everyone was as well-disciplined as he is, in the main, there would be a far smaller toll of road accidents.
  Mr. George Darling: Would my hon. Friend agree that the standard of driving of local lorry-drivers delivering coal and so on is certainly far below that of the long-distance men?
  Mr. Pannell: It probably is. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) speaks from his

  965
  experience of Sheffield probably. I speak from my experience of Leeds and London.
  I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary was present during the Committee stage of the 1956 Bill. I and some of my hon. Friends were there. There is a cautionary story attached to that. The present Bill will be largely thrashed out during its Committee stage. I wish I could have served notice on the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who was the Minister in charge when we started the 1956 Bill, that I wished to refer to him tonight. He showed a remarkable degree of obtuseness. He showed all those debating powers which used to keep us awake all through the debates when the Conservative Party was harrying the Labour Government to death in 1950 and 1951. However, we made no progress with that Bill. It went on for three or four months.
  The then Minister began by treating the Measure as a party Bill. I hope the Minister of Transport will not do that with the present Bill. The former Minister thought he had only to open his mouth for any Amendment, however sensible, to be voted down. It was only the obstinacy of certain of his hon. Friends, who indicated quite plainly to the Minister that that was something up with which they were not prepared to put, that brought us to the stage of stalemate. During the last two or three weeks of the Committee stage, the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson), now the Minister of Defence, was appointed Minister of Transport. I have always had plenty of time for the right hon. Gentleman since then because of what he did on that Bill. He did not talk half as much as his predecessor. He asked for a certain amount of time, and we gave him a couple of days. He accepted all the Amendments which had previously been abortive and tidied up the Bill, and we got the 1955 Act.
  Mr. Hay: It was the 1956 Act.
  Mr. Pannell: Yes, it was the 1956 Act. It would probably have been the 1955 Act if the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames had not been the Minister of Transport in its early stages.
  966
  That Act was a considerable step forward. I hope we begin the proceedings on this Bill on the firm assumption that it is an all-party Measure. Let us regard it not as a Government Measure. There are all sorts of things which do not lend themselves to the pranks and platitudes of party polemics. I hope we shall start with that attitude. I trust that the Minister will have a receptive mind I believe he will. I have never met a publicity hound with a greater propensity for using other people's good ideas and claiming them for himself. The right hon. Gentleman has no modesty about these things. I do not mind very much as long as he gets on with the job and treats the Bill in the manner that I have mentioned.
  Because I have spoken on the Second Reading of the Bill, presumably I shall find myself a member of the Standing Committee. That is one of the penalties of being talkative in this place.
  Mr. Ede: I am making no such claim.
  Mr. Pannell: There was a time when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) would have stood pat on making such a claim. I do not say that he has become less controversial as he has got older, but he has become more selective about the Committees to which he is appointed. I hope that we shall all do our best for the Bill. I feel that the Opposition have indicated that there is no party point in it.
  If I may make a general criticism, though not one in a party political sense, about what we have done, I should say that over the past few years there has been far too much concentration on the belief that main roads would solve our problems and not enough upon dealing with the worst bottlenecks of urban development. It takes one almost longer to get through Birmingham than it does to go to Birmingham on the M.1. The situation in Birmingham is much the same as when one travels from London to London Airport. The route is a disgrace. If ever there was a justification for the use of helicopters, it is the bus journey to London Airport. It is ridiculous.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the journey to London Airport has become

  967
  very much better in the last few months since the Chiswick flyover was completed and now generally never takes more than twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. Pannell: I came up from London Airport recently and there was a major accident on the way. It was a considerable bottleneck. I and other hon. Members were on our way back from Germany where we had been studying the roads, and soon after we left London Airport we saw this accident. Even apart from that accident, my argument holds good.
  However distinguished may be the road engineer in Birmingham who was referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), I should have thought that there was nothing much to be said in favour of the Birmingham system. When I came out of my time I was asked by Birmingham Corporation to work on its buses, and it seemed to me then that its transport system was organised chaos, and it seems steadily to have developed in the wrong direction.
  If we look at the London problems, they seem to exemplify what I have said about greater concentration on relieving bottlenecks and so on. Let us take south-east England as an example. I have for many years lived in Kent, and still do. We did not get on soon enough—one may say that this is an indictment of the Labour Government as well— with the Dartford Tunnel. There is a ridiculous situation in this respect. Everything comes right up from the coast, much of it to Blackwall Tunnel, and much to Gravesend to cross by the ferry. I should have thought that more boats could have been provided on the Woolwich ferry in order to get traffic across. I do not think there are enough at present. Woolwich ferry is the most outstanding example that I have seen of traffic being locked up.
  A few weeks ago there was a breakdown in the Blackwall Tunnel and it was closed. Everybody went for the Woolwich ferry. At that point the traffic comes down High Street and Hare Street, down from Plumstead High Street. Three or four roads discharge there. When the breakdown occurred, everything jammed up. I stood back and watched and thought "This is something I never expected to see. Now it has
  968
  really happened." Everything was just locked. I went to lunch with my wife and when I came out again the traffic was still locked. I had not time to watch it unlock.
  Mr. Darling: It is probably still locked.
  Mr. Pannell: It was all right when I passed there today, but this is some months later.
  In a previous transport debate, I raised a subject to which I have not had an answer and the Minister has not written to me about it. It is the idea of running Blackwall Tunnel and Rotherhithe Tunnel as one-way tunnels. At the present time, extensive road works are going on on the Bow side of Black-wall Tunnel, and these will lead to a great improvement, but I have wondered whether during the peak hours we could not run Blackwall Tunnel through one way and Rotherhithe Tunnel through the other, for that would be a great help.
  Mr. Mellish: The tunnels are some distance apart.
  Mr. Pannell: They are quite a distance apart, but I have seen the effect of a hold-up in Blackwall Tunnel when there has been an accident there. People have had to go as far as London Bridge in a diversion. Once one gets a breakdown in Blackwall Tunnel, it is absolute chaos. I can remember many years ago being just in front, fortunately, of a lorry which broke down with disastrous consequences. Blackwall Tunnel was jammed for five hours. I am sorry for the poor fellows who were behind the lorry, for they could not back out that way. I am not putting my idea forward as anything more than a temporary expedient to meet the peak-hour traffic problem.
  I should be pleased to know how the Dartford Tunnel is getting on. I feel that the question of the Woolwich ferry ought to be examined. Very often there is a row of traffic from the Woolwich ferry almost through to the other end of Woolwich. This is disastrous, particularly at the weekend.
  One thing I wish to say on the general issue is that I hope none of us will approach this matter with a view to victimising motorists. An idea which was very much inherent in some Members of my own party before the car

  969
  became so popular was that somehow the car was the instrument of the rich— and it seems still to have a certain hangover about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) complained about traffic which he could not see round or go round or which could not get on faster.
  Mr. Manuel: I was referring to slow-moving loads.
  Mr. Pannell: It was all spoken from the point of view of an engine driver who rather glorifies in being a fast motorist. I think that is fair enough. It really indicates what I have said— that as a man gets any sort of social position or affluence, the thing he wants as much as a house is a car. We must approach this problem of traffic in a positive way and not a negative way.
  Mr. Manuel: I really do not want to leave this matter on the record in that way. I certainly was not talking as a fast motorist who was once an engine driver, out purely from the motive that we should get the really heavy stuff off the roads and on to British Railways.
  Mr. Pannell: When an ex-engine driver talks to me about getting things off the roads and on to the railways I know that his motives are not pure. I got into a great deal of trouble once, in referring to a certain outstanding railwayman, by saying that his mind moved in a permanent way. Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, I am sure that all railwaymen are standard gauge. They all think the same way—that a railway is an end in itself, that it is not something to convey goods on but an excuse for all sorts of other things which must follow.
  Motorists have been taxed an awful lot. I do not claim that they should be a privileged section of the community, but they should not be a harassed section. If a man is to have a car, and to be taxed for it, we must provide him with adequate parking space. Bearing in mind the philosophy of the party opposite, expressed in the last election —that of a car- and home-owning democracy—we must provide conditions in which the motorist can move about and in which he will have at least a level chance of not being convicted before the end of the day.
  970
  While in Germany to study transport conditions, we visited West Berlin—a beleagured and fantastic city, cut off from the eastern sector, and surrounded by the East. Yet in Berlin they are planning for transport on the assumption of reunification of the city and also of Germany. I should have thought that was an act of faith; this is not a foreign policy debate but nevertheless that is an act of faith.
  One finds there roads with ten traffic lanes, five each way. In addition, the centre is the old tram track, or permanent way, and that track, which is not to be removed for ten years, can be used for a free lane of traffic or as a great parking place.
  Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend should also explain that Germany was lucky enough to lose the war.
  Mr. Pannell: That is a thought, but there they have this road with ten traffic lanes and the people we interviewed said that they were planning for a decade ahead. Can we honestly say anywhere in this country that we are planning for a decade ahead? The hon. Member for Guildford said that the powers envisaged in the Bill were for five years though we probably would need them for longer. I disagree with him. We shall probably need a completely different and wider set of powers in five years. There seems to be a curious assumption that anything is static in life that seems to thwart us. When my party was in power it did not look far enough ahead. There has been this terrific expansion of car ownership.
  I also observed the legal aspect in Germany, bearing in mind the Minister's difficulty—and I do not want to castigate him—of testing vehicles which are ten years old, a move which the legal gentlemen are holding up again. It is interesting to know that in Germany, for compulsory acquisition of land for roads, they have adopted a simplified procedure. As I understand it, they pass an affirmative resolution for the acquisition of certain land, allow so many days or weeks to pass, and then pass another resolution affirming the previous one, proceeding on the assumption that the compensation for the land will be settled during the course of construction. The idea that we must wait for years while lawyers argue is ridiculous. The legal gentlemen take far longer than navvies

  971
  in building roads. The legal transfers often take very much longer than the construction.
  Mr. Hay: Of course, in road improvement matters which require the acquisition of land, we have to operate under statutory provisions laid down by Parliament. It is not a legal quibble to say that there must be some reasonable protection for the rights of the individual in order to ensure that his land is not unjustifiably taken away. Compensation is not the only problem. There is also the case of individual hardship which has to be met. How they order these things abroad is interesting, but should not necessarily be our guide here.
  Mr. Pannell: I fancy that the hon. Gentleman has a hang-over on this matter from the time when, as a back bencher, he was always a good authority on the rights of property. I am not being unkind. He was a very considerable advocate. He has been speaking from a brief since he joined the Front Bench but I am sure that he has not lost his cunning on his old subject.
  I point out to him, however, that under the German system these people are not disadvantaged. They go through the whole course of compensation and there is no suggestion that the individual is not properly compensated. It merely means that the odd individual, who may be someone in a great amalgam of private interests, does not thwart the public interest during a time when people —and I do not want to dramatise this— are being killed on the roads. The hon. Gentleman, in his office, must know many desirable things on which he is frustrated because a purely sectional interest stands in the way.
  We must look for a simplified procedure by which we can decide this matter in principle—though not merely by a snap resolution. Perhaps it may be by an affirmative Resolution 42 days after an order—during which time a person can make an objection—whereby we firmly declare that we are going from "A" to "B" and that those affected will be compensated by a judicial body.
  I am not trying to undermine the rights of the individual or of the property owner, but most people get very annoyed at the inordinate delays which sometimes occur in acquiring land. If
  972
  we are to approach this as a matter of urgency, then this right to property cannot be sacred. We must give proper compensation, but in the end the public view must prevail.
  Mr. Mellish: Is my hon. Friend aware that the famous Cromwell Road extension scheme was held up for more than a year by one person on the question of compensation?
  Mr. Pannell: I am glad to have the aid of my hon. Friend, but I want to get back to the subject from which I was driven by that intervention—testing road vehicles.
  We went to a place in Cologne where a staff of 35 was testing about 150 vehicles a day—I may be somewhat wrong about the figures. As we all know, in Germany a private car is tested every two years and a goods carrying vehicle, certainly a public service vehicle, is tested every year—although in this country public service vehicles are tested every year, too.
  One interesting thing we found in Germany was that on the ground floor of that testing station in Cologne they were testing vehicles, while on the top floor they were testing the driver's heads—it was a psychological research station as well. The courts had the right to send drunks there, or people who were accident-prone, while public-minded people who wondered whether they ought to be on the roads at all could pay a fee and voluntarily undergo an examination.
  Certain members of our Parliamentary mission did not come out of that test very well—and I will leave it at that. I have never been abroad on any Parliamentary mission but that I have come back with a much better feeling towards the people with whom I have travelled. It is very curious, but one cannot go abroad on a Parliamentary mission without realising what it was that one's colleagues' constituents saw in them. Wild horses would not drag from me the names of the people who slipped up on that test. What the authorities did was to sit one at a driving wheel and then show a film of a road which one had to negotiate and one could see one's errors on the graph.
  There were all sorts of other things, like the breathaliser in which the hon.

  973
  Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) glories and about which he will speak, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—that is, if he wants to. I thought that that was a good idea. On the bottom floor of that building vehicles were being tested and on the top floor heads were being tested and examinations were made of all sorts of people who were congenitally incapable of driving properly and who ought never to be on the roads.
  Another thing which impressed me about Germany was that in Berlin, even with all their scarcity of land and accommodation, it was a matter of municipal planning that one car park had to be provided for every two new units of accommodation built. That is planning for the future.
  That is a matter which brings me back to a subject which I have mentioned in every speech which I have made about traffic—dogs. There are only two dramatic things which can be done about road accidents—dealing with drunks and dealing with dogs. I leave drunks to the hon. Member for Crosby, and I will say a few words about dogs.
  When I first took up this subject, I thought that I would get a great fan mail from people who would write to me from all over the country to say how dog life ought to be preserved, and so on. On the contrary, I had many letters from thoughtful people who cared about dogs and who said how necessary it was that dogs should be controlled. When we were discussing the Road Traffic Act, 1956, I was responsible for an Amendment which gave local authorities the power to prescribe certain roads on which dogs would have to be on leads. Can the Minister say how many local authorities have implemented that power? If this new traffic authority is set up, under which he is to take command, will that power in the 1956 Act be operated throughout Central London and the West End?
  Should we allow dogs to be unrestricted? Can it be said that dogs are the only element in road accidents. Of course they are not, but they are a cumulative factor and it is the aggregate of such cumulative factors which helps to increase the figure of road accidents. Road accidents are not due to any single
  974
  cause. However, in one year alone, 60,000 dogs were killed and injured in road accidents and no one who cares about animals can contemplate a figure like that with any degree of equanimity. I have had figures from borough surveyors in towns in Kent where the figures are in no way comparable, but no one who has encountered a dog on the road will disagree with the contention that everyone likes to save life, whether it is a dog's life or a human life. We must bear in mind that the power which my Amendment provided was a permissive power, but it is a power which should now be extended and made mandatory.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) is laughing at me and I know the story of when she slapped on all the brakes on her car and thought that she may have killed a dog. I wrote an article in a newspaper to say how much worse it would have been if it had killed her.
  The time has come for us to cease to treat the dog as the sacred cow of British politics. That is the approach of some silly people. There are far too many dogs in this country and far too many of them are given to children for the wrong reasons, such as passing the 11-plus examination. One of the worst fruits of full employment has been the multiplication of dogs.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: Has the hon Gentleman any figures to show the number of accidents to human beings caused by dogs?
  Mr. Pannell: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the City of Leeds which are provided by the chief constable, as they are for practically every large town. The reports of the chief constables of the big cities give those figures, but it is difficult to get a figure for the whole country, because there are sometimes accidents caused by dogs on county roads which are not aggregated, making it difficult to get a nation-wide figure. However, when I took an interest in this matter, I was given some startling figures, one of them being that in Leeds in 1952 dogs were an element in one accident in four. That might have happened to be a remarkable year and it has not been matched since, but it did happen that year and I have

  975
  also been given the figure of 60,000 dogs having been killed and injured in one year alone.
  Another fact about dogs is that if one knocks down a dog, one is supposed to report to the nearest police station. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there has been a single prosecution for non-compliance with that regulation. I have never been able to find one. That provision is a dead letter. One can kill a cat and need do nothing about it. I do not know why. A cat is far more intelligent than a dog, but if a cat is killed, nobody says anything about it. However, if one kills a dog, for some reason—and no doubt this is once again the sacred cow philosophy—one is supposed to go to the nearest policeman. Quite right, too, but no policeman has ever prosecuted a motorist who has failed to do that and nor have the police ever spent any time trying to catch up with someone who has not done it. I do not say that this is not a good provision, but it is a dead letter.
  I want to say something about wardens, a subject which worries me more than somewhat. What are the wardens for? The powers in the Bill are far wider than the Minister suggested. I know the argument that the greater must include the lesser is an argument for the Parliamentary draftsmen when they want to allude to everything under the face of the sun, but we cannot have interpolated into an Act of Parliament something which may be used by the civil power for something other than its original intention.
  I am not talking about the old fear of strike breaking when people were afraid of special constables being used in industrial disputes. That is not what I have in mind. We already have traffic wardens for schools, but I assume that they will not be incorporated into the new wardens. [HON. MEMBERS: Yes, they will.] If the Minister can say something about that, he might save me a great deal of time.
  Mr. Hay: It is not that the school-crossing patrols will necessarily be incorporated into the traffic wardens, but rather that the traffic wardens will be able to carry out school-crossing patrol duties if need be. That is provided in Clause 2 (2, a).
  Mr. Pannell: They may be employed, presumably. If I could take a more specific case, if a local education authority is satisfied with the experienced people employed at present, they would not necessarily be dismissed under this Bill.
  Mr. Hay: No.
  Mr. Pannell: I am much obliged; that puts that right. All the traffic power at present is with the police, and I understand that the police are to appoint these wardens. I suppose that they will come under the watch committee of a provincial town, if they are appointed, and presumably this applies to the whole country. I read something a short while ago which one of my hon. Friends had shown me, which envisaged that they would come under either the watch committee or the standing joint committee, as the case may be.
  While I was out of the Chamber, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields spoke on the question of the wardens finding somebody drunk in a motor car. I think this is a good point, and that is why I took up the intervention as to whether wardens have anything to do with moving traffic. I understand that they would control pedestrian crossings, but I have in mind the apprehension of people for such offences when the thing was moving.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Lights.
  Mr. Pannell: There is the question of lights, and that is quite a technical matter. These lights are not just a matter of switching them on and off. One can have wiring faults. I refer to a case many months ago when there was a flickering tail light in front of me indicating that the driver was going to turn one way—to his offside—I took the near side and he drove into me. It was not until then that I found that, although it was a commercial vehicle, the system was interlinked into the tail light circuit, and there was a bad earth, which caused it to keep on winking. I got away with my no claims bonus on that argument, and so I hope the House will accept it.
  As to this becoming a technical matter, I wonder whether wardens will adjudicate on it. A policeman would have the sense to listen to the arguments

  977
  before he served a ticket, but here, presumably, this will be an automatic sort of thing. In the sort of case of which I have spoken earlier, I should probably opt to go before a court.
  I must return to the case on which I interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). He seemed to rather disagree with me when I said that there were two classes of fines in most police courts. There is one in the case where one pleads guilty, and one gets away with the standard fine of forty shillings, or whatever the justices have agreed privately shall be the tariff, as it is popularly called. The other case is that in which one wastes the time of the court for two or three hours, and probably gets a fine of sixty shillings or something more. That is a statement of fact on which I am not prepared to be interrupted and about which I will not argue. I have known it happen. I have sat on a magistrates' bench.
  The other day I ran into a legal luminary in this House, who said, "How right you are. When I am sitting at"— I will not say whether he is a recorder or presides over quarter sessions—"that is my view as well." I think it is reasonable to assume that if a man comes before a magistrates and says "I did it", the magistrates say, "Let us get rid of him", but if one makes a long rigmarole—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am not very clear how the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill can affect the state of affairs of which the hon. Member is complaining.
  Mr. Pannell: With very great respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am afraid I must address arguments to show you how it does. The point about it is that we are discussing, within this Bill, the right of traffic wardens, or presumably policemen, to serve a notice upon a motorist. If it is complied with in fourteen days he can get away with a fine. If it is not complied with within fourteen days, or perhaps thirty days, he must appear before a court.
  My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate for the Opposition referred to
  978
  two classes of fines, and I am trying to take up the point I made then that there are two classes of fines now, so that this is not novel at all. I think that if we are to have traffic wardens at all, we shall have to give them proper status. I am rather alarmed by people talking as if they should be superannuated police constables or even pensioned soldiers. I do not think that we should look at this purely with the idea that they are to be old men. I hope that they will be forward-looking people, responsible and capable of doing the job. I also hope that, since the Bill mentions persons, that will mean women as well as men. I might suggest that there are certain forms of offences concerned with parking when shopping where women would probably be more effective. I do not think the status of a warden ought to be lower than a constable of second grade.
  There is also the point made by one of my hon. Friends where, for instance, the sort of person we are considering in the case of our provincial towns will be a person well-known in his district. I know that we recruit constables in one town and take them to another, but it is hardly likely that we would do that in the case of wardens. I hope that these people will be given a proper status and that their position will be one of respect. I am quite certain that there will be Amendments in the Committee stage on the question of wardens, for there is a strong feeling among the police that if we had done better by the police we would not have been driven to wardens. There is a great deal of feeling about it.
  Another important matter is that there shall be no resentment among the police that these people, somehow or other, are to be regarded as a second-class type of person to take over the lesser part of their job. There has been a lot of nonsense talked by some people, including the Minister, about that sort of thing, suggesting that policemen are wasting their time. I do not think that a policeman is ever wasting his time when he is dealing courteously with the public, and it would be a bad thing if we recruited second-class people who do not deal with the public in the same responsible way as the police do now. That would be very bad indeed.

  979
  We have to bear in mind that the policeman cannot be judged entirely by the number of tickets he has served on people. He has to be judged by the humane, sympathetic and resourceful way in which he sometimes deals with situations, such as the case I referred to when there was a jam-up at Woolwich, and where there is a very difficult situation. In America, they draw a sharp line between what they call stationary offences and moving offences. I hope that these traffic wardens will be kept closely to the stationary offences.
  The car parks outside the public houses are far too big. If the police are to be used intelligently, I suggest that we should keep one policeman outside every public house at closing time in order to stop certain people getting into cars. If we could do that, I think it would make a small contribution, though probably not as much as my suggestion regarding dogs, towards alleviating the terrible toll of life, which is not only a disgrace to our roads and our people, but, because of our neglect of the matter in the past, a disgrace to this House itself.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him on the many points which he has put to us over a considerable period, or ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule me out of order for not doing so. Last Friday, I was a guest at a lunch of the Hertfordshire Surveyors' Association, which is an association of chief officers of the highways departments of various local authorities. I was then asked if I would make it clear to my right hon. Friend— and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will pass this message to him—that they were grieved that he should have spoken about the ability of county councils, especially in the building of motorways. My right hon. Friend will know that we have one running through Hertfordshire.
  Nevertheless, I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the speed with which he has brought the Bill before the House. I am sure that it will be welcomed by local authorities and by the motoring public generally. It is
  980
  designed to streamline the administrative arrangements and to cut out most of the time which is normally wasted both by the police and members of the public in regard to minor traffic offences.
  I am also sure that hon. Members will welcome the possibilities of a more rapid extension of parking meter schemes. Anyone who has been into the Mayfair area since the scheme there was extended to cover the whole area will have seen how different the position now is. It will clearly add to the pressure elsewhere, but that is only an indication that we must get down to work more rapidly in dealing with areas where there is much pressure for parking space.
  The points I wish to raise in connection with parking meters and the relevant regulations are rather complicated, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me when I put them forward. The first arises out of Clause 2, which provides for the introduction of traffic wardens. In my opinion, the Clause does not go far enough. I agree that it is undesirable to have traffic wardens and parking meter attendants working in the same area. I therefore welcome the provision which enables wardens to act as parking meter attendants.
  However, where there is an arrangement between the local authority and the police authority for traffic wardens to perform the duties of parking meter attendants, it seems desirable for those authorities to agree to the performance by the police of certain further duties normally undertaken by the local authority, such as the collection of excess charges and the conduct of prosecutions for non-payment of such charges.
  In the absence of such an agreement there could be two authorities pursuing one driver at the same time, in respect of two offences arising out of the same parking incident. Under the Bill as at present worded it seems that the following circumstances could arise: a traffic warden might affix a ticket to a car which had been left too long at a parking meter and had, therefore, incurred liability for an excess charge. The ticket would invite the motorist to pay the excess charge to the borough or city treasurer.
  If the same car were still at the parking meter two hours later it would attract a penalty charge, and a ticket containing

  981
  an invitation to pay the fixed penalty to a justice's clerk, the fixed penalty being for staying too long after the excess charge has been incurred.
  That is the procedure which would replace the present one where a prosecution is undertaken. If two authorities were interested in subsequent events, and if the motorist failed to pay both the excess charge and the fixed penalty charge, there would be a duplication of action. It would be possible for the motorist to be involved in two court hearings on different days in respect of parking his vehicle on one occasion. That would not happen if only one authority were handling the case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point worth looking at before the Bill goes to Committee.
  If he should agree to this proposal he will have to consider giving himself extra power enabling him, by Statutory Instrument, to amend orders designating metered parking places, consequential upon the arrangements for traffic wardens and the police authority to carry out the duties which are normally undertaken by parking meter attendants and local authorities. Thus, a parking places order could clearly be amended to change such things as the designation of the official to whom excess charges have to be paid.
  There may have to be considerable negotiations before local authorities and police authorities reach some sort of agreement for the exchange of duties in this connection, and in the meantime it would seem desirable that parking meter attendants should be able to operate a ticket system instead of initiating proceedings for prosecution, as at present, when anyone exceeds the excess charge period. I hope that my right hon. Friend will also consider that point.
  Another difficulty experienced by authorities operating parking meter schemes arises in connection with the excess charge flag. Under existing legislation, if this flag is showing it is presumed—unless the contrary is proved— that the initial charge has duly been paid; that is, that the motorist has put some money in the slot and that the period for which he has paid has expired. In such circumstances, the parking meter attendant will attach to the car a yellow ticket similar to that which my right hon.
  982
  Friend showed us earlier, demanding payment of the excess charge. The circumstances are different in the first hour, between 8.30 and 9.30 a.m., when, if the flag for the excess charge is showing— appearing to indicate that the motorist has run out of his 6d. worth within the first few minutes—it is clear that he has not paid his initial charge, and that the situation is a hang-over from the day before. Then he will be given a blue ticket for non-payment, which will result in a prosecution.
  The giving of the yellow ticket has caused a considerable amount of disagreement. Local authorities find that many drivers write to them saying that they did not exceed the period for which they paid; it was just a question of their not having paid because they did not have the right amount of change, or something like that. They say, "Since I have not paid the original charge I cannot pay an excess charge for exceeding my time." Several of my hon. Friends —I do not see them here at the moment —have been involved in just such a correspondence with a certain local authority. A good deal of correspondence is involved, and, finally, prosecutions follow.
  Once it is established, on the driver's own statement, that an excess charge has not been incurred because the initial charge has not been paid, the council cannot accept payment if it is offered later; it has to prosecute. Conversely— this happens less frequently—if a driver receives a blue ticket for non-payment of the initial charge and he tries to settle the matter by proferring 10s. excess charge, as though he had really paid the initial charge and had stayed too long at the meter, again the only action which the council can take is to prosecute. If the Bill can be amended to provide that the appearance of the excess charge flag on the meter renders a driver liable to pay the excess charge, irrespective of whether he has paid the initial charge, the administrative difficulties which affect local authorities running these meter schemes will be greatly decreased.
  Incidentally, it will also provide much more money, by way of excess charges, which the authority can use to build off-street parking places, for which purposes fines are not used—although the motorist might get away with it more

  983
  lightly, financially, than if he went to court.
  Another point is the question of Clause 13 and abandoned vehicles. It seems that local authorities will be authorised to sell or otherwise dispose of vehicles left abandoned after not less than six weeks after removal of the vehicle from the point at which it had been left. If I read this correctly this will tax the accommodation of local authorities for this purpose to a great degree especially in London, where the available land is so limited.
  Vehicles that are abandoned have, in most cases, been standing for long periods before the local authority takes any action at all. It seems to me that perhaps it would be possible to say that the period of six weeks would run from the moment the local authority takes the steps prescribed by the Minister rather than wait until it has removed the vehicle. That would cut down the time in which the vehicle had to be stored by the local authority, and the local authority would be relieved of some burden in that way.
  One point is not catered for in the Bill, although the Minister has power to do it in London under Section 34 and elsewhere under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Act. I am referring to the designating of certain roads to be closed to heavy traffic. There are many cases, not only in narrow streets in London, but in a city like St. Albans, which I represent, where there are narrow old streets through which very heavy traffic comes rumbling day after day, and night after night.
  We acknowledge the benefit of the M 1 and the St. Albans by-pass. Incidentally, some people confuse the by-pass with M.1 and do not realise that they can by-pass St. Albans and get back on to the road. That is a point which needs looking at, and perhaps a signpost would help. A lot of the heavy traffic is creeping back on the narrow roads through St. Albans, probably because there are popular transport cafes and that sort of thing on that bit of road which the drivers would miss if they went on the by-pass.
  It seems to me unreasonable that we should not do what is done on the Continent, which is to designate certain
  984
  streets as closed to heavy transport unless they happen to be delivering goods in the area. It is possible that these powers are there already, but we do not use them. I should like the Minister to look at this and consider whether we could not designate some roads closed to heavy traffic wherever there is a possible alternative route. That is something we will have to face in London when we have a good ring road which will enable heavy transport to get round the City quickly rather than pick its way through it.
  I do not want to delay the House any longer, because there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I welcome the Bill and I hope that the Minister will use all the powers that he is given in it to see that we get out of the muddle into which we are rapidly getting.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I agree with the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) about the designation of roads for particular purposes, but I hope that he will forgive me —I am sure that it is my fault—for being a little confused about his reference to blue, red and yellow tickets. I am sure that the difficulties of procedure which he mentioned will be sorted out when the Bill comes to the Committee stage.
  I nearly said, "when we come to the Committee stage", because I should like to tender my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman for staking his claim to serve on this Committee. In fact, I greatly admire the tremendous public spirit displayed by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), all of whom said that they wanted to serve on the Committee. Having looked carefully at the Bill, I can only say that they are gluttons for punishment, and that for the rest of us there will be an intense struggle to prove to the Whips that we are otherwise engaged.
  As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is good in parts. Apart from the traffic regulations for London, and traffic regulations which, I hope, will be applied to provincial cities in somewhat the same kind of way, I find the Bill very flabby and inadequate. The Minister has missed a great opportunity to remedy

  985
  some of the defects in the 1956 Act. He has missed the opportunity to strengthen and bring some of the provisions of that Act into line with modern traffic conditions.
  I echo the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West. I hope that we will approach the Bill in a non-party spirit; that the non-party precedent which we established during our discussions on the 1956 Bill will be carried on when dealing with this Bill.
  Clause 1 deals with what are loosely called "ticket fines". I hope that hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I use that loose phrase to describe what will happen under Clause 1. Why do we not use the present procedure? As I understand, when one is dealing with obstruction, the policeman who finds the vehicle obstructing the roadway takes the number of the vehicle. He is thus able to find the name and address of the owner. He puts in a request, or whatever it is that a policeman puts in, to get the court procedure started. A summons is issued to the owner by post, and if he does not want to attend court, if he knows that he is guilty, he writes to say so, and the court deals with him by imposing a fine or whatever punishment the magistrates wish to impose without his being there. He is allowed to be a voluntary absentee.
  That procedure works fairly well. Why is it not proposed to use that procedure on a much wider scale to deal with the offences in Clause 1 of the Bill—parking, obstruction, and offences of that kind? I am worried about the pinning of tickets on vehicles by policemen and the owner of the vehicle being fined without any proper legal procedure, or protective procedure, being invoked in this operation. I should be glad if the Joint Undersecretary, when he replies to the debate, will tell us why it is necessary to bring in new procedure instead of making the present procedure more widely known.
  On the question of traffic wardens, it seems that successive Ministers of Transport operate about five years behind events. It seems to take five years for ideas to percolate through the Ministry to officials, whose job it is to advise the Minister, to take decisions. I am very glad that at last traffic wardens are to be introduced, but I am shocked that at this stage in the discussion apparently
  986
  neither the Minister nor the Home Secretary knows precisely what they are wanted for.
  Instead of the flabby statement that we had from the Minister today, I should have expected him to have thumped the Dispatch Box and to say that traffic wardens are to do this, that and the other. It is not that this is a new idea, or that discussion on it had only just started. I do not want to be immodest, but I will quote what I said five years ago, on 5th April, 1955, in the Second Reading debate on the Road Traffic Bill which later became the 1956 Act:
  "we should consider whether we should not set up a special traffic police force, to carry out the duties which will be imposed by the Bill…."
  That was in 1955. I went to on to say:
  "The police force which I have in mind might be recruited in part from existing police officers, in small numbers, but mainly from men who are not engaged in police work at present.
  The people whom I have in mind are ex-officers and ex-Service men …."—
  We were at that time talking about reducing the Armed Forces—
  "and people who have been rejected from recruitment to the police force because they do not reach the high standards imposed at present."
  This was five years ago. I also said:
  "By these means we could recruit a large enough traffic police force to carry through the duties which will be imposed by the Bill. This special traffic police force would be responsible for carrying out spot checks "—
  that is something which we have discussed very much—
  "patrolling the roads; breaking up traffic blocks which they come across in the course of their duties; making sure that the traffic is moving all the time; dealing more quickly with accidents than is the case at present; clearing the roads after accidents; being on point duty at crossings, dealing with special arrangements for traffic as a result of road repairs, and so on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th April, 1955; Vol. 539, c. 1058–9.]
  I did not try to give a full list of their duties.
  Those suggestions did not come out of the air. I had discussed the matter with many people interested in road traffic problems. I do not claim any special credit for putting forward the idea five years ago. It was not new then, for other people had mentioned it. I am shocked that after all this time the Minister could not come to the Dispatch Box

  987
  today and tell us what he wants a traffic warden force for. I should have thought that after all the time we have spent on this matter the duties of traffic wardens would be very clearly in his mind and in the mind of the Ministry.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said that he wanted traffic wardens to deal only with stationary vehicles. That is approaching the idea in precisely the wrong way. I do not want traffic wardens to have the job of prosecuting anybody. I want them to be there to help the motorists, not to check the motorist. I do not want him to try to pick out offences. I want him to help not only private motorists, but commercial motorists, the road passenger services, and so on, to move along the roads freely. The traffic wardens are not to be part of the police force in a formal way.
  The idea that the wardens should be used for putting tickets on cars except for parking offences, which are straightforward, fills me with alarm. I want any action taken against motorists to be taken only by the proper police forces. I want the traffic wardens to be there to do the hundred-and-one jobs which have to be done by someone in authority to keep traffic moving. I shall not specify details of matters which will be dealt with by hon. Members who have declared their intention, and shown their public spirit in wanting, to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill. I hope that these matters will receive serious attention.
  There are other deficiencies in the Bill, and I should like to touch briefly on one or two of them. As several hon. Members have said, we must look carefully at the kind of vehicles which now park on the roads, even in permitted parking places. It is altogether wrong for a commercial operator to go into the business of carrying goods around the country unless he has a proper garage or proper parking place in premises of his own from which he can operate. Far too many commercial operators are using public parking spaces for the purpose of carrying out their operations.
  That must be stopped. It is not only that the lorries and trucks which are parked around the place are stopping those who might be called the proper users from using the parking space pro-
  988
  vided by the public but, also, that I am convinced that many of these vehicles are not kept in an adequate state of repair because there are no facilities for the purpose. Obviously, there are no facilities in a public parking space to keep these vehicles in an adequate state of repair.
  That also applies to certain road passenger vehicles. I have in mind the little man who buys his own private coach and operates for hire. I do not want to stop him from coming into the business and operating for hire, but I do not think that any commercial vehicle, whether for the carrying of goods or for passenger transport, should be allowed on the roads unless the owner has proper garage space in which to keep the vehicles in good repair.
  I should also like those hon. Members who are to be on the Committee to look very seriously at the question of permitting vehicles to park in certain streets without lights. I know that some streets where parking takes place at night are very well lit and have good lamps, but as soon as we have a misty atmosphere and there is any fog, then, even where the lights are good, these vehicles which are parked at night without lights become dangerous to everybody using the streets.
  I do not want to repeat the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and others about the incredible delay on the part of the Minister in going head with the provisions which we put in the 1956 Act for the testing of vehicles. I cannot understand why there is any delay. I could never understand why the Minister had to turn to private garages for this business. By taking a pair of compasses stretched to the equivalent of a 25-mile radius on a map of Great Britain, I tried to work out how many testing stations would be required if public testing stations were put up so that no vehicle owner had to travel more than 25 miles from his home, or from where his vehicles operate if they are commercial vehicles, to the testing station. I may be wrong, but I do not think that we should require more than 50 stations throughout Great Britain.
  The mechanism and the machines required for these testing stations are

  989
  being made. I understand that none of the testing machines is made in this country, but there is no reason at all why they should not be made in this country under licence. They could easily be made by those who are making equipment of one kind and another for garages. It is no use saying that we cannot afford to put up these stations, when we think if the hundreds and hundreds of new garages in the country, many of them put up merely to create competition between the various oil companies and, apart from this competition, not necessarily to give a public service. If we think of the number of garages being put up, it becomes quite clear that the country could afford to reduce the number of garages and put up some testing stations. I hope that that will be dealt with in Committee.
  I want to refer to an aspect of traffic wardens' duties concerning eyesight. An Order must be issued under Clause 2 (3) to define the duties of traffic wardens precisely. It has been said already that a traffic warden, for example, ought to be in a position to deal with a drunken person inside a car. He should be able to stop the man from driving the car, contact the police and say to them, "I have a ' drunk' here. Come and deal with him". A traffic warden may come across a slight accident and, when he is fulfilling his duty and trying to get the traffic moving again, it may appear to him that the driver has got into the accident because he could not see clearly enough—not through drunkenness, but just that he had bad eyesight.
  In those circumstances, what is the traffic warden to do? Who should he inform? Does he just say to the driver, "Look, old chap. You should go to an oculist and get a pair of glasses"? Does he leave it like that? Does he inform someone? Which authority should he inform? What will follow when that authority is informed?
  I have asked those question because an opthalmic surgeon practising in Sheffield, in my constituency, wrote a recent article in the British Medical Journal giving some facts about patients who had consulted him, some of whom were car drivers. It was quite obvious to him that their eyesight was such that they should not have been on the roads. I will not weary the House with many
  990
  figures. I will give merely one or two which arose from his investigation.
  Out of a total number of 4,400 patients, just over 1,000 held current driving licences. He found that 75 of them, roughly 7·5 per cent., were not able to read a number plate at 25 yards. If that is an accurate sample of all car drivers, there are certainly more than half a million car drivers who cannot read a number plate at 25 yards.
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: With the drivers wearing spectacles?
  Mr. Darling: I will give the breakdown accurately. I was trying to skip it a little. Forty-five per cent. of all the drivers were able to read a number plate at 25 yards without the aid of glasses. Forty-seven per cent. in possession of distance glasses were able to read a number plate at 25 yards. Seven and a half per cent. not in possession of distance glasses were not able to read a number plate at 25 yards. More than half of the 75, or the 7·5 per cent., were not aware, or professed to be unaware, that their distance vision was defective.
  That is the serious point which we have to consider. Those patients felt that their eyesight was all right, despite the fact that testing revealed that it was not all right. The vision of four patients, who were age 61 and over, could not be improved with glasses. Admittedly, four out of 1,000 is not a very large number. It is not even 1 per cent. Anyone interested in this point can read the article by Dr. Wilkie, which appeared in the British Medical Journal. I had a long discussion with him after the article appeared. It was obvious from what he said, and from what other people who test eyesight have said, that it is not sufficient to rely upon the man who fills up his application for a driving licence to say that his vision is all right.
  We must have some kind of simple test, and that is where I begin to get worried both about the Bill and about the duties that we are to put on the traffic wardens. We must find some means not only of dealing with sight testing—I gave that as an example only because it came to my notice—but with other matters as well, so that when complaints are made against car drivers something will be done about them, and those complaints will not be left in the air.

  991
  Turning to the particular example I gave, I ask: what happens if a traffic warden—given the duties that we are now beginning to discuss in some greater detail, of making sure that the traffic is kept moving—comes across a driver who, obviously, has bad eyesight and should not be driving in that state? What does the warden do?
  I do not want to venture an answer to that question. I could try to do so, but that would mean my making a much longer speech than I intend to make. In any case, it is a Committee point, and I hope that it will be dealt with there. I do not know whether, as we are approaching the Bill in a non-party spirit, the Minister will accept many more suggestions for strengthening the Bill, or whether he wants to keep it in its present very restricted form to deal largely with such things as ticket fines, traffic wardens and the general problems of parking and traffic regulations in the London area and in the provinces.
  Many suggestions could be made in Committee to make this a far better Bill, and I sincerely hope that the opportunity will not be lost.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has shown such a detailed knowledge of the subject that I am afraid that his hopes of not being selected for the Standing Committee are likely to be vain. In the light of what he said, however—and it was almost an invitation—I might say that I should be delighted, if also chosen for the Committee, to make a little pairing arrangement with him. I do not know whether it is in order to make arrangements for pairing across the Floor—I have not heard it done before.
  I do not think that the Bill has been regarded as a party Measure by either my right hon. Friend or hon. Members opposite. Everybody has treated it in a very non-party spirit. Well they might, because here we know, more than most people, I suppose, that the most precious commodity of all in the life of a busy man is time. If we did not have to sleep for six or seven hours each night, we could achieve much more than we do. Perhaps that is why my right hon. Friend is so successful, because I under-
  992
  stand that he sleeps for only four or five hours a night.
  The same thing applies to traffic congestion in our great cities. We waste much too much time getting from one point to another. I suppose that it is difficult to assess in terms of money, but in terms of wear and tear and frustration and fatigue, it is obviously very considerable indeed. It is, too, in the loss of life, when one considers that a quarter of a million lives have been lost on the roads of this country in this century.
  It will, of course, get worse. In 1956, the weekly production of cars was about 13,500; by last spring it was up to 25,000. The Ministry of Transport has always underestimated this increase that is taking place all the time. In 1954, the Ministry thought that the traffic increase would be about 75 per cent. over a period of twenty years. In point of fact, it has been 50 per cent. over the last four years. Hire-purchase relaxations and Purchase Tax reductions have probably made a great difference, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who said that we are fast becoming a car-owning democracy, and that ownership of a car nowadays is prized not only for itself but also for the social status which, in spite of what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, many people have come to think that ownership of a car confers.
  We have more vehicles per mile on the roads in Great Britain than any other country in the world. The reason is that this country seems to combine, in perhaps a unique degree, a dense population in a very small area with rather a high standard of living, and the combination of these three factors causes complete traffic chaos, which means that we have got to accept that we cannot behave in this country quite as other people do in other countries. We must accept a little less freedom of user than can be enjoyed elsewhere.
  Up to now, we have thought mainly in terms of trunk roads, and very welcome and overdue they are, but there is not much point in improving the flow of traffic between cities if we cannot move when we get to the cities. This is especially true in London. The average speed of traffic in urban areas is

  993
  20 m.p.h. In Central London it is 10 m.p.h. or less—I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said that it was 8 or 9 m.p.h. —and slower still in the rush hour.
  I have read that in 1914 the London bus averaged 8½ m.p.h., and now, forty-five years later, it averages 8½ m.p.h. That is a fine lot of progress in forty-five years—just about the span of my lifetime. To increase the speed and reduce the chaos of London traffic I fear that we have to accept a certain amount of self-discipline, and we may as well face that fact. We have to accept a certain amount of minor personal inconvenience in order to avoid a major traffic breakdown. Traffic islands and things like that which are a convenience to pedestrians take up too much space, and probably many of them will have to be removed. I should think that many hon. Members would favour the introduction of tidal traffic arrangements, which have often been mentioned, on the main routes in and out of London, by which in the morning rush hours three streams of traffic come in and only one goes out, and in the evening the flow is reversed.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend has got all these things in mind. I am a very enthusiastic supporter of my right hon. Friend because he has such a lot of ideas—most of them very good ideas— and he certainly will not fail in his job through lack of energy. Where he might have failed in his arduous task might have been through lack of power; because, until the introduction of this Bill, his powers to relieve traffic congestion were either lacking altogether or were so slow and cumbersome as virtually to amount to the same thing. That, I know, was the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford when he was at the Ministry of Transport.
  One of the most striking features of our debate last December was the demand from both sides of the House that we should take the power to solve the problem. I agree with hon. Members who have spoken that the Bill will have quite a long and difficult Committee stage because there are so many detailed points that we shall want to discuss; but it is our job, now that we have got a Bill which is broadly accepted by both parties, to try to pass it reasonably rapidly so that we can get on with the job.
  994
  All traffic rules are useless without enforcement, and this Bill deals mainly therefore with enforcement. I do not share the apprehensions of some hon. Members about the ticket system. Its principal purpose is to relieve the police and the courts of a heavy and growing burden. Of course, there are legal objections to it. I am rather surprised that in this debate we have not heard more on that subject, because we have certainly heard a good deal about it before. But I think they are outweighed by the practical advantages.
  Certainly this system will save a lot of time, paper and money. It has been calculated that two or three years ago, and it is probably worse today, in London alone, on average eighty-nine policemen each wasted a full day every day in the courts dealing with motoring offences. Even so, the administration of justice is so slow that it may take six months before a case comes up. Then the offender goes into court, after six months, and probably gets such a small fine that it is virtually no deterrent at all to his committing the offence again.
  The ticket system has been operated perfectly successfully in other countries —the United States and many European countries—and motorists' organisations here, I understand, have all agreed that it is worth giving it a trial. The fine is optional, so it does not seem to me to be any serious infringement of any individual liberty or rights. Also it is, I notice, to be paid to the justices' clerk and not to the policeman direct. I think that is a valuable safeguard, because it avoids all possibility of corruption of the police.
  There is one plea which I should like to make for the motorist. I think that technical obstruction offences—I do not know how to describe them in any other way —are at present very confusing. I think that people do not quite know where they can park or for how long they can park in many cases and that a lot of people do not know where they may not park. There ought to be more signing of the roads for that purpose.
  I personally am all for uniformed traffic wardens. Many of us on both sides of the House have asked for them on many occasions. I think that they will relieve the police of many minor, time-taking duties. They will probably

  995
  be used first for parking offences. It may be that retired policemen would make suitable recruits, but I do not think that the wardens ought to be confined to that category. I think that we might accept a lower physical height standard for wardens than for the police. They must be trained and they must be of the right calibre—I see no reason why some of them should not be women —and their attitude should be to help rather than to harass the motorist. That should be their raison d'être.
  I am glad that Clause 3 makes it unnecessary for my right hon. Friend to consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which has over forty members. It probably does not meet very often and it takes a long time. The sort of machinery which was suitable for the 'twenties in this context is probably quite inappropriate in the 'sixties. Clause 4 gives my right hon. Friend the same powers that local authorities already have to introduce parking meter schemes in London. That, I understand, enables him to use the proceeds of the meters to finance off-street parking. I cannot help feeling that that ought to be obligatory and that he ought to be forced to use funds of that sort to help to provide for off-street parking, because this otherwise very good Bill, in my opinion, will fail completely unless we provide off-street parking in a fairly big way.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider various suggestions, which probably the Minister of Works will not like very much, and that he will consider constructing car parks for all-day parkers under the Royal Parks. I would not mind them being in the Royal Parks. I have noticed again and again lately that practically no one uses Rotten Row in which to ride. When I was a boy there were scores of riders there every day. Now one cannot see a chap riding in Rotten Row any day of the week. Perhaps they do so in the early morning; I do not know. My right hon. Friend may; he does all sorts of things in the early morning which other people do not do.
  Mr. Marples: I would inform my hon. Friend that I am consulting the Minister of Works on underground car parks in the Royal Parks.
  Mr. Fisher: I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that they will be extremely helpful to motorists.
  Clause 7 is also of great interest. It covers pedestrians, exemptions from restrictions and the disc system. I am glad that pedestrians are mentioned in the Bill, because they, along with the dogs and the drunks, to whom other hon. Members have referred, cause a good many casualties. [Interruption] I merely class them together as one of the categories which cause a lot of accidents. It is not only the motorist.
  I hope that signs will be erected telling people exactly where and when they can cross a road. I hope that if they take no notice of the signs and cross against the lights, they will risk a fine as well as their own safety.
  Mr. Graham Page: If my hon. Friend is making that suggestion, will he also suggest that there should be lights satisfactory for pedestrians to see at all-red periods to give them freedom to cross?
  Mr. Fisher: Oh, yes. I do not want to go into detail, but I am sure that that is one of the things which my right hon. Friend the Minister has in mind.
  My right hon. Friend has said that the disc system may or may not be the best method. He does not think so himself. But it seems to work quite well in Paris, Rome. Salzburg, Vienna, Lausanne, and in various French cities. It is certainly worth a trial in this country, if only for the reason that it serves the useful purpose of making full use of all possible parking space, whereas the meter system, to allow of the possibility of one or two large cars, must waste quite a lot of space in the road.
  I hope that the proceeds of the disc system will also be given to the Minister's fund for providing off-street car parking. Probably my right hon. Friend should take power in the Bill to help local authorities to finance the provision of off-street car parking. I do not see any power in the Bill to enable him to do that. I know that the right hon. Member for Smeth-wick is keen on the idea of car parks being self-sufficient by allowing them to sell petrol, and so on, rather like service stations. I am sympathetic to that idea, because it would help with the cost of providing parking facilities by giving a

  997
  return on the outlay. I cannot go further than that, however, because I do not want anybody from this side of the House to be thought to be encouraging local authorities to go into a business which is not their own. Presumably, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from leasing facilities in the area of a car park to provide petrol pumps, and so on, which could give a source of revenue for the car parks.
  As motorists, we also must be prepared to pay a lot more for our car parking facilities. We have no inherent right as such to use the Queen's highway as a free garage. To park or garage a car in New York costs, I am told, about £1 a day. In London, the economic charge would be about 12s. 6d. a day. We must think in terms of those figures, certainly about 10s. a day, for the all-day parker.
  When we think in terms of money like that, it may well be that we shall alter the fashion. If the all-day parker had to pay 10s. a day every day, he might decide to come up to London by the suburban train, which would be very good for the railway finances and would prevent the congestion which is caused by all-day parkers in the London streets. That is part of the object of the Bill.
  I am glad that under Clause 12, the owner of a car which is towed away will have to pay a fine of £2 as well as suffer the inconvenience of having to collect his car. That is excellent. My only concern is whether £2 is enough. Does it, for instance, cover the total cost of towing the car away? I ask this because when I was abroad recently, my stepdaughter, using my car, thought nothing of having it towed away because of bad parking three times in one week. I should have considered it a terrible penalty, but, apparently, the only trouble involved was to go to Vauxhall to collect the vehicle and no great inconvenience was caused. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under the Bill it would cost £6."] Being an active young girl, she thought nothing of taking public transport down to Vauxhall to collect the car. She might have thought twice if she had had three stiff fines in one week. I think that we might well consider stepping up the fine.
  I welcome very much what is provided in the Schedule for what I think is known as the "fag end" parking permission. Under the present rule, one has to pay
  998
  twice for the same time, and this is a bad principle. Anyhow, it must be practically impossible to enforce, and it would seem rather to discourage people from getting their business done quickly, which is the very thing one wishes them to do. The new rule in the Schedule will be helpful to motorists who wish to stop briefly, perhaps, to buy a packet of cigarettes, cash a cheque at the bank, or something like that.
  The whole purpose of the Bill is, or should be, not to persecute the motorist but to assist him. On an earlier occasion which I remember well, my right hon. Friend said that he had 50 million advisers to help him in his task. I am glad that, in this Bill, he has taken a good deal of the advice tendered to him from both sides of the House in the December debate and, no doubt, advice offered to him from outside. Our reactions today have, on the whole, been very friendly from both sides, and I hope that they will demonstrate to him how warmly we support his energetic approach to the problems and how keen we are to give him a chance to put into practice his ideas and to make a real impression upon the ghastly urban traffic problem.
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) suggested to the Minister that, to cope with the great congestion of traffic in Central London, he should consider imposing some kind of fine or levy upon large employers of labour in Central London who would not co-operate in a scheme to stagger hours. The Minister rolled his eyes to heaven and declared that that would be a great invasion of liberty. It was suggested to him, also, that, for the same purpose of dealing with traffic congestion in Central London, it might be necessary to impose a restriction on the entry of private cars into the central districts of London. Again, the Minister piously declared that any Government of which he was a member would never be a party to such a measure.
  After posing on those two occasions as the champion of liberty, the right hon. Gentleman has now introduced a Bill which gives him dictatorial power to over-ride the London traffic authority for five years, which gives power to sign an

  999
  Order compelling pedestrians to cross the road by the subway whether they want to or not, which creates privileged classes entitled to park their cars where others may not, and which creates a kind of secondary police force the exact functions of which are still to be determined in an Order to be made by the Secretary of State which will have the force of law after merely running the gauntlet of one and a half hours' debate in the House of Commons.
  I do not quarrel with the Minister for introducing a Bill to do all these things. I think that nearly all of them are necessary. But I counsel him against an attitude of mind which is extremely chary of adopting any suggestion which might restrict the liberty of the motorist to come into the centre of a crowded town, or which might restrict the liberty of a private employer to employ labour at hours and in ways which intolerably add to public difficulty. I counsel him against being chary of restrictions in those respects, but being perfectly ready to abridge the liberty of local authorities, pedestrians and people generally.
  The Minister ought to appreciate the point which was very well made by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), that we cannot deal with this problem without a greater degree of self-control and acceptance of restriction all round. If the Minister rules out for all time any suggestions which might restrict the liberty of the motorist to crowd up the centre of a town, if he excepts certain classes from any restriction on their liberty, the amount of restriction will fall all the more heavily on the pedestrian and the general public. Therefore, I would advise the Minister not to close his mind permanently to the possibility of having at some stage to stop the unrestricted entry of the private motor car into Central London at any hour of the day that the motorist pleases.
  We have talked to a large extent in this debate as if the people who do not own motor cars were a small and dwindling minority of the population. I know that it is absurd to talk of the motor car today as if it were a rich man's privilege, that the number of motorists is growing and that it will grow a lot more, but I am very much aware of those of my constituents who go out to work the very great majority
  1000
  have to use public transport. I imagine that is true of nearly every constituency in the country.
  A good many of those constituents of mine write to me about the length of time they have to wait for buses and the slowness of the buses when they get on them. The complaints that they make are perfectly true. It is not the fault of the London Transport Executive, and only the most ignorant critic of public enterprise could suppose that it was. It is due to the fact that it is a sheer, mathematical impossibility for buses to progress with sufficient speed and regularity to meet the public demand while the congestion of traffic in Central London is what it is.
  If there is to be an unlimited right to fill up Central London with private motor cars, other people have to accept an ever slower and less frequent bus service. That is the kind of problem which is on the Minister's plate, and it will grow larger and larger as the number of motor cars increases. The hon. Member for Surbiton pointed out that in the last forty-five years the average speed of a London bus has decreased by a quarter of a mile per hour. A hurried calculation suggests that sixteen centuries from now the buses will have come to a complete standstill. We may not, in fact, need to look as far ahead as that.
  Seriously, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that the congestion of traffic in Central London is becoming a very grave problem indeed and that if he is genuinely satisfied that some of the remedies suggested from this side of the House will not work he has himself to find a remedy which will. We really cannot "kid" ourselves that we can solve all our motoring problems by building larger and better roads everywhere. It is true that we ought to have better roads in many parts of the country, but let us remember our special situation in this country.
  There is a limit to the lessons that we can learn from the United States. The whole human race could be put into the United States and there would still not be as many people to the acre there are in this country at present. That is why we cannot solve our problems solely in terms of larger, wider, more magnificent roads in every direction. There is not all that room. It means that we have to face

  1001
  the problem of how much restriction on the right to cover up a bit of road with one's own vehicle it is fair to impose on each person so that all can have the result which is most convenient.
  I do not believe that we can brush off indefinitely the idea that we must have some power to direct more heavy traffic off the roads on to the railways. We cannot brush that idea off by simply saying, "All this is an interference with liberty". A private businessman, I dare say, sends his goods by road because, on balance, that seems to him to be the cheapest thing to do and, in many cases, it will be because he can get them from door to door in a way which a railway system, however efficient, cannot hope to do. But the only justification for completely unfettered private enterprise is if it can be shown that what is cheapest for the private enterpriser is automatically best for the community as a whole. That is not so in the case of the use of the roads for very heavy traffic.
  The private enterpriser works out his balance sheet and finds that it pays him, but certain items do not enter into that sheet—the delay imposed on everybody else's traffic, his share of the frightful toll and death and mutilation on the roads. I go on the roads in a modest little car and I see them used for enormous vehicles, the size of railway wagons, carrying immense and heavy goods. That development will go on. It really cannot be sense, in a crowded island like ours, for us to be wringing our hands about the insufficient use of the railways while this sort of thing is going on on our roads.
  Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not a fact that some of these very large loads on the roads cannot go on the railways because they cannot pass under the tunnels? Is that not the difficulty?
  Mr. Stewart: I am not suggesting that every single piece of large traffic on the roads can go on the railways, but there is a good deal of it which it would be in the public interest to put on the railways. I do not believe that as a matter of principle we can stick to the idea that it is the sole concern of the man whose traffic it is as to whether it goes by road or by rail. This country is not large enough to allow unrestricted use of space on roads and transport
  1002
  facilities in that manner. We have to approach this question without prejudice.
  Mr. G. Wilson: Is the hon. Member suggesting in that case that we should limit the issue of C licences or the use of private vehicles by their owners?
  Mr. Stewart: I think that we have to do that. There is a variety of ways in which one could do it. The way which might appeal most to Members opposite would be to offer special financial inducements to people to send traffic by rail rather than by road. Another way would be to specify the size or weight of vehicles which might travel on the roads.
  I shall be told, if I make that suggestion, that I am going back to the antiquated idea, put forward when road traffic was beginning to grow, that we should limit the size of the carriage to the road. But that idea, which did not make sense at the end of the eighteenth century, would make sense today, when our population has enormously grown, when we are moving to the time when every family has a car, and when the size of vehicle it is physically possible to put on the road is now enormous.
  We cannot, on Second Reading, set out a whole scheme to make this thing practical, but suggestions such as those for a restriction on the sending of very heavy traffic on the roads, or on the unlimited right of the private motorist to go into the centre of these cities whenever it happens to suit him—provided that he can afford the comparatively moderate charge for a parking meter—cannot be brushed aside by saying that they are an infringement of liberty, because the provisions in the Bill are equally an infringement of liberty—though they do not happen to be an infringement in most cases concerning the motorist or the private industrialist. We all have to accept a certain amount of restriction all round if we are, as one hon. Member so well put it, to civilise the motor car.
  I said that I did not object, therefore, to the restriction measures in the Bill. They are inescapably necessary, but I want to make one or two brief comments on some of them. The first is the right hon. Gentleman's over-riding of the London authorities. Although I am myself a Londoner, and very keen on the proper rights of London local authorities, it is probably fair to say that in most

  1003
  cases, if any London local authority finds itself seriously annoyed by the Bill, it will probably have itself to blame, because it will not have been sufficiently diligent in this important job. I think it very unlikely that there will be many local authorities who will behave in that manner.
  The Minister himself paid a tribute to the London local authorities, as did the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), whose speech interested us all so much. I am certain that the Borough of Fulham will not find itself incommoded by the Bill, because it will never delay in taking any necessary action. Indeed, the Minister is more likely to be toiling behind the borough than the borough behind the Minister.
  However, I wonder whether it is necessary to give the Minister power to make regulations without reference to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. If the worry is that that Committee will take too long to consider a matter, because of infre-quency of meeting, could not the Bill say that the Minister should refer his regulations to that Committee, but should have power none the less to make regulations within a given time limit whatever the Committee may or may not have said? It would then be up to the Committee, having had the regulations referred to it, to comment promptly if it wanted to comment. I should have thought that that would have been as reasonable from the Minister's point of view, but not so drastically ruling out the Committee as the Bill now provides.
  There are two vexed political questions —in the strict sense of the word—which are raised by the Bill: punishment by consent, or punishment without prosecution, and the appointment of traffic wardens. I hope that we shall have an answer to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Darling). What exactly is saved by the ticket system as compared with the system whereby, on receipt of a summons, if one feels that one is guilty, one writes an apologetic letter and sends a blank cheque?
  I cannot see for myself that the ticket system, as compared with that system, saves any time or administrative labour, but there may be something I have
  1004
  missed. I would not object on principle, subject to safeguards, to the system suggested in the Bill, but I notice that this procedure is to apply only to such areas as the Secretary of State may specify.
  I presume that that partial application is merely to be a temporary measure and that the Government intend to begin by having this system in certain areas to see how it works, and that the ultimate objective is to have it over the country as a whole. It would not be desirable to have the country permanently divided into a patchwork of areas in some of which one could break the law with a sporting chance of not being caught, or, if being caught, of having to go through the whole legal process and perhaps paying the maximum fine, while in other areas one could get away with it at half price.
  If that were to be a permanent arrangement, motorists would begin to take a keen and painful interest in the signs on the roads marking that they were about to enter a certain county borough or a certain county. They would take care to make themselves well informed about which were half price areas. I can see the reason for beginning this procedure area by area, but I hope that it is clear that the Government intend that, if the scheme works, it will be a standard rule for the whole of the country.
  We might otherwise get into a position which would remind me a little of the laws made by one of the Saxon kings of this country, who provided that the crimes of murder and manslaughter could be dealt with by the payment of blood money to the family of the victim, but added a proviso that Welshmen could be killed for half price.
  On the other point about traffic wardens, I am very glad indeed that it has been suggested from both sides of the House that a woman can be a traffic warden as well as a man. We still fill ourselves up with a lot of nonsense about what things a woman can do and what things a woman cannot do. Over a job like this, we should start with a presumption that a woman can do it as well as a man. We might find by experience that there are some limitations to that general principle, but I am sure that that is the assumption with which we should start.

  1005
  It was a very good thing that the telephone was not invented 150 years ago, for if it had been men would probably have entrenched themselves firmly in working the telephone service, while women might be just trying to thrust their way into it, and a good many people would be arguing that women were emotionally and physically incapable of managing a switchboard. We still talk nonsense about a number of other occupations which, in many of the newer countries, women take on and make a success of. When we create a new organisation, it ought to be a new field, if humanly possible, for equality between the sexes.
  The creation of this corps of traffic wardens is quite a big political and judicial step. I am rather surprised that the only provision for any kind of Statutory Instrument dealing with traffic wardens is the Order made by the Secretary of State telling us what the limits of their functions are. That Order is to be subject only to the negative Resolution procedure. I should have thought that, before making this important new step, there was a good deal more that the House would like to know, and more, I think, than we shall be able to dig out in Committee, unless the Committee stage of the Bill is to be a great deal longer than I am sure the Minister hopes it will be.
  It seems to me that the Secretary of State ought to present to the House something like a code for traffic wardens. It might be the draft of the circular which he proposes to issue to the local authorities, or may be a list of positive regulations. There are quite a lot of things to be considered, possibly certain minimum conditions that ought to be fulfilled by anybody joining the force, some arrangements about the possibilities of promotion in it, and, of course, a much clearer definition of their function than we have at present.
  I stress this because I do not think that we ought to dodge the fact that the opportunities for corruption in a force like this might be quite considerable. When we are creating a new force, which has not yet had time to develop esprit-de-corps and standards of its own, unless we are very careful whom we recruit, and we get off on the right foot from the start with the prestige and dignity of the
  1006
  force, we might create something which is a disgrace to the whole idea. I think that the House ought to have presented to it in some form or another a code for traffic wardens, and that it would be worth at least half a day's debate, not just an hour and a half at the fag-end of the day, and on the negative Resolution procedure, but at least half or perhaps a full day's debate on it.
  These were the points that occurred to me on the Bill. There are, of course, a great many other detailed points which I could make, but which have been very well made already. I think that the Bill illustrates the principle that, when we make our society more complicated by inventing things like motor cars, we have to have a good many more laws and regulations. It is useless to think that we can preserve or pursue liberty by not making laws or regulations. In fact, in the modern State, we have to preserve liberty by finding out what are the sensible regulations to make.
  That is why I began what I had to say by suggesting to the Minister that if restrictions on the right of the pedestrian to walk across the road, rather than obey the Minister by going through a subway, are justified, it is possible that restrictions on the right of a private businessman to send certain traffic on the road, or restrictions on the right of a private motorist to enter the centre of a city whenever he chooses, may also be justified and in the public interest.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was right in saying that we can bring about good under the Bill only by means of restrictions. Every day there are 240 mutilated bodies—18 of them dead—on the roads. There are 677 other casualties a day, which are not classified as serious, because no bones are broken, but 240 broken, smashed bodies are to be found every day on the roads. Yet no Government have ever brought to this House a Road Safety Bill. Road Traffic Bills, yes, but never a Bill so devoted to road safety that it could properly be called a Road Safety Bill.
  We have had previous Road Traffic Bills which were, to quote a phrase from this Bill:
  "to facilitate the movement of traffic."

  1007
  This Bill is no exception in not concentrating upon safety matters. Its cumbersome Short Title
  "Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill"
  advertises that fact. In devising the Long Title my right hon. Friend has, it seems, endeavoured to preclude us from inserting road safety measures in the course of the Bill's progress through this House. He has expressed deep anxiety about accidents and casualties on the roads, but I noticed that in presenting the Bill he made no promise that a Road Safety Bill would follow it. Is there any such Bill in draft?
  In answer to a recent Parliamentary Question, my right hon. Friend said, in effect, that he would have to institute further investigations before producing a road safety Measure. Surely the House knows enough about the causes of accidents on the roads to fill a very substantial Bill. If my right hon. Friend can find time to bring in a Bill such as this, dealing with the removal and sale of abandoned vehicles, he can surely find time to bring in a Bill which will enable him to put into operation the scheme for testing vehicles—all vehicles and not merely old ones. The experience of other countries in the testing of vehicles has proved that it would save at least a hundred casualties a day in this country. If my right hon. Friend has time to bring in a Bill to appoint traffic wardens to deal with petty parking offences, he surely has time to bring in legislation bringing the police up to establishment, so that they can deal with dangerous offences, prevent dangerous and careless driving on the road, and enforce the speed limit. We know that that would save at least 250 casualties a day on the roads.
  If he has time to bring in a Bill for sticking notices of fines on the windscreens of parked cars we surely might have some legislation for sticking breathalysers or other testing instruments on the faces of drunken drivers. We know that that would save at least 150 casualties a day. I am quoting from research work and tests which have already been carried out on that subject.
  The Bill deals with the punishment of petty offenders, and has nothing to do with the more serious offenders or with improving the effect of punishment on
  1008
  the more serious offences. I am sure that the investigations of my right hon. Friend and the Road Research Laboratory into these matters will produce other causes and further information about road accidents, but I should have thought that we had enough already to make a real start on the reduction of the figure of 240 maimed bodies a day on the roads. While we delay, that number is increasing daily.
  I do not despair of making this a road safety Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for leaving just a chink or two in the Long Title to the Bill into which we might insert some road safety measures which are of such great urgency at the present time. Let me explain what I mean. I do not mean that they are of such great urgency now merely because in 1959 over 900 casualties a day occurred, which was an increase of 90 a day on the figures for 1958. In saying that they are of greater urgency now than ever before, I mean that the argument which has previously been used in a complacent way that accidents are not increasing as fast as the number of cars on the road is increasing no longer holds good.
  The figures for 1959 show that accidents increased by 11¼ per cent. The number of cars on the road increased by only 8·9 per cent. Let us call it a round figure of 9 per cent. So we have got to the stage, which is the first time that we have reached it, that accidents are increasing at a greater rate than the number of licensed cars on the road. My right hon. Friend's Department says in effect, "Oh, but it is not as bad as all that, because although the number of licensed cars increased by only 9 per cent., traffic on the road increased by 12 per cent. The traffic on the road increased at a greater rate than the casualties ".
  That 12 per cent. is an estimate by the the Road Research Laboratory. It may be right, or it may be wrong, but it looks to me very much like a tailor-made argument to suit the figures—11¼ per cent. increase in casualties, and 12 per cent. increase in traffic.
  I will take that 12 per cent. and compare it with the increase in serious accidents and fatalities. They have not increased just by 9 per cent. They have not increased just by 11¼ per cent. They have increased by 16 per cent. over the

  1009
  figures for 1958. Although the number of cars on the road has increased by 9 per cent., the serious accidents and fatalities have almost doubled that increase, and have increased by 16 per cent. That phenomenal increase shows that when there are collisions on the road they are now happening at a greater force, and therefore they must be happening at a greater speed. Surely that must be elementary without our going to the Road Research Laboratory to be told.
  That is the dire result of the progressive failure to enforce the speed limit. It is because cars are travelling faster and faster on the roads that we are getting this greater proportion of serious accidents. Serious accidents mean mutilated bodies on the road, and eighteen of them dead, a day.
  The Bill is intended to speed up traffic. If it is to have its full effect, it is essential that at the same time we should have compensating safety measures. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises what he is doing by introducing the Bill. At a time when casualties are increasing at such a rate, at a time when the increase in serious casualties is nearly double the rate of increase in the number of cars on the roads, he is creating a potential for a very serious increase in the road toll.
  I say frankly that I would not support this Bill unless I thought there was a possibility of getting some road safety measures into it to compensate for what my right hon. Friend wishes to do under the Bill. I trust that hon. Members opposite will not flippantly call it another Tory revolt when I say that if road safety measures are not put into the Bill in Committee and on Report I shall find it impossible to support it on Third Reading.
  In Clauses 1 to 13 my right hon. Friend has dealt mainly with the clearance of cars from the road in the sacred cause of the relief of congestion; but, as the Metropolitan Police no longer prosecute for exceeding the speed limit, this relief of congestion is merely creating an opportunity for illegal speeds unless we have compensating road safety measures.
  The remainder of the Bill, in Clauses 14 to 18, deals with improvements to the roads. Again I quote the words:
  "with a view to facilitating the movement of traffic."
  1010
  Is the prime object faster traffic or safer traffic?
  I will indicate where safety measures can be introduced into the Bill. By Clause 2 traffic wardens are to be appointed. I cannot avoid the comment that if we can find the men to undertake these duties and the money to pay them, would it not have been better to have increased the number in the police force to try to bring that a little nearer establishment, and might not one policeman have been a lot more valuable in saving lives on the road than three or four traffic wardens?
  However, I realise that these traffic wardens may release some of the police. I hope they will release the police to deal with the dangerous moving vehicle; in this Bill we are now apparently concerned only to find the men and money to deal with the inconvenient stationary vehicle. The wording of the Clause is that these wardens are:
  "to discharge in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of road traffic or with the enforcement of the law relating to road traffic;"
  That is a wide definition of their functions and a definition which is limited only by subsection (3), that is to say, with the prescription of these functions by the Secretary of State "as appropriate". So the traffic wardens need not merely be parking attendants, they need not merely deal with the minor offences set out in Clause 1 if the Secretary of State sees fit to appoint them to deal with other offences. What assurance have we that if these traffic wardens are appointed and if police personnel are released the police will deal with the prevention of careless or dangerous driving, the prevention of drunken driving—or drunken walking, which is just as dangerous on the roads—and the enforcement of the speed limit?
  I apologise for referring so frequently to the speed limit, but it has been proved that when a speed limit is enforced it does save life on the roads.
  That statement is undeniable. We have had the recent example from Munich where the enforcement of a 31 m.p.h. speed limit during 1959 cut fatalities by 35 per cent. compared with the 1958 figures for Munich. It is not very good to quote from Western Germany because the number of casualties

  1011
  there is about five times the number in this country, but when a speed limit of 62 m.p.h. was imposed on the autobahnen it halved the fatalities and cut the total number of accidents by 20 per cent. In the built-up areas in Western Germany, when a 31 m.p.h. limit was imposed it cut accidents by 18 per cent. A similar limit in the Netherlands cut accidents by 17 per cent. In Northern Ireland, where a speed limit was imposed in the built-up areas in 1956, personal injury accidents were cut by 24 per cent.
  Coming nearer home, we know that when the speed limit was imposed in built-up areas in this country in 1935, the pedestrian casualties in London caused by private cars alone—there had been a speed limit for commercial vehicles previously—were cut by 50 per cent. We cannot deny those facts. We cannot deny that when a speed limit is properly enforced it saves lives on the roads. I do not mind whether we appoint wardens as Class I and Class II traffic wardens, but surely these wardens of some class or another should be given power to deal with the dangerous offences on the road, with which I class breaches of the speed limit.
  May I turn for a moment to the improvement Clauses in the Bill and mention briefly in what way I think the Minister could apply safety improvements as well as speed improvements to the roads? There have been several proved life-savers in improving the roads. I will give some examples—the pedestrian-actuated lights; the all-red period at crossings; the subways and refuges for pedestrians—and we shall certainly need these if my right hon. Friend is to speed up the traffic on the main roads; the prevention of parking in dangerous spots, particularly outside the exits from schools; and the prohibition of overtaking at pedestrian crossings.
  If these faster roads are to be improved from the motorists' point of view, surely we must have more of the non-skid surfaces which the Road Research Laboratory has proved are so effective in preventing accidents. There must be proper spacing between vehicles. Can we not deal with the driver who sits on the tail of the other car? We shall never avoid accidents if it is the practice to
  1012
  drive so that one cannot pull up within the distance of one's vision.
  I will not delay the House with further examples of the kind of safety measures which I hope my right hon. Friend will introduce if he is successful with the Bill in getting a faster flow of traffic. It must be a safer flow as well as a faster flow of traffic. I remind him again of the 240 maimed and mutilated bodies on the roads every day, 18 of them dead every day, two or three of those 18 being children. Does not that prove that we cannot just shuffle this off by saying that in many cases the victim is to blame? It is surely our duty to try to devise safety measures to avoid this near-thousand casualties every day.
  As the hon. Member for Fulham said, restrictions will have to be imposed— unpopular restrictions, but I ask my right hon. Friend not to be afraid of their being unpopular. I ask him to be the first Minister of Transport courageous enough to save life on the roads.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I think that the whole House will agree that it was a very long time ago when the debate started. At least, it seemed so to me, waiting to make the final speech from this side of the House. There is so much in what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said with which I agree that I propose to follow him in quite an amount of detail.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Proceedings on the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock. —[Mr. Marples.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Mellish: Now that we have got that over, I can go on to say again to the hon. Member for Crosby that there was much in what he said with which I agree, as I propose to show later.
  My first pleasant task tonight is to congratulate the hon. Member for Leo-minster (Mr. Bossom), who made a first-class maiden speech. He showed great knowledge of his subject. He talked about the possibility of a monorail. It is

  1013
  not the first time that that has been mentioned in the House. I believe that there was a suggestion at one time that we should have one going to London Airport. Perhaps the Minister, when he gets round to it, will have a look at the matter for his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman talked also of the extension of traffic engineering and referred to the inevitable long-term solution of our transport problems. He is to be congratulated on his speech.
  I do not think that the Minister can complain of the tone and temper of the debate, but I say to him frankly that many of us were disappointed at his own performance, and also with his Bill. We expected that, when the Minister finally produced a Road Traffic Bill, it would be an extraordinary Bill, because, after all, he is quite an extraordinary Minister. Since he became Minister, about six months ago, he has poured out a torrent of words, both abroad and at home. He has been buzzing around with ideas, many of which have not been all that new, but he has always claimed that they were.
  We thought that the Bill would be quite different to anything that we had ever had before. We expected that it would be quite remarkable in its origin. On examining it, we find that there is not so much in it as the Minister would have us believe, as I propose to show. The Minister has had a Press reception which is hardly worthy of the Bill.
  I want, first, to deal with the fact that there are very grave omissions from the Bill. Here I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Crosby. We have to discuss a Bill of this character in the light of the problem which it sets out to conquer. Indeed, it is pertinent to know the figures which have been announced tonight—I gather by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry—of deaths on the roads in February. Four hundred and fifty-eight people were killed on the roads last month, 88 more than in February, 1959. It is against the background of that position on the roads today that we have to discuss the Bill.
  The Minister calls it the "Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill". Does it deal with road traffic? Does it make a major contribution towards road improvement? I propose to show that it does neither. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a
  1014
  genuine desire by all hon. Members of the Committee, from whichever side of the House they may come, to strengthen the Bill and to put something real into it which will try to achieve the objectives which we all desire.
  I will now deal with the grave omissions. As has been said, there is nothing in the Bill about road safety. There is nothing in it about speed control. There is nothing in it about drunken driving. We have heard much talk from the Minister about all the great things he saw in America. We have read some of the wonderful speeches he made in America. The Minister is the best thing they have had in America since Barnum—the greatest showman, anyhow. Next to Barnum, he is the best thing that America has had. The Minister made most of his great speeches there. I wish that he would come to the House and put these things into practice.
  There is nothing in the Bill about the purchase of land for securing proper development of vital intersections. The Minister knows better than anyone else that, when speaking of the so-called bottlenecks today, one of the problems is the acquiring of land, the power so to do, and the finance. There is nothing in the Bill to amend legislation needing amendment. There is nothing in the Bill about finance for expensive sites for off-street car parks. The Minister talks glibly about the places to be provided for off-street car parks, but money will have to be found for them. Who is to find the money? Will it be the Minister? Who will alter the existing powers? The Minister should introduce legislation to deal with that.
  This Bill, which is supposed to deal with road traffic and road improvement, makes no mention of the powers that the House will have to give the Minister if we are to build roads over rails. The right hon. Gentleman recently made a remarkable speech, on H. G. Wells lines, about roads over the railways. That is not impossible to visualise. The obvious thing to any planner for today and tomorrow is that we must build roads alongside the railways.
  My own constituency contains a perfect example; a whole viaduct of railway lines and not a single road alongside. In planning the cities and towns of tomorrow, the planners will see that roads

  1015
  are pushed as near to the rails as possible and pedestrians given some sort of freedom of movement in the centre. There are no powers to enable the Minister to do that, yet this is a Bill to deal with road traffic and road improvement.
  This Measure does not make a major contribution to the traffic problems we face. Someone in London has already described it as the Marples Self-Aggrandisement Bill, because he has taken over certain powers for himself— and I will deal with those. It does not follow, however, that he will do anything with those powers when he has them. After all, he has been in office for six months but we still have not seen any testing of vehicles.
  Even the Clause dealing with traffic wardens is only permissive. It does not produce the men. The Press that he has had would make one believe that suddenly, overnight, we shall have hundreds of wardens controlling our traffic—
  Mr. C. Pannell: Thousands.
  Mr. Mellish: Yes, thousands. There is nothing like that about it at all. It is purely permissive. It enables, not the Minister, but the Home Secretary, later to produce a Bill saying what powers such wardens, if available, can exercise under the supervision of the police. If we are to go along at the rate that the present Minister and Government have travelled over vehicle testing, when will that be? Another four years? Will there be legal difficulties?
  I am about to tell the right hon. Gentleman of some of the difficulties that he will encounter, because when he talks big we expect him to act big. He really cannot complain of the criticism from this side of the House. He really is the noisiest Minister that we have had. He has not stopped talking since taking office, in striking comparison with his predecessor, who was a much more silent Minister.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is present, because I want to tell him that in traffic circles he is respected and honoured for the work he did behind committee doors —hard, slogging work, and no publicity. That was the trouble with the hon. Member for Guildford; he did not advertise himself.
  1016
  On the other hand, the present Minister of Transport produces all the past ideas of his Department as if he alone had just thought of them this very minute. There is, indeed, hardly a thing which has been invented for which he has not been responsible. Against that background, we have this Bill, which, although we have given it a good reception, I will now show contains little about which we need get excited.
  I will deal, first, with the traffic wardens. As I say, Clause 2 is quite permissive. We do not know yet, and have not a clue what these wardens will be expected to do, or how. Here I must warn the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department that the police are extremely worried about what the traffic wardens may be asked to do. It has been said many times in the House, and I repeat it, "Do not let us do anything that will worsen the status of our policemen." They have a difficult enough job. They are badly undermanned. In the Metropolitan area alone they are more than 3,000 short of establishment. They dread the idea of our having second-grade traffic wardens doing certain jobs that will mean that the policemen will be expected to do more night work than ever before. They fear that some of the work taken over by the traffic wardens of tomorrow will lead to a lowering of their own standards.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite need not express surprise about that. My own brother was in the police force. For one-third of a working life of thirty years he was on night shift, for one-third he was on from 2 p.m. until 10 p.m., and for one-third, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. The police work the shift system, and if we are to have wardens who will do a great deal of the day-time traffic work it may mean that the policemen will be asked to do a lot more night work.
  I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat this anxiety of the police force very seriously. They are greatly worried about the employment of these wardens, and I am sure that that is why they have had to curb him all the time on the subject. The Home Secretary's hand is very clearly imprinted here. The impetuosity of the Minister of Transport will not make an intelligent

  1017
  Home Secretary introduce legislation which would in any way weaken his position in relation to the police forces, or convey the impression to them that their conditions would be worsened.
  I say to the Joint Under-Secretary of State that we want to know what is in the Home Secretary's mind. We have heard from the Minister of Transport a vague reference to collecting the voices. We are a bit "fed up" with the argument from the Minister about collecting voices. He makes flamboyant speeches in the country and then comes here and says, "We should like to know what the House thinks about these things before we introduce them." We want a clear and positive idea of what he has in mind. I cannot believe that this Clause was introduced merely on the basis of something that has been deferred for many months. I do not think the Home Secretary would have done that. There are many anomalies which can come about as a result of it.
  One important thing which I should like to point out is that in Clause 1, dealing with fixed penalties, reference is specifically made to the question of lights. People are to receive a fixed penalty for a lighting offence or for lack of reflectors which are required by law. The Guardian dealt with this point, and it brings out the difficulty with which we shall be faced under the fixed penalty system. I quote from The Guardian of the day after the Bill was published:
  "Automatic fines for parking in the wrong place are one thing, but the same off-hand treatment for the potentially much more serious offence of driving without lights is another matter. The law should make a clear distinction between motoring offences that break administrative regulations and those that may endanger life. Driving without lights may be a matter of momentary forgetfulness, or it may arise from using a vehicle in bad repair in selfish disregard of other people's safety. The degree of seriousness in the offence is for a court to decide. In no case should it be possible to calculate cynically that the price of a ' ticket' would be less than the cost of repairs."
  Tickets can be given for so many offences that a grave injustice can be done to those who receive them. I warn the Under-Secretary now that in Committee we shall consider this matter as good democrats should, to ensure that the justice which we have in this country will not be changed.
  1018
  If we introduce a large number of traffic wardens, as the Minister has glibly announced—that is the impression that he has conveyed outside the House—one system which has been of enormous benefit to the motorist and the authority in this country will disappear, and that is the system of caution. If a motorist commits an offence today, generally the police send him a caution. They do not fine him. Thousands of motorists are sent cautions because the policeman on the spot has taken into account the difficulties which the motorist may have had to face.
  Let me put the case of the lorry driver doing his legitimate work, coming from, say, Bristol to London to deliver his load. He cannot go round the back street to deliver it, because there are no facilities for unloading. He goes into the high street and off-loads. This is his livelihood. He is not responsible for the fact that there are no off-loading facilities. The policeman finds out that it is a genuine case and the driver may get a warning, or he may not even be reported.
  Under the system envisaged in Clause 1, however, the man will be fined £2. He can go to court and plead not guilty if he likes. He has had the temerity to off-load a vehicle in a main thoroughfare; he had no alternative but to do that. Is he to go to court and argue his case? If he does, what chance will he have? By this system we shall be removing one of the great contacts between the police, on the one hand, and the public, on the other. It is inappropriate that at this time, above all others, we should be introducing such a Measure when a Royal Commission is now discussing the relationship between the police and the public. I issue this warning and I put it on record as one speaking on behalf of many police who view this problem of the fixed fine, the ticket with the fixed penalty, and the problem of traffic wardens with some temerity which we cannot ignore.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby that if, at the end of the day, we are to have a corps of fully trained traffic wardens, men of integrity with a great deal of training and police supervision, I would much prefer that we had an increase i nthe numbers in our police force, and we can only get them by improving their conditions and salaries.

  1019
  I wish to say one other thing, which I have been asked to say here, and which is very important. There has been a great deal of criticism of the present system and of how the Minister is to improve it in the Bill. Let us give a little credit for what has gone on in the past. Do not lot us denigrate our own system and people too much. Let us try to give credit where credit is due. I would point out that at present the police, when dealing with a vehicle for obstruction, report the details of the vehicle to higher police authority.
  In many hundreds of cases, other charges have flowed from those charges of obstruction. Vehicles have been found with false number plates and, on investigation, to have false engines. I was asked to say that the famous Gutteridge murder case was discovered only because the police reported a vehicle which had been parked in an incorrect place. Consequent on inquiries, the owner of that vehicle was traced and so it was that the murder charge followed.
  I do not want to be like the Minister, and capture the headlines in the Press by that sort of statement, but police work today will go by the board if we introduce a slap-happy system of sticking a ticket on a car and saying "That is the fine. Pay it and you need not go to court." If I park a car for five minutes I may get a ticket. If I park a car for five hours I may get a ticket. There is no discrimination. We shall argue it out in Committee to see that justice is given to the sort of people—and this mainly anti-motorist Bill—which this Bill will hurt very much indeed. We do not want it to go out from the House that we are anti-motorist.
  I want to deal with that part of the Bill which gives the new Minister new powers and particularly in the London area. I speak as a Londoner. The Minister gave us some lurid examples and he was backed up by his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, who gave one or two examples of how there have been delays in London. I do not deny—I concede at once—that there is need for a streamlining of the procedure by which the Metropolitan boroughs of London should consult with the Minister. It is almost indefensible that some schemes have been held up by one or two local
  1020
  authorities. The Minister, however, might have told us the other side of the picture. They have done, and are still doing, a magnificent job in London. They have tried desperately hard to advance road safety, of the kind that appeals to the hon. Member for Crosby and many of us.
  The Minister might have pointed out that one of the reasons for so much frustration in London, as in every other city, is that previous Ministers of Transport and the Treasury have refused to give money to carry out the plans that the local authorities wanted to undertake. It has been said that the pigeonholes at the Ministry are stuffed with plans that have been turned down on ground of finance. To turn round and glibly say, "We have had so much trouble with these local authorities; we must streamline it on the basis that the fault is all on their doorstep", is too much.
  We heard from the Minister the oldest story in the world, about the latrine that was in the wrong place, where people would commit suicide if they used it, but that the terrible local authority would not get rid of it. The present Minister and his officials are not the only people who have seen sense on this. Those in London who have the problem of dealing with transport have not been idle all these years.
  The hon. Member for Guildford was a member of a committee which submitted a report to the right hon. Gentleman —he has it now in his office and I hope that he has troubled to read it—dealing with London's roads. The committee has done a first-class job. Let me read to the House what Londoners, those responsible for traffic, feel should be done in this great city of ours and put it on record, because this expresses the point of view of those who have made a contribution towards dealing with the problem.
  They ask that physical improvements to the whole of London's internal road system should progress with all speed. They realise that increasing demands will be made upon its capacity by the improvement of important routes joining it at the periphery. So that the value of improvements to the outside routes is not lost, they say that particular care should be taken to ensure that their capacity in London is matched by our internal radial and distributive roads.

  1021
  They make the point that a thorough traffic review of key intersections should be carried out to obtain the maximum improvement in their capacity. Again and again, they have urged that traffic engineering techniques applied in this way can be used to "tune up" London's road system. They have pleaded that London's roads must be kept clear for moving traffic. To this end, comprehensive schemes of parking control in Central London are essential. This must be accompanied by public off-street parking facilities and facilities for loading and unloading off the main thoroughfares. They refer to the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and show ways in which it can be tackled. These plans, ideas and general views were submitted to the Minister in 1959, and I put them on record now.
  London has already declared that to streamline its present machinery it wants a Greater London Board of Traffic, a body of not more than six, and preferably of four, people. This board should be given certain powers and the public relations aspect between the local authorities and the Minister should be maintained. I am asked to say that the intensification and streamlining of the consultative machine could be the answer to the problem of consultation, to which the Minister has referred both today and in the recent debate. It is London's view that this is infinitely preferable to the adoption of a more authoritative line at the Ministry level.
  Let me now turn to a statement which supports what I have just said, a statement made by one of the right hon. Gentleman's top civil servants concerning the Minister and his powers, which the right hon. Gentleman has so keenly taken today and which both sides of the House have conceded to him. Both sides have said that this is exactly what this great, lively, little Minister needs.
  The chief civil servant whom I am about to quote did not mention the right hon. Gentleman personally, but was giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London on Thursday, 14th January. The witnesses before the Royal Commission were the Ministry of Transport's representatives. The Chairman of the Royal Commission asked the civil servants what were their views about the Minister
  1022
  becoming a traffic authority for London. I hope I do not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but this is all in print.
  Speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, Mr. L. J- Dunnett, C.B., C.M.G., said:
  "What I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, is that in my view it would be possible, but undesirable, for the Minister to be the traffic authority. In the first place, if you were to put this authority on the Minister, I think we have got to consider how many functions a single Ministry can effectively discharge. The Ministry of Transport, although not now responsible for civil aviation, is responsible for the shipping industry, for shipbuilding and ship-repairing, for internal transport of all kinds, including the railways and road transport, for the highway needs of the country, for road safety and various other things as well. Its main functions are policy and overall planning. To attach to a Ministry of this kind direct responsibility for the management of traffic in a particular area would, I suggest, be undesirable, though, as I have said, it would not be impossible."
  That was the view of the Minister's top civil servant. Judging by the way that the Minister comes forward today, however, one would almost think that he was unemployed. He has dashed forward now to ask for powers to straighten out the 28 Metropolitan boroughs, both Tory and Labour. There is no party politics in it. I should not mind if he had an original thought, but there is nothing in the Bill which is original. Nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said since last October has been original, although he has said it all with such a lot of "hoo-ha" that one would imagine that he had invented the lot.
  We judge the Minister by results. He has been Minister since October. We had a Pink Zone, but we have not got it now. We had the proposal to prohibit U-turns, but this has been withdrawn. The Minister has been saying a lot, but, in this House, where we are able to cut him down to size, we judge him by results. As I say, we have now no Pink Zone and the proposal to abolish U-turns has been withdrawn. They were the only two things he proposed. All we have now is a Bill called the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill.
  I understand that it has been decided that we shall sit in Committee on three days a week, because there is great need for speed with the Bill. I ask the Minister to believe that we on this side are sincere and genuine when we say

  1023
  that we want to help in whatever ways possible to speed the flow of traffic and to improve road safety, but there are so many grave omissions from the Bill that we shall, in Committee, have a great deal more to say.
  We are a truly great democracy. We have never, at any rate during the last hundred years or so, had any dictators in this country. What we have done we have done by consultation and good will. At the end of the day, we have had the best from local authorities and from the British people by guiding them along. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) spoke about our recent visit to Germany. The difference between the German an the British peoples is that the Germans blindly accept whatever authority says, whereas the British do not. British people will accept authority only when they see that its laws are fair. They judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. In that sense, we in the House represent people outside. We want to maintain our democracy, but, at the same time, we wish for true overall planning to be applied to our road traffic problems. We wish money to be provided for research and we want plans to be produced which will make a genuine contribution towards the solution of our long-term difficulties.
  If the Minister produces those things and comes to the House of Commons to ask for the money and the authority necessary, he will receive our support. In the meantime, he must expect us to offer a great deal of criticism of his Bill, because we shall wish, on behalf of all of those whom we represent, to strengthen it.
  10.28 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My right hon. Friends are grateful to the House for the support which, with the exception of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), it has given to the Bill and for the valuable and constructive suggestions that have been made. Although I greatly admire nearly all the performances of the hon. Member for Bermondsey, I think that his sincerity and enthusiasm on this occasion over-ran his sense of discretion and judgment. What he suggested were
  1024
  omissions from the Bill were either matters contained in it, as I shall show, or were matters already provided for in our law. His strictures upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, greatly though my right hon. Friend enjoyed them, were really not appropriate.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regards both the ticket system and the traffic warden system as experiments which should not be tried on a full scale in the first place but which should be gradually developed. In answering the various points which have been made about those two proposals, I shall explain the gradual nature of the process.
  Doubts have been expressed about the ticket system on the ground that only a court should decide the issue of guilt and only a court should award appropriate punishment. That is a sound general principle; but are we really departing from it in the Bill? The motorist can always decide not to pay the fixed penalty but to go before the court instead. He can make the decision and act on it merely by doing nothing except wait for a summons. But for the benefit of those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) called the purists in this matter, I should remind them, as my right hon. Friend the Minister did, that there are respectable precedents for giving the offender the option of paying a fixed penalty instead of exposing himself to the rigours of the legal process.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned three, one of them over 100 years old and still used frequently today, not leading to any injustice and not bringing the law into any disrespect. There is the well-tried procedure under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1957, which allows motorists and others to plead guilty by post. I suggest that that is a long step towards what we propose in the Bill, especially as some offenders already enclose a cheque for what they expect the fine to be, and sometimes the court accepts the cheque and the matter is finished with in that way.
  It is rather interesting to note that in Central London 90 per cent. of the motorists who are charged with parking offences or obstruction are pleading guilty by post. It is hardly surprising that in those circumstances the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) suggested that we should confine

  1025
  ourselves to these rather simple motoring offences, which are numerous under the present procedure, and he and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) wanted to know what time would be saved by the ticket system which is not already saved by the Magistrates' Courts Act procedure.
  The Magistrates' Courts Act procedure involves a good deal of work which will not be involved in the standard penalty procedure. In the first place, under the Magistrates' Courts Act the police have endless work to do finding the driver. They have first to find the registered owner and then ask him who the driver was, and they sometimes have considerable difficulty chasing up these cases, whereas if a notice is either merely served on the person in charge of the car or put on the windscreen the business of chasing the driver, which involves so much administrative work for the police, could be avoided.
  Secondly, the police then have to apply to the court for a summons in every case, and they have to make out for the court a brief written statement of the case, which means more administrative work. The court then issues the summons. Then it has to list the case. The case has to be set down for hearing even if a plea of guilty has meanwhile been sent through the post. So, as the Minister said, we get the courts cluttered up with these cases, and there are quite considerable arrears in some of the London courts.
  Then there is the further matter that if one has a case tried in court by summons one has to have the inspector, who is normally prosecuting in these cases, attending, and one has to have the policeman present to give evidence. The Magistrates' Courts Act, in those cases where there has been a plea of guilty by post, saves only the time of the policeman who witnessed the offence, because if there has been a plea of guilty by post he need not attend the court.
  The limited range of offences in Clause 1 (1) could, I agree, be extended by Order, but my right hon. Friend has no intention of doing so. However, when we are experimenting it is right that we should leave a certain amount of flexibility and room for development. After all, we must not assume permanent omniscience on the part of any one
  1026
  Parliament. It may well be that in years to come in some small particular this range of offences could be extended for some purely technical reason and it would be quite absurd to have to bring in a Bill specially to deal with it.
  This is much the better way and there will, of course, be a degree of Parliamentary control, which we can discuss in Committee. These offences are nearly all what are called "self-proving"; that is to say, there is no possible doubt that an offence was committed, and that the driver committed it—for example—if his car is left unattended in a place where parking or waiting are forbidden.
  An example given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) concerned the driver who might maintain that someone else took the car without his consent and then left it in the place where it was found parked. It is open to the driver, if he receives a ticket, to explain the matter to the police or wait until he is brought to court and explain the matter there.
  Certainly no injustice is done, but if the driver concerned knows perfectly well that he is guilty of the offence he will generally welcome the chance to be rid of the matter by paying a fixed penalty, and thereby avoiding trouble and expense. We think that it is much better for all concerned to dispose of these many cases in that simple way than to clutter the court lists with thousands of these cases very year, especially as this involves no departure from our fundamental principle of justice, that he who wishes to should have his case heard by a court of law.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields also asked what was to happen about persistent offenders, those people who are always getting tickets. He wanted to know what records were to be kept. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, as the money has to be paid to the justices' clerk, the justices' clerk will always have a record, but it must not be thought that the court itself will thereby be given judicial notice of the matter. The payment of a fixed penalty is not a conviction and it is not a sentence, and it would not be right for the fact that there has been such a penalty paid in the past on one or two or more occasions to be brought to the notice of the court.

  1027
  He also asked whether the records will be kept by the police. Of course, it is up to them to decide whether to keep records or not. They are at liberty to do so if they wish. The Commissioner of Police has told the Home Secretary that he has no intention whatever of keeping central records. He wants to get rid of paper work, and has no intention of giving the police additional paper work by keeping records of all these standard penalties.
  However, of necessity, the police constable or the traffic warden who serves the notice for the payment of the standard penalty will have to have a note of the circumstances in case, eventually, there is to be a case in court, and to that extent the police will keep a record.
  Mr. Ede: In the policeman's notebook, I suppose?
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman knows police procedure very well, and he knows that a policeman has to record everything in his notebook. If he goes to court without having done so he may be in a difficulty.
  Mr. Ede: How is the book to be preserved?
  Mr. Renton: That is a point which we had better explore in Committee.
  Mr. Benn Mr. Benn rose—
  Mr. Renton: I am hoping to get into top gear, because I have a great deal to answer. If everyone is going to try and cut in I may be impeded in my progress.
  The warden or the constable may have noted that a particular car is persistently parked in some place or area, and that the driver is always having to have these notices served on him. In such a case, the warden or constable is quite at liberty to say to the police officer he is working under, "This fellow offends much too often. It is no good serving any more notices on him—let us take him to court." But if that motorist is taken to the court the fact that he has been a persistent offender and has had many notices served on him will not be brought to the notice of the court.
  Mr. Ede: The court may have some intelligence and realise why he has come.
  Mr. Renton: Not necessarily. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might
  1028
  raise that point. But the court will not know. The court will not know whether such a person has come because he is a persistent offender, or because he has refused to pay the fixed penalty although he is not a persistent offender, or because he has merely been brought before the court by way of summons owing to the mere omission to serve him with one of these fixed penalty notices. Those are at least three circumstances, and the imagination of hon. Members may run to other circumstances in which people will be brought before the court without the court having any idea why.
  Mr. Ede: If the hon. and learned Member had spent as much time on the bench as he has in front of it he would realise that benches are more intelligent than he thinks.
  Mr. Renton: Intelligence in this case is bound to be tinged with speculation and, that being so, I do not think the point raised by the right hon. Member need be considered very deeply.
  I now want to deal with the question of traffic wardens, about which many questions have been asked. This experiment has been welcomed by all hon. Members except the hon. Member for Bermondsey. The main point to bear in mind is that the traffic wardens will be under police control—that is, under the control of the chief officer of the police and not under the police authority, although outside London it will be the decision of the police authority whether traffic wardens should be employed or not.
  Secondly, we do not contemplate that there should be two law enforcement authorities. The police will remain responsible for law enforcement, and whatever the traffic wardens do will be done under their supervision. We know that the Commissioner would like to have traffic wardens in London, but no police authority outside London needs to have them if it does not wish to do so. I have been asked whether women may be employed as wardens. Certainly they may be, if either the Commissioner or the police authority—outside London-wishes to have them.
  Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. and learned Member should be plain about this. The Bill refers to "persons". We do not want police authorities to exercise local

  1029
  options whether women should be employed. We want a general direction to go out from this House that people should be considered on their merits. It should not be on the recommendation of the chief constable.
  Mr. Renton: When the word "persons" is used in the English language it refers to both sexes of the human race. The Commissioner intends to start recruiting and training wardens as soon as he can make the necessary arrangements after the Bill becomes law. The authorities outside London may very well wish to see how he gets on in London before they commit themselves.
  The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) asked what would happen to the pensions of retired police officers who enlisted as wardens. The answer is that such people will be able to keep their pensions without abatement if they are recruited as wardens, and they may eventually get wardens' pensions as well, so they will come off very well.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough asked me to specify what duties my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would lay down for wardens to perform. First, I would point out that wardens will not have power to arrest; they will not have power to demand the name and address of anybody, or have power to stop a moving car. My right hon. Friends intend that from the outset of the system they shall be able to advise and help motorists where to park; to act as parking meter and car park attendants and to carry out the work of school crossing patrols; to deal with parking offences, and to serve notices under Clause 1 if they are acting in an area in which an order under Clause 1 has been made. Finally, they will be able to deal with lighting offences of stationary vehicles, but not of moving vehicles.
  Mr. Benn: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously saying that a car travelling with its lights off cannot be stopped, whereas a car which is stationary and less likely to do damage while it has its light off can be dealt with by a traffic warden?
  Mr. Renton: If the hon. Member had listened to more of the debate than he has he would have understood, as was made clear by the Minister of Transport in opening the debate, that in starting this experiment in the employment of wardens it is intended to confine their attention to certain duties in relation to stationary traffic, and I was asked what would happen if a car was on the move with its lights off. As is contemplated at the moment, the traffic warden would not be able to do what a policeman can do, step out into the road and stop the car.
  Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me?
  Mr. Renton: No, I really must make progress.
  I should point out, for the sake of clarity, that wardens may be employed in an area where the ticket system does not operate and, conversely, the ticket system may operate in areas where there are no traffic wardens. In other words, they can operate the system only where it has been extended to an area under Clause 1, and my right hon. Friend has authorised wardens generally to operate the system by an Order under Clause 2 and where the Commissioner of Police or a chief constable, as the case may be, has decided that wardens shall be used for that purpose in that area.
  It is important to stress, as has been expressed as a hope by several hon. Members during the debate, that the traffic wardens will be able to help motorists. They will undoubtedly be able to help the police and we believe that the work of the traffic wardens will help to overcome our traffic problems. The Home Secretary has given a great deal of attention to this matter in recent months and he is confident that this experiment is worth supporting. He will give it all the encouragement he can.
  I turn to those Clauses of the Bill for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is responsible. In doing so I hope I may be allowed to endorse the tributes paid to him in this debate for his energy and intention to get things done. The situation he has to face is worsening fast. In trying to meet it he has found that the present law contains many gaps and obstacles and he is

  1031
  dependent on far too many other people —people who do not have to share his responsibility to the public and therefore have not quite his sense of urgency. It is therefore not surprising that some of the Clauses increase his power to guide and to enable him to override these other people.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, in a most interesting speech which the whole House greatly enjoyed, the period of five years for which the Minister is asking is certainly none too long. The other people mainly concerned to whom I was referring are the local highway authorities. It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Smethwick that powers were being taken from them by this Bill. Nothing of the kind; indeed, they are being encouraged to use the powers they have already and they are being given yet further powers.
  Let us consider the position at the moment. In Clauses 3, 4, 8 and 16, power is given to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to act where local authorities have failed to act or to require them to do things which they have failed to do. However, the Bill helps and encourages those authorities by increasing their powers in various ways. Clauses 3 and 6 and the Schedule simplify their procedure for applying for designation orders for parking meter places. Under Clause 5 (7), the Minister may delegate to authorities outside London power to make designation orders.
  Under Clauses 7 and 10 local authorities will be able to have controlled parking schemes and experiment with parking discs. Under Clauses 10 and 11 their powers to provide car parks are greatly improved. Clause 12 gives a new power to make a charge when cars are removed from streets or car parks. At present, that can be done only when they are removed from parking meter sites. We shall no doubt consider in Committee what the charge should be and whether what is proposed is enough.
  Under Clause 13, local authorities will have power to dispose of abandoned vehicles. Here I would particularly invite the attention of the hon. Member for Bermondsey, who seems to have lost interest in the debate entirely, or perhaps only in my speech.
  Mr. Mellish: I wondered whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was in top gear yet.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman complained, quite wrongly and unfairly, that certain road improvements in the London area were being held up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport because of lack of finance. My right hon. Friend has not had power under the present law to make grants to local authorities for minor improvements, but under Clause 14 they will get that money. They will get it when it is part of a traffic scheme agreed between the Minister and the local authority and approved by him.
  There was one matter on which I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Bermondsey. That was the very felicitous way in which he congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Bossom). We all remember with affection the many years' service which his father gave to the House. In congratulating my hon. Friend I express the hope that he will be with us even longer than his father was, which I believe was thirty-eight years, and that we shall hear from him at least as many very interesting speeches as we heard from his father.
  Mr. C. Pannell: A very talkative man.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) pointed out that the Minister of Transport will have power to establish parking meter schemes himself. The hon. Gentleman asked whether, like local authorities, my right hon. Friend will be obliged to use the surplus net profits from them for creating new off-street parking facilities. The answer is that my right hon. Friend will not be obliged to use the money in that way, but I understand from him that in fact he intends to do so.
  Several hon. Gentlemen urged my right hon. Friend to take even more stringent measures than the law at present contains to prevent accidents on the roads. It was suggested, in particular, that drunken drivers should be dealt with. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he is very conscious of this matter, but that he has no intention of proceeding on what he calls "a hunch". He intends to proceed only on scientific evidence, which is now being collected by the Road Research Laboratory which is investigating the 166 fatal accidents which took

  1033
  place alter Christmas, and is making a very careful survey of the factors which prevailed.
  When my right hon. Friend has that evidence he will study the results of the survey with great interest and consult his colleagues in the light of them.
  The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Smethwick and other hon. Gentlemen asked what was to be done about introducing compulsory vehicle testing. There have been a number of technical difficulties, but they have now been overcome and my right hon. Friend hopes to introduce a successful scheme in a few weeks' time, and he hopes it will come into operation in the autumn.
  In conclusion, I would say that, like most hon. Members, I am a keen motorist
  1034
  and I have often wondered which is the greater evil, being unable to get to one's destination because the traffic will not move, or being unable to leave one's car anywhere when one gets to one's destination. I think that of these two great evils, the first is greater than the last. But the aim of the Bill is to avoid both of them, to get the traffic moving and eventually to create more parking space. These things cannot be done without the Bill, and we believe that the Bill will achieve this purpose.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROADS IMPROVEMENT [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

  Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act") to facilitate the enforcement and administration of the law relating to road traffic and to vehicles on roads by providing for the punishment without a prosecution of offences in connection with lights or reflectors on vehicles, or with obstruction, waiting, parking and kindred matters, and for the employment of traffic wardens in aid of the police, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport—

  (a)in making grants towards the cost of the provision and maintenance, in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, of off-street parking places;

  (b) in placing traffic signs on or near roads in the London Traffic Area;

  (c) in exercising default powers in respect of duties with respect to obstructions or traffic signs;

  (d) under arrangements entered into by him for the temporary provision of parking accommodation for vehicles in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, elsewhere than on the highway, in respect of the following matters (including his expenditure in making payments to any other person in respect of expenses incurred for those matters by that person), that is to say—

  (i) obtaining or making available a site for use as parking accommodation;

  (ii) preparing or adapting a site for use as parking accommodation, or restoring it after that use;

  (iii) controlling and managing the site during its use as parking accommodation, and meeting any liability arising out of that use or out of anything done in the course of that use;

  (e) in executing works for the improvement of a highway in the metropolitan police district or the City of London;

  (2) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section four of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1955, or section two hundred and thirty-six of the Highways Act. 1959, being an increase attributable to any provisions of the
  1036
  new Act enabling the Minister of Transport to make, under subsection (1) of section eight of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, or subsection (1) of section two hundred and thirty-five of the Highways Act, 1959, grants for the improvement of classified roads in the metropolitan police district or the City of London.

  (3) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under subsection (1) of section ninety of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, being an increase attributable to any provisions of the new Act extending the power of the Minister of Transport to make orders under subsection (5) of section eighty- five of the said Act of 1960;

  (4) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment, being an increase attributable to any provision of the new Act providing that the widening of the carriageway of a highway shall not be treated as being otherwise than an improvement by reason only of the fact that it involves diminution of, or or removal of, a footway thereon;

  (5) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section three of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1950, being an increase attributable to any provisions of the new Act relating to the appointment of traffic wardens;

  (6) any increase attributable to the new Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;

  2. The payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under or by virtue of the new Act by the Minister of Transport or any other government department and of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable into the Exchequer under any other enactment. —[Mr. Marples.]

  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Before the Committee passes this Money Resolution, may I point out to the Home Secretary that a number of suggestions have been made during Second Reading, notably by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and other hon. Members on that side of the House, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), that, while supporting the Bill, they wish to suggest improvements in Committee.
  The Minister of Transport himself, I think, indicated that one of the reasons why certain provisions in the Bill were deliberately left vague was because the Government wished to hear the views of hon. Members. Speeches have been

  1037
  made on both sides of the House welcoming the Bill, but hoping that it could be extended, and, in particular, suggestions have been made that before the Minister is given these powers there should be additional provisions dealing with road safety.
  It has been emphasised in the debate over and over again that it is not enough merely to speed up traffic on the roads, but that it is equally important to do something to stop the frightful carnage on the roads. The hon. Member for Crosby went so far as to say that, without wishing to lead another Tory revolt, he, for one, was not prepared to support the Bill on Third Reading unless a number of provisions were introduced dealing with road safety.
  As far as 1 can see, the Money Resolution, in its present form, is somewhat limited in scope. It does not seem to be nearly wide enough to enable the Committee to consider either the Amendments which would be desired by the hon. Member for Crosby, or those desired by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think that that may also be true in connection with grants to local authorities.
  For example, I observe that in paragraph 1 (1, a) of the Resolution, payment out of moneys provided by Parliament would be authorised for making grants in the Metropolitan Police district or the City of London, but not elsewhere. Similarly, paragraph 1 (1,b) is limited to operations in the London traffic area. Local authorities outside London have a good deal to say about the grants which they think they will be entitled to receive with regard both to minor improvements and to the provisions of the Bill generally.
  Therefore, I suggest to the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport that they should not ask the Committee to accept this Resolution tonight, but that they should consider, in the light of the debate, whether, in fact, the Resolution is adequate to enable the Committee to debate the kind of Amendments which Members of both sides of the Committee have said they wish to debate.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely we are to get a reply to the points which have been raised by my hon.
  1038
  Friend. The Money Resolution is exceedingly tightly drawn. My hon. Friend did not go through the various items mentioned in the Resolution, but if one cares to go through them one finds that it is almost impossible to put anything else into the Bill that has a bearing on the matter contained in the Bill because of the detail in which the items of expenditure are categorised.
  Paragraph 1 (1, a) relates to off-street parking; sub-paragraph (1, b) deals with traffic signs; sub-paragraph (1, c) concerns the exercise of default powers; and so on right through the Resolution. There is no elbow room at all in it to enable one to try to improve the Bill to any considerable extent, if, in so doing, it involves any extension of the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, the plea made by my hon Friend is quite reasonable.
  I, too, have sat through a great deal of the debate and have listened to various speeches, and in practically all the speeches suggestions have been made for the improvement of the Bill, almost all of which would be out of order in the light of this Money Resolution. That is not good enough. I am certain that if there are any Scottish Members on the Committee they will probably want to raise matters connected with traffic in Scotland. We have not heard much about that.
  Once again, we are tightly bound by a Money Resolution. We ought at least, out of courtesy if for no other reason, to have some explanation from the Minister or the Home Secretary as to why the Resolution is drawn in this fashion; and we ought to know- whether it would permit some of the matters which my hon. Friend has mentioned being raised, and, if not, whether the Government would reconsider the matter.
  11.4 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): May I say a word about the two points which were raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), who complained a little about the terms in which the Money Resolution has been drawn? His first point was that it was drawn in such terms that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for hon. Members who wished to table

  1039
  Amendments in Committee dealing with pure road safety matters to do so.
  I must tell the Committee that our difficulty here is timing, There may be all sorts of reasons why a road safety Bill or provisions relating to road safety might be considered by the House. I do not propose to traverse again the ground already covered during the debate relating to the marginal road safety effects that the Bill and its provisions will have, but I must tell the Committee quite honestly that if the field were open to all manner of road safety Amendments the prospects of our getting the Bill by the end of this Session would be remote. It is important that the House should have this in mind.
  During the Second Reading debate, there has been general acceptance that we need these powers to get on and deal with the difficult situation with which we are faced in London and elsewhere. Because of the mounting volume of traffic coming on to the roads, we do not have much time. For that reason, there is a good deal of urgency about the Bill.
  If, in Committee—I put the problem fairly and squarely to the party opposite—we are faced with a mass of Amendments and a large number of new Clauses, the way having been opened by an extension of the Money Resolution, to deal with road safety matters, I doubt very much whether we would be able, with the best will in the world, to get the Bill out of this House and into another place by the early part of July. If that is the case, it is clear that we would not get the Bill by the autumn.
  The hon. Member's second point concerned whether we would so alter the Money Resolution as to enable grants for minor road improvements to be made to local authorities outside the London area. Possibly, the hon. Member is under a misunderstanding. In London, as has been made clear during the debate, the Minister of Transport is technically the traffic authority. The highway authorities are the 28 Metropolitan boroughs inside the London County Council area and the other local authorities outside the county area but still within the London and Home Counties traffic area. There is, therefore, a dual situation with the Minister as traffic authority and the local authorities as highway authorities.
  1040
  Outside the Metropolitan area, however, the situation is entirely different. There the local authorities—the county councils—are both highway and traffic authorities. The purpose of Clause 14 of the Bill is to enable the Minister to make grants for minor road improvements to the highway authorities in London to link up with the traffic schemes which he, as traffic authority, wishes to see made. Outside London, the case is not nearly so great, because there already the highway authorities, being traffic authorities as well, are in receipt of the general grant under the Local Government Act which contains an element to deal with minor road improvements of all kinds. I hope, therefore, that in the light of this explanation, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends will not press the matter tonight.
  The hon. Member's second point is really a false one. His first one, about road safety Amendments, would jeopardise the whole of our timetable on the Bill. Since the House as a whole has indicated in the debate on Second Reading that it wishes the Bill to have a reasonably unobstructed passage, I hope that we can get on.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for being so candid with the Committee. If my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) had not raised the matter, we should not have been clear about the situation. The position is that the Bill has been introduced—it is a rag-bag of a Bill—with a lot of provisions covering different road improvement and traffic management subjects brought together. I do not complain; I welcome the Bill. Nobody, however, can say that it has a central theme so tight as to exclude road safety from it.
  Whenever the Minister speaks to the House on the subject, he gives the figures of road casualties. Today, he gave the number of people who would be killed in the course of our debate. Then, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary explains that the Money Resolution is drawn specifically to prevent road safety matters from being introduced as new Clauses. He said that if it were drawn so widely as to permit us to put Amendments covering road safety, the Government might not get the Bill. I will deal

  1041
  presently with the attitude of the Opposition in Committee.
  The Minister said that he regards himself not only as an executive, but as a suggestion box and that these debates should give him ideas. Many hon. Members, on both sides, have come to the House on Second Reading with ideas for improving the Bill, and we shall go into Committee after Easter. We are told that the Committee will meet three days a week. We do not complain about this. Then to be told, however, that the Money Resolution has been drawn specifically tightly to exclude us from offering Amendments that would give the Minister power, seems to me to be monstrous and an abuse of the procedure of the Money Resolution. If the Minister wants to exclude it, let him exclude it by the Long Title of the Bill. The Money Resolution should not be used to prevent constructive Amendments to the Bill in Committee.
  I come now to our intentions on this side of the House with reference to the Bill as it passes through Committee. There have been comments about this matter in the Second Reading debate. Our attitude is that this is a good Bill as far as it goes, but that we want the Minister to have more powers. After all, we introduced before Christmas a Bill which would have given the Minister powers to act by Statutory Instrument so as to achieve these things. Under that Bill, introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule procedure, his powers would have included power to take emergency action in road safety matters as well. Our attitude throughout has been that the public wants action here, and we are prepared to give the Minister the powers he needs.
  What we have had in mind since before Christmas has been, when the Minister's long promised Bill was presented to the Committee, to offer him the powers we think he needs, to keep and use whenever the appropriate time comes. I read in the Press that the Minister has another Bill coming along next Session. With the pressure of legislation, no Minister can guarantee that he will get the Bills he wants next Session because Bills are not easy things to have accepted by the Leader of the House and the Legislative Committee of the Cabinet. There is a busy pro.-gramme.
  1042
  We are prepared to offer the right hon. Gentleman powers to deal with the problem of the drunken driver, even though it may take time to prepare and lay the regulations and even if it be necessary to proceed on a scientific basis. We are prepared to give him power to require medical opinions when applications are made for driving licences, and so forth.
  We are now told that these matters are to be excluded for fear that the Bill will be lost. What do the Government think our motives are? Does the Minister think that we shall prolong the Committee proceedings so that the whole Bill will be lost? Of course not. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are anxious that the Bill shall go through. I cannot guarantee that we shall accept every Clause and line of it, but we desire to see the Bill passed in a strengthened form.
  When we ask the question, we are told, quite by chance—the Minister did not mention it during his speech—that the Money Resolution has been deliberately used to prevent our giving the Minister the powers we believe he ought to have, and it is said that the Opposition might prolong proceedings on the Bill so that it is lost. This is really to do less than justice to our attitude throughout progress of the Bill so far. I ask the Leader of the House to look at the matter again.
  In view of the unusual information which has been given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary, I wonder whether it would be in order to move a manuscript Amendment to the Money Resolution, to leave out from line 8 to the end of line 25, which would make it read:
  "The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
  (1) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport"—
  and to leave out—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it might simplify proceedings if I said at once that I could not accept a manuscript Amendment of the type which the hon. Member mentioned.
  Mr. Benn: I offered it only as a short way out of the difficulty, Sir William. This is a serious matter. Our attitude throughout has been very serious, and we are anxious not to find ourselves

  1043
  hamstrung in Committee and prevented from being able to offer the Minister the powers we think he ought to have in order to legislate for road safety. That is the simple issue. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) would be with us on this. I see that he is not in his place at the moment.
  The Opposition are willing to give the Minister powers to deal with road safety matters this Session and we want to get the Bill through Committee. I very much hope that the Leader of the House, who is responsible for part of the expenditure here, will say something about the interpretation to be put upon the Money Resolution before the Committee passes it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND (PROPERTY)
  11.15 p.m.
  Sir Peter Agnew: I beg to move,
  That the Church Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, 1960, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  This is a Measure prepared by the Church Commissioners for the purpose of removing a number of minor administrative anomalies connected for the most part with conveyancing and the administration of Church property and Church lands. No objection was taken to the Measure, as the Commissioners had seen to it that only non-controversial matters were inserted in it. At no stage in the Church Assembly was there a vote upon it, and it received its final approval without a dissentient voice.
  Question put and agreed to.

  BARRY DOCKS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
  11.17 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Once again, I feel it my duty to raise a constituency problem, the problem affecting the docks at Barry, which are owned by the British Transport Commission.
  I regret that circumstances have obliged me to be rather a nuisance to successive Ministers of Transport, as well as to other Ministers, in this connection, but I think that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already sufficient information to make him realise the very large problem which the Port of Barry and, indeed, most of the South Wales ports have faced since the end of the last war. Their difficulties have attracted the attention not only of the local authorities in those areas, but also that of the various Members of Parliamen, successive Ministers for Welsh Affairs, and a special panel of the Council for Wales.
  All these ports have suffered in some degree from the steady, progressive decline in their former export trade in coal, on which their pre-war prosperity was largely based. Especially has this been the case at Barry, but I must add that many of my remarks could be applied with almost equal force to Cardiff and other South Wales ports.
  I should like, first, to remind my hon. Friend that in the early years of this century the docks at Barry were, for a time, the greatest coal exporting centre of the whole world; and that, for several years, coal exports were measured in millions of tons. The contrast with that, and the position as it is today, is revealed by some figures published in the Western Mail this morning.
  The figure of trade through the Port of Barry for the period 1st January to 27th March last year is given as 319,359 tons, and for the same period of this year as 341,078 tons. On these figures the annual trade would be only about £1,200,000 or £1,300,000. When I remind my hon. Friend that before the war, in the days of great coal exports, the trade was running at £7 million or £8 million, he will appreciate the immensity of the problem.

  1045
  Since the last war, while the overseas exports gradually disappeared, we retained a valuable and not insignificant business in the coastal movement of coal from the South Wales coalfield to power stations at Battersea and elsewhere, but even this coastal trade is now disappearing. Moreover, I would remind my hon. Friend that in recent weeks we have lost the ships of the Reserve Fleet and, though it was not directly connected with the docks trade, the Supplementary Reserve Depot of the War Department.
  I think that I can reasonably say that the docks at Barry have served Britain well in times of war and peace. Between 1939 and 1945, while other United Kingdom ports were being heavily bombed, massive shipments of general cargo, military and civil, moved in and out of our docks. Moreover, the workers there have demonstrated, not only during the war but since, the adaptability and versatility in dealing with unfamiliar cargoes. We have also had very few labour disputes or stoppages of any kind. Labour relations in the port have been excellent. There has been none of the serious strikes which have often affected the Mersey and the Port of London. Labour relations in South Wales generally have been rather better than in the rest of the United Kingdom, certainly in the docks.
  Despite some needs and deficiencies, the facilities at the docks there are excellent. It would be a pity—I think that my hon. Friend would agree with this— if, in future, proper use were not made of the splendid docks and facilities. Why, then, it may be asked, with these advantages have we not found it easy to attract new trade and new cargoes? Efforts to do so have not been wanting, and there has been admirable co-operation between the Barry Council, the Barry Development Committee, the Barry Chamber of Trade, industrialists and trade unionists, by persons of all political parties.
  The partial nature of our success can be explained only by certain disadvantages, most of which could be, and should be, remedied. First, we have had the handicap of railway rates less favourable than those in docks in other parts of the United Kingdom. It has been more expensive to send the same sort of load by rail to Barry than to the Merseyside or to the Port of London. In this field
  1046
  the position has been improved, though not completely. I should like my hon. Friend to say something about this.
  Secondly, loads sent by road have had to go along the very poor roadways from South Wales to the industrial Midlands and the West Country. The Government and my right hon. Friend and his predecessors at the Ministry of Transport seem to have recognised this need. The new road construction will ease the flow of road traffic to and from the South Wales ports. But even here I have a complaint. Surely the Ross Spur and the Heads of the Valley scheme should have been based on roads with four lanes of traffic, and not three. When we are to have this large expenditure it seems false economy to limit it to three lanes of traffic.
  I have already referred to railway rates. There is also the question of dock charges. Compared with most other United Kingdom ports, the South Wales docks have always been in the most disadvantageous position. Even more injurious has been the fact that the customs for the apportionment of loading and other charges between shippers and exporters have always been less favourable at Barry and other South Wales ports than at other ports in the United Kingdom with one or two exceptions. There have been for many years prolonged negotiations about them. Even now a complete solution has not been found. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend will have some encouraging news about this tonight.
  The next point I wish to raise is the necessary improvement of the docks installations at Barry. My constituents and Barry Council and organisations in the area are grateful for the improvements which the Transport Commission has already carried out in the last couple of years at a cost of approximately £250,000. But such expenditure seems almost insignificant compared with the ambitious modernisation and improvements which I understand, are to be carried out at Avonmouth, where the docks are not owned by the Commission. I hope that both the Commission and my hon. Friend will bear this in mind.
  I have been looking through a memorandum submitted in 1956 by Barry Council and the Barry Development Committee to the Industrial Association of Wales and Monmouthshire. That

  1047
  memorandum set out the improvements to the docks at Barry then deemed necessary to make a highly efficient general cargo port. There are three docks there with a total water area of 114 acres and a normal depth of 32 feet. It was stated that it was absolutely necessary that the breakwater should be extended seawards to provide a larger and wider entrance channel suitable for modern size tonnage. It suggested that dredging would be essential to give access at all tides. It was then considered necessary that the basin to No. 3 docks should be extended to make a lock of about 130 feet by 1,000 feet, and the widening of the junction between No. 1 and No. 2 docks to a width of 130 feet was advocated.
  Another point was that improved shedding accommodation, better storage and transit sheds are urgently required. The memorandum also called for the incorporation of the timber posed at the eastern end of No. 2 dock to increase the deep water area. Most of these improvements are as urgently required today as they were in 1956, when the memorandum was submitted.
  It has been suggested in some quarters that if the Commission feels that this duty is not one which it can pursue, then, alternatively, it should lease the docks in South Wales to a South Wales port authority. But that might well be a counsel of defeat. I feel that there is a great future for these docks. I hope that the Commission will look at the problem in the same light.
  During the past year or two we have had one or two bright signs. Due to local initiative, with the energetic help of the docks manager at Barry, for whom no praise could be too high, and with the good will of the fruit importing firm of Geest Industries, Ltd., a valuable new regular import trade of bananas and other fruits has been obtained and, I think, will become a permanent feature of the docks.
  If the anomalies and disabilities to which I have referred could be removed soon, and if the docks could be modernised along the lines I have suggested, Barry people would be able to tackle the important job of getting new trade, business and cargoes with reasonable hopes of success.
  11.28 p.m.
  The Jont Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): May I, at the outset, briefly explain the position of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in relation to the matter raised tonight? Barry is one of the five major ports in South Wales administered by the Docks Division of the British Transport Commission. Apart from the Minister's general responsibility for the ports and shipping of this country, the development of ports by the authorities which own or control them is a matter in which he has no powers.
  In the case of the Commission's ports, their development is a matter entirely for the Commission. The Ministers powers are limited by Statute to the general oversight of their programmes of reorganisation or development involving a substantial outlay on capital account. Section 4 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947, requires the Commission, when framing programmes of that kind, to act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) appreciates that it follows from this that the choice of which port they shall use is a matter entirely for shipowners and shippers themselves, because neither the Government nor the Commission have any powers to direct traffic through a certain port.
  As my hon. Friend has said, like many other South Wales ports Barry was built up on the coal export trade. Before 1914, no less than 11 million tons of coal were shipped from Barry in a single year, but by 1948 that figure had fallen to 2 million tons, and last year it was down to 500,000 tons. This trend is general throughout the country, but in South Wales the decline has been accentuated by the recent decision of the Central Electricity Generating Board to take the coal it needs for its South of England power stations from the coalfields of the North-East of England instead of from South Wales. This is a purely commercial decision by the Board, and neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has any power to interfere with that decision.
  The fact that the coal trade has declined throws up into high relief the

  1049
  desirability of finding some alternative type of trade to keep the port going. My hon. Friend has referred to the need for this. This is something that the Commission, which owns the docks and which, naturally, has a good deal of money involved in them, is trying to do everything in its power to encourage. As my hon. Friend said in the closing passages of his speech, although the coal trade has declined other types of trade have improved. Imports through Barry have risen from 339,000 tons in 1948 to 591,000 tons in 1959, and exports other than coal in those same years have risen from 96,000 tons to 146,000 tons. These are reasonably promising figures in all the circumstances.
  Apart from coal, the chief traffic now going through the port consists of petroleum, grain and flour, but we welcome the promising new development to which my hon. Friend referred—the banana trade which is now developing, promoted by the firm of Geest Industries Ltd. My hon. Friend asked what the Commission was doing in this situation. I think he knows that the Commission has recently introduced a good deal of new equipment at Barry. It has modernised one quay, with a length of about 570 ft. It has equipped it with five 10-ton electric grab cranes for bulk cargoes, at a total cost of over £250,000, so it is clear from that alone that the Commission is not simply sitting and waiting for trade to develop before modernising the port. It is trying its best, within its limitations, to make the port attractive both to importers and exporters.
  In view of the criticisms that my hon. Friend made, and the desirability, as he suggested, of further improving and modernising the docks, I must tell him that the Commission considers that the present storage facilities and the other buildings at the docks are fully adequate for the present requirements of trade through Barry, for the foreseeable future. I cannot go beyond that tonight, except to say that I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's remarks and suggestions will be taken up and noted by the Commission, as always happens when these debates on the Commission's affairs take place in the House.
  Another promising feature in this rather difficult picture is the development of other industry in the area. A
  1050
  number of industries have recently been started in the area, including a firm called Super Oil Seals, another called J. and R. Freeman, which manufactures cigars, and Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds. I understand these firms are not in Barry itself, but in the surrounding area. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that new industries of this kind, where they are developing, will add to the employment prospects of the locality and lead to an improvement in the general industrial conditions. They could, therefore, have some beneficial effect upon the docks, although not necessarily in the short term. It is always possible that new industries will help to produce more traffic through these docks.
  My hon. Friend referred to the question of dock rates and railway charges. It is often claimed that these rates and charges are unfair as respects South Wales ports generally. I should like to make two observations on that. As I think the House will appreciate, charges shared with shipping companies are a matter for negotiation with the individual companies. The Government cannot interfere in this matter, but we have used our good offices on two occasions to try to bring the parties together to settle their differences. I am very glad to be able to tell the House that negotiations are now going on between the Industrial Association of South Wales and Monmouthshire, which represents the shippers, and the British Liner Committee.
  My second observation is that as from 1st May last year, as I expect my hon. Friend knows, British Railways introduced a new railway rates agreement. This will have the effect of including in the rail charge the cost of certain operations in the docks, which, I imagine, were paid for separately prior to the agreement. On the question of charges, I must emphasise that the division of the dock charges is a matter for the commercial interests concerned and not one in which the Minister of Transport can interfere.
  I next come to the points raised by my hon. Friend concerning the need for better road facilities leading to South Wales from London and the Midlands, the object being to give better opportunities for exporters to make use of ports like Barry. This is a question

  1051
  which is very much in our minds. My hon. Friend will be aware of the proposals we have for the South Wales radial road which will be a motorway from London to the new Severn Bridge and thence into South Wales by way of a motorway by-pass to Newport. Another new road link is the proposed motorway between Birmingham and South Wales. This will comprise the Northern section of the Birmingham— Bristol motorway, the Ross Spur motorway now under construction and from then on dual carriageways on the Ross to Newport trunk road. The trunk roads westwards to Swansea via the Heads of the Valley road, the first stage of which is under construction, will be improved. In addition, the trunk road between Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil will be constructed in stages.
  There is a great deal I could say about this, but I think that I can claim that these roads will provide first-class communications between the industrial centres of South Wales and the Midlands. In answer to the query concerning the capacity of the roads and the complaint that we were building them to three-lane instead of four-lane standards, I should say that that has not been done lightly, but for two reasons. The first is that in some cases we have difficulty in trying to obtain necessary land for geographical reasons. Secondly, it is because we are advised by those whose job it is to forecast these matters that even with substantial growth of traffic using these roads in future nothing more than three-lane carriageways will be needed We have to accept that advice.
  There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend said, that the South Wales ports are
  1052
  meeting a great many difficulties at present. Having been built up so largely on the export of coal, they are, naturally, in difficulties as that type of trade declines. The Transport Commission and all other interested parties, the shipowners, importers and exporters among them, have made every effort on a commercial basis to promote new trade. Their efforts are, I think, having some success. As an indication of their success, I point out that the total exports of commodities other than coal passing through the South Wales ports have now increased by three times their pre-war tonnage. This may not be a very great deal, but at least it is something. It is certainly better than nothing. I am sure that this is the right course for the Commission to take.
  The South Wales ports have good facilities and many attractions to their credit. Barry, in particular, is convenient to Cardiff, with a good natural entrance and good port facilities. The new bulk discharging berth is among the most advanced of its kind in the country. The Commission is doing what it can to encourage the use of the port, while we in the Ministry of Transport are getting on as quickly as we can with the improvement of land communications.
  In all this I think that there is cause for reasonable optimism as to the future of the South Wales ports in general, and Barry in particular. We shall certainly do all we can to help in any ways which seem to us appropriate and feasible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  Oil Refineries, Scotland (Throughput)
  Oil Refineries, Scotland (Throughput)
  Fuel Oil (Industrial Consumption)
  Fuel Oil (Industrial Consumption)
GAS
  Coal Gas Poisoning (Accidental Deaths)
  Coal Gas Poisoning (Accidental Deaths)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Supersonic Boom (Damage, Port William)
  Supersonic Boom (Damage, Port William)
  Sea Cat Guided Weapon
  Sea Cat Guided Weapon
  Vertical Take-off Jet Engines
  Vertical Take-off Jet Engines
  Trooping Contracts
  Trooping Contracts
  Guided Missiles
  Guided Missiles
  Air Corporations (Competition)
  Air Corporations (Competition)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Chiropody Scheme, Middlesex
  Chiropody Scheme, Middlesex
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
  National Health Service Spectacles
  National Health Service Spectacles
  Midwives, Derbyshire
  Midwives, Derbyshire
  War Disabled Pensioners (Deputation)
  War Disabled Pensioners (Deputation)
  Chiropody Schemes (Clinics)
  Chiropody Schemes (Clinics)
  Mental Health Act
  Mental Health Act
  Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)
HOSPITALS
  Skin Diseases, The Hartlepools (Hospital Accommodation)
  Skin Diseases, The Hartlepools (Hospital Accommodation)
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Chronic Sick, Cardiff
  Chronic Sick, Cardiff
  Darenth Park Mental Hospital
  Darenth Park Mental Hospital
  Skin Grafting, South Wales
  Skin Grafting, South Wales
  Supplies Officers
  Supplies Officers
  Fishponds Mental Hospital, Bristol (Rehabilitation Work)
  Fishponds Mental Hospital, Bristol (Rehabilitation Work)
  Eye Hospitals, London (National Health Service Spectacles)
  Eye Hospitals, London (National Health Service Spectacles)
  Electrical Apparatus
  Electrical Apparatus
  Nurses (Allowance)
  Nurses (Allowance)
  Accommodation, Peterlee
  Accommodation, Peterlee
  Greenbank Hospital, Plymouth (Operating Theatres)
  Greenbank Hospital, Plymouth (Operating Theatres)
  Cardiff Royal Infirmary (Eye Examinations)
  Cardiff Royal Infirmary (Eye Examinations)
  Epidemic Infections
  Epidemic Infections
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Strontium 90
  Strontium 90
GERMANY
  Gadeland Camp, Schleswig-Holstein
  Gadeland Camp, Schleswig-Holstein
  Stateless Refugees (Compensation)
  Stateless Refugees (Compensation)
  EUROPEAN TRADE
  EUROPEAN TRADE
  EUROPE (DISENGAGEMENT)
  EUROPE (DISENGAGEMENT)
EMPLOYMENT
  Constructional and Civil Engineering (Safety Regulations)
  Constructional and Civil Engineering (Safety Regulations)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Efficiency
  Agricultural Efficiency
  Milk
  Milk
  Sunday Slaughtering
  Sunday Slaughtering
  Meat Inspection
  Meat Inspection
  Agriculture (Exchequer Support)
  Agriculture (Exchequer Support)
  Fat Sheep and Wool (Guaranteed Prices)
  Fat Sheep and Wool (Guaranteed Prices)
  Foxes, Glamorgan
  Foxes, Glamorgan
  Imported Bacon
  Imported Bacon
  Forestry, Wales
  Forestry, Wales
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Railway Companies (Grants)
  Railway Companies (Grants)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Old-Age Pensioners (Tobacco)
  Old-Age Pensioners (Tobacco)
  Import and Export Prices
  Import and Export Prices
SCOTLAND
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Forth and Tay Road Bridges
  Forth and Tay Road Bridges
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  Noise, East Kent Area (Complaints)
  Noise, East Kent Area (Complaints)
  Shipbuilding Research Association (Grant)
  Shipbuilding Research Association (Grant)
HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES
  Security
  Security
  Teachers and Public Service Officers (Salaries)
  Teachers and Public Service Officers (Salaries)
SOMALILAND
  Legislative Council (Motion)
  Legislative Council (Motion)
  Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty
  Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty
SEYCHELLES
  Education
  Education
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Schools (Commission of Inquiry)
  Schools (Commission of Inquiry)
  Kariba Lake (New Schools)
  Kariba Lake (New Schools)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Guided Missile Range, South Uist
  Guided Missile Range, South Uist
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury

DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS FOR AUSTRALIAN MEAT
2.35 p.m.
LORD WISE: 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 is the total payment made during each of the last five years from the United Kingdom Exchequer funds to the Commonwealth of Australia for deficiency payments for meat (beef, mutton and lamb).]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the deficiency payments which have been made to the Australian Government during the last five years are £121,724 in 1955–56; £2,603,465 in 1956–57; and £4,741,475 in 1957–58. All these payments were on beef. No payments were incurred in 1958–59 or 1959–60.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask him, as I understand that these deficiency payments are made under a contract for bulk purchase, how long the contract has to run? And would it not be desirable, if the contract is to run out shortly, for some arrangement to be made whereby a fixed sum will be paid in deficiency payments and not a fluctuating amount which, on the face of the figures which have been given to me, seems to favour the Australian farmers appreciably?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I can agree with the word "contract". There is
836
an agreement with the Australian Government which was started, I believe, by the Labour Government in 1951. This is a deficiency payment, and the Australian Government gets paid when the price warrants the payment on the agreed prices. The prices are under review, I think, at the end of this year, for the renewal of the agreement.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether this deficiency payment is not in fact the difference between the average market price here and a price previously agreed with the Australian Government? Is not the effect of that that in any case the Australian producer gets the minimum agreed price, and when the prices are higher here, he gets a price above that? Is not that the position?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the minimum prices vary according to the different grades of meat. The schedule is exceedingly complex and I would rather not go into it at this moment. I could circulate the complete schedule in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think it would be a little misleading if I tried to summarise the very complex schedule of prices.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst I do not want to make any difficulties for the noble Earl, may I ask whether he could not answer on the question of principle the simple point as to whether, whatever the grades of meat, the Australian producer either gets a fixed agreed price, including whatever subsidy we pay, or the market price here? Is that not the position? If so, is he not in a much better position than our own farmers?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, he is not in a much better position. As I understand it, the Australian farmer is entitled to a deficiency payment on agreed prices for various grades of meat. If the prices at which the meat is sold in this country do not come up to the agreed market price, he gets the deficiency payment, as does the British farmer. As I have shown in my Answer, during the last two years we have paid no deficiency payments to the Australian Government for their beef, and have never paid anything on their mutton or lamb in these five years.

THE UNITED KINGDOM DEBT TO CANADA
2.39 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (a) by what sterling equivalent has the outstanding United Kingdom debt to Canada been increased in sterling since it was contracted; (b) what is the estimated value of Canadian investment in the United Kingdom in its relation to the present value of the United Kingdom Government debt to Canada.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the line of credit negotiated in 1946. Drawings against this line of credit were spread over a period of four years. Immediately before the devalution of September, 1949, the sterling equivalent of the amount which had already been drawn was £272 million. It then changed to £356 million, and this increased to £385 million—that is, 1,185 million Canadian dollars—as a result of further drawings. At March 31 of this year (that is, 1.2 days ago) the sterling equivalent of the outstanding credit of 1,064 million Canadian dollars was £396 million. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the Canadian authorities have estimated that at the end of 1957 Canadian private investment, both direct and portfolio, in the United Kingdom amounted to 214 million Canadian dollars.

BACON IMPORTS
2.41 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, having regard to bacon supplies (a) what proportion of current consumption is imported; (b) what proportion of the total import quota is allotted to Poland; (c) what percentage reduction is this current quota against 1959
838
and what percentage reductions have been similarly imposed on imports from Denmark, Holland and Eire.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, about 62 per cent. of our bacon consumption is imported, and imports of bacon (other than canned bacon) from Poland in 1959 were 14 per cent. by weight of total imports. The current quota for imports of bacon from Poland, which is for the first six months of this year, is 20,000 tons and represents a reduction of 18 per cent. on the half-yearly rate last year. There are no such restrictions on imports of bacon from Denmark, the Netherlands or the Republic of Ireland.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising from that reply, may I ask the noble Lord whether, since it is evident that there was different action against Poland as compared with other Continental suppliers, it is to be understood that the matter will be reviewed in the not distant future?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, it can be taken that the matter is already under review. As I have explained, this quota is for the first six months of the year, and therefore a new quota must be worked out for the second six months of this year, 1960.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Lord said that the percentage of imported bacon was 62 of the total. Am I to assume that British producers are producing 38 per cent.?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I believe that my mental arithmetic agrees with the noble Viscount's; but if not, I am sure that his would be right.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, then it seems to me a little strange that claims should have been made that at certain periods of this year the actual quota has been down to a little over 20 per cent. of the British. For what period is the percentage figure of 62 taken?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am unaware of the claims mentioned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. The figures I have are those which I have given.

TRAINING OF APPRENTICES AT GOVERNMENT CENTRES
2.44 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: 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 their plans are for the training of apprentices at Government training centres.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in that the Answer to my noble friend's Question is a long one. It is, in fact, a statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour is making in another place this afternoon. My right honourable friend is proposing to set up a small number of classes in Government training centres to provide first-year apprenticeship training. This training will be given only to boys who have been accepted as apprentices by their firms. Preference will be given to boys from firms which have hitherto found it impracticable to undertake apprentice training or to increase their present number of apprentices. No charge will be made for the training provided, but employers taking part in the scheme will be required to give an undertaking to pay the wages of apprentices during the year, and to continue the boys' training afterwards under the normal industrial arrangements. The normal provision for day release from the training centre will apply during the year.
This scheme has been approved as a whole by the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress. The establishment of classes in engineering has been agreed by employers and trade unions of that industry. My right honourable friend proposes to extend the scheme to other trades, and he is already in touch with the building industry. The first training places will be available early this summer at eight Government training centres, and it is expected to set up classes at other centres later this year, making a total number of some 300 training places.
This scheme will not, in itself, make a large numerical contribution to the expansion of training for skilled occupations during the "bulge" years. It is
840
intended primarily as a demonstration of a pattern of training which should appeal particularly to the smaller firms who have only limited opportunities for undertaking training themselves. The Government hope that in this way, the scheme will encourage industry to increase its intake of young people into skilled occupations.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I am sure he will realise that this experiment will be watched with great interest throughout industry.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any proposal to extend this scheme so that boys from the Commonwealth can also receive some part of this training?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I will let the noble Lord know that in writing, as I do not at the moment know the answer.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell us the number of the Paper in which the details and conditions of this scheme are set out?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I will find that out.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, whilst I welcome this really first-class scheme, which in my view is a good deal overdue, could the noble Earl say whether 300 places is regarded as being a pilot scheme, with much more amplification later on? Because otherwise the provision will be very small in relation to the demand. Also, could the noble Earl say anything about the geographical distribution of the training centres? For example, will there be one in Scotland, Wales or any of the other areas of rather heavy unemployment?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question I would say that this is a start. Naturally, much will depend upon the demand for apprentice places, and no doubt my right honourable friend will consider the position at the end of a given time. Places at which Government training centres are already established and will be operating under this scheme are: Aintree; Birmingham; Bristol; Cardiff; Hillington, in Scotland; Leeds; Letchworth and Long Eaton, in Nottinghamshire.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

EGGS (GUARANTEED PRICES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1960
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE) rose to move, That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1960, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords this Order, made under Section 1 of the Agriculture Act, 1957, amends the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1957, which provided for the guarantee arrangements to be implemented through the British Egg Marketing Board. It came into operation on April 3 and gives a statutory effect to the changes which were announced following the last Annual Price Review. The new Order is essentially procedural and introduces important improvements in the mechanics of the guarantee. We are never too proud to learn by experience. Full discussions have been held with the Farmers' Unions and the Board, and I am glad to say that we have been able to reach agreement with them on the changes. The value of the guarantee remains unaffected by these procedural changes.
I cannot deny that the details of the egg guarantees are complicated, but it may help your Lordships to understand the significance of the new Order if I briefly explain what part Ministers play in the determinations for eggs. The Government have to determine three things for hen and duck eggs respectively. They have to determine, first, a guaranteed price to the Board for eggs of prescribed quality. I should stress here that the guarantee is to the Board and not to individual producers; the Board makes its own arrangements for fixing prices to producers. The second thing the Government have to do is to make an estimate of the average wholesale selling price for the guarantee year. The procedure for doing this is agreed with both the Farmers' Unions and the Board. The third thing the Government have to determine is a flat rate of subsidy, which of course is the difference between the
842
guaranteed price to the Board and the estimated average selling price. That flat rate of subsidy is then paid to the Board on each dozen eggs qualifying for the guarantee.
In addition, the Board is given an incentive to get the best out of the market by means of a so-called profit and loss sharing arrangement, "profit and loss" having a somewhat academic definition here. Up to last March an integral part of this profit and loss sharing arrangement was what had become popularly known as the "2d. band", whereby the Board bore in full the first 2d. of the loss in any year when the price realised by the Board was less than the estimated market price; and beyond 2d. the Board carried 10 per cent. of the loss and the Government 90 per cent. Similarly, when the Board had been able to realise more than the estimated price it kept the whole of the first 2d. of this so-called profit and one-half of any remaining profits; the other half accrued to the Exchequer.
Experience has shown that these profit and loss sharing arrangements were open to two main criticisms. First, producers' returns were subject to unduly wide and erratic fluctuations from year to year. Second, these fluctuations tended to blur the Price Review determinations. For instance, although the guaranteed price for hen eggs was reduced by only 1d. per dozen at the 1959 Review, producers in fact received, on average, about 5d. per dozen less in 1959–60 than in the previous year. About 4d. of that difference was due to the effect of the profit and loss sharing arrangements, because in 1958–59 the Board secured a bonus of 1·7d. per dozen under the profit and loss sharing arrangements, whereas in 1959–60 they had to bear a loss of 2·2d. per dozen. The figures 1·7d. plus 2·2d. come to 3·9d., or very nearly 4d.
My Lords, the amending Order is designed to remedy these weaknesses. In the first place, the so-called "2d. bands" have been abolished and all losses are shared between the Government and the Board. This in itself will significantly reduce the year-to-year fluctuations in returns to producers. The second point is this. A reserve fund is being introduced with the object of smoothing out still further the year-by-year fluctuations in producers' returns; that is, the Board

843
is not to distribute to producers all the profit it obtains in any one year. At the same time, the shares of the Government and the Board in profits and losses have been adjusted.
Your Lordships will observe that under the new Article 7 profits are shared initially on the basis of 75 per cent. for the Board and 25 per cent. for the Government. But the provision is then made for the Board to pay 30 per cent. of total profits (that is 40 per cent. of its own share, if your Lordships can follow this arithmetic) into a reserve fund. Subject to the arrangements under which the reserve fund will be used for meeting losses, losses up to 6d. are shared on the basis of 40 per cent. by the Board and 60 per cent. by the Government. The Government will continue to bear 90 per cent. of the losses over 6d. I am sorry to have had to go into this matter in such detail. The reserve fund will be used towards meeting losses that may be incurred. Detailed arrangements for all this are being embodied in an agreement between the Government and the Board, which will be placed in the Printed Paper Office.
We believe that these changes which have now been introduced will bring about a greater degree of stability in returns to producers from year to year.
Moved, That the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I am sure that the very complicated statement that has just been made will need a good deal of study, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the effect will be to diminish what appears to have been the difference between the amount paid to the Board and the amount received by the producers. That seems to have been something like 25 per cent., which appears to have been going, or is thought by producers to be going, in expenses. The other point which I think has worried many of us very considerably is the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. There was a recent case in Manchester where three farmers were brought before the Committee and fined £20 between them. The fact that two of them were fined only 1s. each, I think, expresses the feeling that the proceedings need not have been brought at all.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I may have missed this point. Could the noble Earl repeat what is going to be the cost of the Government support during this current year, or is it unestimable?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, may I answer my noble friend Lord Hawke first? This Order has nothing at all about prices in it. It is concerned only with machinery and procedure. The sums of guarantee for eggs are set out in the White Paper which we shall be debating later. There is an Appendix in that White Paper, which, with your Lordships' permission, I think we had better take then and which has various estimates of costs.
In answer to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I am sure that on this particular Order it would not be proper to range into the question of the disciplinary powers of the Boards, although this matter is always under consideration, and my right honourable friend in another place gave a sympathetic answer that he was thinking about this subject. As for expenses, the effect of this Order will be, as I said, to reduce the fluctuations that come about by the profit and loss sharing arrangements. Profit and loss sharing arrangements are essential to give the Board an incentive, and they do not directly refer to the expenses the Board may legitimately incur on behalf of their member producers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER, 1960
2.58 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE rose to move, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1960, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Order provides cover for payments under the Fat-stock Guarantee Scheme for the year 1960–61. It replaces the Order which has served that purpose since 1957, and I will explain the essential changes which have been made. The prime reason for the Order is to provide statutory authority for the new way of treating payments on the quality premium grades of pigs to which I referred in my Statement of March 10 about agricultural guarantees following the Annual Review.
Formerly these payments, known as quality premiums, had to be treated as part of the overall guarantee for pigs. One effect of this was that the basic guarantee payments for all pigs were reduced in order to provide finance for the premiums. In addition, it was implicit in the system that the premiums could not have continued at all if, at any time, average market prices rose above the guaranteed price, and that therefore there was no deficiency payment payable. In fact, it was never necessary to reduce or discontinue quality premium payments on this account, but the possibility that it might have had to be done was a source of concern to producers of quality bacon pigs who, I think naturally enough, considered that a payment merited by quality should not be dependent upon what happened to the level of market prices. The new Order enables the producer of quality premium grade pigs to be assured of an enhanced return in all circumstances. At the same time the premiums are removed from the guaranteed price applicable to all pigs, so that ordinary guarantee rates will no longer need to be reduced to finance the quality premiums.
The remaining changes in the Order are all of a formal and subsidiary kind. Your Lordships will see from the Order that the feed formula adjustment for pigs is now to be applied to the guaranteed price instead of to the rates of payment. This change of procedure has certain advantages from the point of view of the calculation which has to be made, but it will make no difference to the rates of payment themselves. The definition of the guarantee year has been altered so that there will be a better fit with the accounting year, and provision has been made for the rounding of payments to suitable currency units. The old Order was made under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and continued in force under the 1957 Act; but the latter Act was phrased in rather a different way, and the opportunity has therefore been taken to re-word a number of the provisions in the Order to accord with the phrasing used in the 1957 Act.
I should like to emphasise to your Lordships the fact that the Order deals only with methods and procedure. It provides authority for the method of payment of guaranteed prices determined
846
each year following the Annual Review. The prices themselves, of course, do not appear in the Order we are now considering. I propose, therefore to say no more on this Order, since your Lordships will have the opportunity a little later to-day to discuss the recent annual price determinations.
Your Lordships will note that this Order came into operation on March 28, the first day of the fatstock guarantee year, but it cannot continue in force for more than 40 days without the approval of the House. This is provided for in Section 9 of the Agriculture Act, 1957. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1960, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as the Special Orders Committee thought, it is obvious that this Order contains new principles and new policy. It is quite correct, of course, as the noble Earl says, that we shall be debating the general prices on the main Order of the Day on your Lordships' Paper, but I wonder whether we ought to pass this Order straightaway, or whether we should wait until after the debate on the Annual Review of Prices. At any rate, perhaps at the moment the noble Earl could clear my mind upon one point. I expect that he, like myself, reads every week the farming journals. I have noticed a controversy in, I think in was, the Farmers Weekly, in which the Secretary of the British Association of Pig Producers expressed concern over what the producers are getting in regard to this matter. He is very concerned, I take it, because the Association's request for separate guarantees—that is, guarantees and premiums for the two classes of pigs; for bacon and for pork—has been turned down, and that the net result of this Order will be that there will be one overall payment for pigs as a whole. The correspondent of the Farmers Weekly on the other hand, argues that in fact the two figures which are included in the White Paper, the 3d. and the 6d., do not affect the actual payment of the quality premium in respect of bacon pigs. I should very much like to know whether that is so.
It is argued, for example, that the net benefit of the Annual Review of Prices will be in addition to the premiums formerly

847
paid for the bacon pigs, which will now be absorbed in the general price, and that they will therefore get the one on top of the other. Perhaps the noble Earl, if he cannot tell us at the moment, will have his staff look up the Farmers Weekly in question (it was within the last week or so) and will then tell us what is going to be the real result of these adjustments which are clearly foreshadowed in this Statutory Order. For myself, it left me in a complete whirlwind, going round and round, trying to discover what the real facts were. I suggest that it might be best if your Lordships were to agree (or to divide, if necessary) on this Order after the debate on the revision of prices.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands. As a junior Minister I would suggest that the actual prices determined by the Review are not properly discussed on this procedural Order, but that this procedural Order is the machinery whereby the determinations in the Review are carried out. As I said, this Order is required chiefly to bring about the new arrangement for paying the quality premiums and to take them out of the Price Review determinations. I suggest that we should debate the question of whether we do or do not like what is proposed, or whether we agree with what has been written in some farming journal about these proposals, when we come to the debate on these proposals in a moment or two. However, I am in your Lordships' hands.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the question of whether we agree or not depends entirely on whether we understand the proposal, and whether we approve of what we understand. I must confess that I am not very clear as to what the position of these premiums is to be. Are they being given in addition, or is the amount of the premium to be deducted from the amount that has formerly been given to the pig producers? In other words, is the pig producer going to be any better off, or put in any different position, assuming he is a normal pig producer getting a normal number of AA's, and so on? Or is this merely a matter of machinery?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this is merely a matter of machinery;
848
but the bacon producer, the quality producer, the man who earns premiums, will be better off. The situation is that the only quality premiums that are payable under our guarantee scheme are, as your Lordships know, in respect of bacon pigs, and not of pork pigs. In the past, the financing of those quality premiums has been from the general guarantee for all pigs. Therefore, as I tried to explain, the pork producer or the heavy hog producer was in fact suffering a deduction to provide the premium for the quality bacon man. That situation comes to an end under this arrangement—and that, I think, my Lords, is the beginning and the end and the middle of the matter. That is the main difference, as I attempted to say in moving this Order, which merely provides the machinery to bring that about.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I must say that I am still not satisfied. The argument of the Secretary of the British Association of Pig Producers is that their request for having two separate assessments for the two classes of pigs, bacon and pork, has not been met, and that the adjustment in the revision of prices taken in the White Paper gives them only 3d. in respect of the new procedure; whereas the argument on the other side is that they are going to get much more than that. I do not think we are going to pass this Order unless the Minister can tell us what exactly is the fact.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to say exactly what the facts are as to an article in a newspaper which I have not got with me and which I am not at all sure that I have read; but I can without any question or hesitation state the facts. They are that the removal of the quality premiums from the general guarantee gives an additional value to the bacon pig producer. That is the first point.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: How much?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I think it is 3d. Speaking without my papers, I think it is 3d. It has been published over and over again, and I can turn it up in my papers and can give it later in the debate. The other advantage to the bacon pig producer is that the equalising values have been narrowed

849
from 3s. to 2s. 3d. Those two things together give a substantial advantage to the producer of quality pigs. The machin3ry of this Order is to enable these things to be carried out, and I think that we ought to pass the Order, Or divide, if necessary. I must put the Order here and now at this stage in the proceedings.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl that this Order was considered with other Orders by the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last. Usually when Orders are considered the Committee reports that there are no special circumstances requiring comment from them. That happened with three of the Orders which we considered on Wednesday afternoon last, but not with this one. The Special Orders Committee—and we are not now talking about a letter in a newspaper, but about the Special Orders Committee of this House—reported that there were, in fact, special circumstances which in the opinion of the Special Orders Committee ought to be given reasonable consideration. As I understood it, the suggestion from my noble Leader was that it might be a convenient matter that this should not be considered in a separate debate, but could be considered in the main debate which is to follow. An answer to the points raised could then be given by the noble Earl, and the Motion with regard to this Order could be put after we had had an opportunity of considering it. I think the Report from the Special Orders Committee is most relevant and cannot be ridden off like a letter to a newspaper.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I really ought to put another Amendment. I should move that the discussion on this Order he postponed until the end of the debate on the White Paper next on the Order Paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am afraid that I have no notice of this Amendment. Would the noble Viscount repeat it?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have explained what I want to be done, but apparently it is going to be turned down by the Government.
850
The Division on this Order ought not to take place until a full explanation has been given. Here is an Order which his been submitted with a specific note from the Special Orders Committee of the House. We have not yet had a complete answer, although the noble Earl has no doubt done his best. He will make a further explanation during the next debate. We are quite willing to adjourn this debate now, but if you are going to insist on a Division now, we will have to vote against the Order.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sorry if I have not been clear. I think the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition is referring to a letter in the Farmers Weekly in which the writer was unhappy that we had not two separate guarantees for two different kinds of pigs. Well, we have not two separate guarantees for two different kinds of pigs: the Price Review did not do that. The Order, however, does not rule this out. If Ministers at any time on some subsequent review determine to have two separate guarantees, this Order is drawn widely enough to have that put in. Therefore, I fail to see how anybody can vote against the Order who wants it for that purpose. What the Order also does is to provide for this alteration in the payment of quality premiums which has been determined in this year's guarantee Review, and without this Order we should not be able to carry that out.
I should like to be accurate on the figures, because, although they do not come under this Order, the noble Viscount has raised them. All producers are going to benefit by 3d. on account of the increase in the guaranteed price. Secondly, there will be a 6d. benefit or increase, because the premiums have been paid separately, instead of out of the pig guarantees. One lot of pigs will not have to finance the other lot of pigs. The bacon pig producers will also get premiums in addition which, taking the average throughout the year, have generally averaged, and are likely to average again, about 1s. 3d. a score.
I hope that the noble Viscount will think this is a full explanation of the points he has raised, and I am sorry if I did not make them clear in the first instance. I believe it would be more to the convenience of your Lordships if this Order, which is an enabling Order—it is

851
machinery to enable these things to be done—were passed now.
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Earl explain why he needs a decision for or against at this moment rather than at, say, half-past five or six o'clock this afternoon after some fourteen noble Lords have given their general view on the agricultural position? We are not doubting the bona fides of the noble Earl, or the goodness of his argument, but the Special Orders Committee do suggest that the Order should not be passed through the House without special attention. It is a matter of interpretation, and I agree that what has happened so far in the way of question and answer is, to some extent, special attention. But this is a particularly appropriate opportunity to deal with the matter in the debate, and I wonder whether the noble Earl will not give way on this small procedural point and defer the decision until after the debate.
LORD WISE: My Lords, there is one point that I was intending to raise in the next discussion, and it would probably be more appropriate for me to raise it then, in connection with any leakage in the deficiency receipts and the definition of the producer. That is a matter which I raised once before with the noble Earl and did not receive such satisfaction as I expect I ought to have done.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if it is the wish of the House generally, of course we will take this Order at the end of the general debate. All I was trying to say—and I do not want to put an "if" or a "but" at the end—is that this is a widely-drawn Order. That was necessary because of a specific thing we have done in this year's Review, but it is wide enough to do all sorts of other things, as well. But, if it suits your Lordships, let us take this at the end of the debate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Earl.
[The debate was accordingly adjourned.]

AGRICULTURE: THE 1960 PRICE REVIEW
3.18 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE rose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1960 (Cmnd. 970), made under the Agriculture Acts, 1947 and 1957. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is, I think, the first occasion when the Government have set down a Motion to approve the policy decisions in the White Paper which is published year by year to give the results of the annual review of agricultural subsidies. The Opposition have asked for this to be done, and, whatever their motives, I am glad that this procedure has been adopted. The Government consider that this year's decisions are fair, balanced and in the best interests of British agriculture. They are glad, therefore, to have this chance of commending them to the approval of this House.
There has been so much misunderstanding about this year's decisions that I fear I shall have to take up some time in speaking about the decisions for most of the main subsidised farm products. I see no escape from this if there is to be a proper understanding of the Government's policy. Before I start on this, however, may I make one or two general points about the price review? First, it is most important to remember that these decisions, taken year by year for many years now, are the decisions of the Government of the day. They are not, and were never intended to be, joint decisions of the Government and the National Farmers' Unions. Of course it is right that those decisions should be taken after the fullest consultations with the unions. That has always been done, and it has been this year as thoroughly and as conscientiously as on any previous occasion; but it is not surprising if, on occasion, the decisions are not agreed with by the unions. That is my first point.
My second point is that these decisions are primarily decisions on the changes to be made in the many different farm subsidies for the ensuing year. So far as they are expressions of agricultural policy they represent the line which the Government have been following since 1954. The stress has all this time been

853
on the importance of the market and on the need to make production more economic. Government policy is still the same.
My third point is on the effect of the Price Review as a whole. Everyone knows that this year's decisions mean that the value of this year's price guarantees has been reduced by £9 million. But there is, I think, a great deal of misunderstanding on how this sum is arrived at. As a result, this sum is sometimes seen out of perspective.
My Lords, may I start with what is said in the Agriculture Act, 1957? That Act, which is the means of keeping gradual and tolerable any reductions from time to time considered justifiable in the level of support for agriculture, laid down as the starting point of all calculations the total value of the guarantees. Now the total value of the guarantees this year was £1,270 million, and the Act laid down that any reductions should be limited to 2½per cent. of this total, subject to an allowance for any increase in production costs. This is a comparatively simple sum, but I am afraid I always seem to be doing arithmetic from this Dispatch Box. In this year the 2½ per cent. formula would have authorised a reduction of £32 million, less £13 million for the increased costs in production, like wage increases. In other words, the Government had authority to reduce by £19 million. In fact, the reduction was £9 million. The contrast between these two figures must not be overlooked. This was not a savage, slashing, sadistic cut. It was very much less than the maximum authorised by Parliament. Equally, I suggest, it is right, if things are to be got in perspective, to set the £9 million against this figure of £1,270 million. The reduction represents, in fact, only ¾ of 1 per cent. of the total.
We are certainly not advocating a restrictionist policy of seeking to limit farm output; what we are doing is reducing slightly the liability of the Exchequer. If production goes up beyond what the consumer will take at reasonable prices, the cost to the Exchequer of the guarantee will increase or the return to the producer will fall. Probably both. The aim must be to expand net income—that is, to increase the margin between costs and returns.
I now turn to the decisions on the different farm products, and I hope that I shall be able to convince your Lordships, as we come to each one, of two propositions. First, that any changes that have been made are fair and balanced and reasonable; and, secondly, that there is no evidence in these changes of what has been described as a restrictive policy, if by that is meant a policy intended to reduce the profitability and viability of British agriculture. Let us take cereals, which are dealt with in paragraph 31 of the White Paper. The guaranteed price of wheat has been reduced by 8d. per cwt., and that of barley by 3d. To get these reductions into perspective, may I remind your Lordships that the guaranteed prices for cereals last year were between 27s. and 29s. a cwt. What I want to suggest is that these small reductions are fair and unlikely to restrict production. The fact is that yields have gone up substantially, and there can be no doubt that production is still profitable. At the same time, the subsidies on cereals are high in relation to market value (last year the subsidy on barley was over 40 per cent. of the market value), and it seemed only reasonable to make this small reduction to reduce the cost of the subsidy. I do not see how anyone can claim that the reductions are crippling or that they will restrict efficient production. On the contrary, we hope that the splendid achievements of British agriculture, particularly in increasing yields of cereal crops, will continue, fostered, I may say, by my Department's Advisory Services.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, could he compare the guaranteed price for wheat now, which is 26s. 11d. with the guaranteed price just three years ago, which was 30s.? Could he also deal with the point that, although yields have gone up, wages and other costs have gone up considerably, too?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I could compare those two figures, but what comparison could I make for them? The determinations of the Review are made every year, with all the facts before us. It will certainly delay this debate if, in every case where a figure is mentioned, we are asked: "But what was the price in 1936, 1937 or 1948?" With great respect, I think the

855
noble Lord had better develop that point in his speech.
I should now like to turn to eggs, where, of course, there is a different story, The Government have definitely indicated to this section of the industry that production has risen to a point where it is uneconomic. In my view it was only right that they should say this. For the last three years the Government have warned the industry of the dangers of over-production. The facts are that the subsidy on eggs is at present running at about £36 million a year, which represents about 1d. on every egg and nearly one-seventh of our total subsidies. We have again had to say this year that we want fewer eggs, because supplies have outstripped demand. Of course, there is still plenty of scope for increased consumption—on average, each of us in this country eats fewer than five eggs a week, whereas Canadians and Americans eat six or more. So if the Egg Marketing Board can persuade everyone to buy that extra egg, at the sort of price they pay now, all will be well. Meanwhile, however, we decided that a reduction in the guaranteed price had to be made.
Even here, however, the reduction of 1·38d. is about ½d. a dozen less than the maximum permitted under the longterm assurances. Moreover, the changes we have made in the profit and loss sharing arrangements between the Government and the Board, which I have just explained in moving the Eggs Order, should do a great deal to reduce the year-to-year fluctuations in producers' prices. In 1959–60 these fluctuations considerably reduced producers' returns and it may well be that in 1960–61 producers will get a better return than in 1959–60 despite the further reduction in the guaranteed price.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if the noble Earl is leaving eggs, could he tell me what is the estimate in this current financial year for the egg subsidy? I cannot find it in the White Paper, but I may have missed it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: In Appendix V, "Estimated Cost of Exchequer Support to Agriculture," the cost of implementing price guarantees for "Eggs, hen and duck," was £33·7 million in 1958–59, and £36·5 million in 1959–60. These are not projected figures—indeed
856
I do not think any of the figures in this White Paper are projected.
LORD HAWKE: That is last year's figures.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes. I do not think they are projected to next year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that in fact on this particular commodity of eggs the Review shows nearly the maximum permitted reduction of 4 per cent.? It is just over 3 per cent, is it not?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think that that is so. We could have made the reduction ½d. more, but we did not adopt completely the maximum reduction.
May I now turn to milk, which is dealt with in paragraph 21? I really doubt whether dairy farmers have any cause to grumble at the determinations made there. We have reduced the market price by ¼d. a gallon so as not to encourage production over and above the requirements of the liquid market after allowing for an adequate reserve. At the same time, however, we have recognised the magnificent efforts made by the Milk Marketing Boards to increase their liquid sales, and we have recognised those efforts by increasing the standard quantities to which the guarantee applies. We have increased that by 19½ million gallons. This increase in the standard quantities is equivalent to an increase in the guaranteed price of 0·17d. per gallon, so that the effective reduction in the price is very marginal indeed. Furthermore, this increase in the standard quantities is not a once-for-all operation. We have agreed that in future years the standard quantities will be adjusted, gallon for gallon, with any future changes in liquid sales. So there is a real incentive here for the Milk Marketing Boards to carry on their successful efforts for stimulating demand. So far, surely, I have been able to make my case. These changes are fair, balanced and reasonable and there is no evidence that they will reduce the profitability of agriculture.
Now I come to pigs—paragraph 26—and here it is a case not of reductions but of increases in support. We have tackled the pig situation thoroughly

857
and comprehensively. We have done three things—perhaps this will help noble Lords who were not clear what was happening when I was moving the Order. First, we have increased the guaranteed price by 3d. a score. Second, we have separated the quality premiums for bacon pigs from the general guarantee; that was what the Order was for. This change is equivalent to increasing the guaranteed price by a further 6d. a score. The effect of these changes will be that all producers will be 9d. a score better off. Third, we have reduced the stabilising bands (as they are called) from 3s. to 2s. 3d. on either side of the guaranteed price, so that there will be less fluctuation in returns from week to week. The average return for bacon pigs as a result of these arrangements cannot fall by more than 1s. below the standard price, whatever the state of the markets. The bacon industry has not been slow to realise the great advantage of this, and already one firm and the farmers' own organisation, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, are offering producers long-term contracts on attractive terms. As a result of all these changes we hope to see a moderate increase in the breeding herd and in the pig herd generally. We do not want to start another pig cycle, but the Government have definitely taken this step to promote and encourage this moderate recovery in pigs. There is no restriction here.
Conditions with regard to sheep, mutton and lamb, which you will find dealt with in paragraphs 28 and 29, are different. Even with a more normal pattern of marketing than we obtained in 1959–60, the prospect is undoubtedly of continuing heavy subsidy. It was £26 million last year and I am sure it did not come as a surprise to sheep farmers that we reduced the guaranteed price of 3s. 3½d. by ½d. a 1b. At the same time the housewife continues to show a preference for smaller joints, and to provide some further encouragement of marketing at lighter weights the maximum weights in respect of which the guarantee payments may be made are to be reduced. But we have given more than a year's notice to farmers in relation to the marketing of what are called hoggets, where there might have been difficulty. All this is in accordance with our policy of calling upon the industry to make small and gradual
858
changes in the emphasis on our different products. And although it is not strictly in the Annual Review, perhaps your Lordships will not mind if I mention that there will be this year a hill sheep subsidy of 3s. per ewe. I use that as an illustration of the flexibility of our agricultural policy and support system which enables us to give special assistance where necessary to a particular section of the industry.
I now turn to another kind of meat: beef, which is dealt with in paragraph 25 of the White Paper. Here we have left the guarantees unchanged. There is scope for an increase in supplies of beef. Some people have been saying that if we want to encourage beef production we ought to increase the guaranteed price. These critics surely overlook the fact of the substantial increases in price that were made in earlier years and the incentive we gave after the 1959 Annual Review, through the hill cow and calf subsidies, to the rearing of beef store cattle. This has resulted in a welcome increase in calves retained for beef production. We want to see the rate of production in prospect maintained, and in our judgment this can be achieved at the present level of the guaranteed price.
We have not only looked at the commodity guarantees but also reviewed the whole field of production grants which form so substantial a part of the assistance given to agriculture. We have decided to make only two changes in the production grants. The basic rate of the lime subsidy is to be increased from 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. but there will be no seasonal increase such as there has been in the past which tended to concentrate too much demand in a limited period. For fertilisers we shall be making some changes from July 1 in the rates of subsidy, and those changes will have the effect of reducing the total cost by about £1½ million. But I do not believe that that small reduction—5 per cent. of the fertiliser subsidy bill—will result in any appreciable decline in the usage of fertilisers. It is certainly not our intention to check the great expansion in the use of fertilisers that has taken place over these last years. The explanation of the reduction is simply that the prices of the bulk fertilisers sold in the United Kingdom have fallen in the last two years, and all that we are doing now is to make

859
slight adjustments in the rates of subsidy to take account of those lower prices.
So much for the individual subsidy changes; and surely we can fairly draw two conclusions from them. First, this is not a restrictive policy. That is, of course, the main criticism of the National Farmers' Union, but I cannot understand the justification for such a conclusion. It was not the aim of the Government. Secondly, it is equally not, in my view, the likely result of the Government's decision, unless farmers are persuaded to believe that this is the case and lose confidence. Of course, they may well lose confidence if noble Lords opposite cry "Ruin!", as did the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition when he wrote to a farming weekly the other day saying that he believed that
"the farming community is now in imminent danger of the same treatment as it got in 1920–21".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear!
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Viscount says "Hear, head", but before agriculture can be treated as it was in the 1920's we should first have to remove from the Statute Book an enormous mass of legislation which nobody has any intention of removing. We should have to remove Lord Addison's Marketing Act, the 1947 Act, the 1948 Act, the 1957 Act and the 1958 Act. The whole system of guaranteed prices and efficiency payments would have to go. We should have to disband the National Agriculture Advisory Service, and, almost more than that, we should have to reverse the whole trend of thinking about agriculture that not only successive Governments but successive generations of our people have come to believe in. It is surely a quite unwarrantable exaggeration to say that this poor little White Paper is a hydrogen bomb of that sort.
Perhaps I might pull my conclusions together. Her Majesty's Government have not set a new and lower target for British agriculture, but what they have done, very reasonably in my view, has been to say this year, as they have said on several previous occasions, that some reduction in Exchequer support is called for. That is a very different proposition, and I am surprised to see it being said
860
that a small reduction in Exchequer support is a new policy and a policy with grave implications for British agriculture. The success of the industry is to be measured not by quantity of output alone, but by the extent the industry can improve its profitability by higher returns from the market and improved methods.
I know that we have said that the output of eggs should be reduced. Was this unreasonable? Was it unreasonable to say that there is no sense in producing more eggs than you can sell? Would it have been reasonable to continue the guaranteed price at the same level? On pigs we have, of course, moved in the opposite direction. We have deliberately increased the price to bring about a moderate increase in our breeding herd. Is that restriction? On beef, we have left the subsidy alone. Is that restriction? On cereals, we rely, and shall continue to rely, on home-grown production to a large extent. All we have said, which is surely reasonable, I think, is that corn growing is now sufficiently profitable to justify a reduction of a few pence per cwt. Wool is down 1d. from 54¼d. to 53¼d. per 1b. Sugar beet is down 2s. 6d. Potatoes are up 5s. 6d. a ton.
Surely it cannot be argued that these decisions add up to a restrictive policy. I sincerely hope that farmers will not be misled into thinking that that is so. What we are saying is that they must look to the market and develop those lines of production which are the more profitable. Surely it has long been recognised by all those who have, as I have, agriculture's interest at heart, that a sound and healthy agriculture must be able to do with less support. I have no hesitation in making this point. It was made a little time ago by one who is to speak later in the debate and who speaks with great authority—the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe. I hope he will not mind if I quote a speech he made as recently as 1958. He said:
"What indeed is the challenge to agriculture? I would suggest it is this: how can we progressively reduce the extent of the payment made annually by the Exchequer to the agricultural industry."
That is what he said was the challenge to agriculture. I hope that when he comes to speak later he will agree with me that farming can, and should, seek to do with less Exchequer support.

861
My final point is this. It has also been suggested that this year's decisions mark the "selling down the river" to the foreigner of British agricultural interests. We see headlines that the bacon duties are being slashed by 50 per cent. Fifty per cent. of what? Of 10 per cent., so that the reduction amounts to the removal of no more than a 5 per cent. duty—a duty which, anyhow, was imposed for revenue purposes. Then we are told, as further evidence of this selling-out process to the foreigner, that other industries have their tariff walls, but the Government should not even chip at the support of farming in the shape of the subsidies. This seems to me to be an odd attitude. I do not wish to see farming lose its support and I cannot agree that a reduction of three-quarters of 1 per cent. is evidence that that support is disappearing; but surely it is nonsense to suggest that tariffs are being maintained whilst the farming subsidies are being slashed. The reverse is the case as is well known to your Lordships. We are moving into an age of freer trade. Industrial tariffs are being reduced. Farmers will be glad in the years to come that they have the safety net provided by the Agriculture Acts.
My Lords, I hope that I have convinced you that the decisions in this White Paper are in the interests of farming. I hope no one would think that I am in any way unsympathetic about the difficulties facing the industry to-day. Like any other industry, we cannot shut our eyes to developments taking place around us. I think it fair to say that the leaders of the industry are mindful of this, and in their discussions with us they have shown a statesmanlike understanding, even if we have not been able to agree fully on all occasions. I am a devoted supporter of agriculture and have been all my life. It is the backbone of the country. It has a value that cannot be measured solely by the size of its net output. I am proud of its achievements—of its increased output and efficiency, of the enormous strides it has made in mechanisation. We are the most mechanised farming nation in the world. One by-product of that is that our manufacturers have developed a most important export industry in agricultural machinery. That development is in itself a striking example of the
862
value to industry of a flourishing agriculture. Certainly it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government that there should always continue to be a thriving agriculture in this country.
Equally it is the judgment of Her Majesty's Government that this year's Review decisions are in the interests of agriculture. I cannot do better, my Lords, than to quote the last words of the White Paper I am asking your Lordships to approve. They are to be found at page 10, and are as follows:
"The Government consider that these determinations provide a fair and balanced answer to the two-fold problem of, on the one hand, enabling agriculture to maintain its prosperity and, on the other, protecting the taxpayer from an increasing burden."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1960 (Cmnd. 970), made under the Agriculture Acts, 1947 and 1957.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is good to hear the noble Earl getting quite excited about this particular White Paper—much more excited than I have known him to be on previous occasions, or even other noble Lords who have dealt with this matter in the House in all the years that I have been here. It is a very good thing, it seems to me, that the comments on the White Paper of the Government have been so detailed and forthright. The Government really are a little excited. I am not a bit moved by the noble Earl's urgent call to observe the last paragraph of the White Paper. I will repeat the words:
"The Government consider that these determinations provide a fair and balanced answer to the two-fold problem of, on the one hand, enabling agriculture to maintain its prosperity and, on the other, protecting the taxpayer from an increasing burden ".
The Government always seem to be making muddles about agriculture. They have had four distinctive "goes" at pigs. They made a complete mess of it, and it has led to serious and damaging reductions of the pig herds in the country. This is almost entirely the result of Government policy. Even in the White Paper there are completely contradictory statements. The noble Earl

863
has quoted the last paragraph, which I have again read, but your Lordships may care to look at paragraph 18 on page 6, the last three lines of which say:
"On the other hand, costs have continued to increase and the industry's net income on a normal weather basis is not at present rising."
I suppose that that is a good argument for saying that this is the year when they should impose a cut in the guarantees of £9 million. Of course, the two things do not at all hold together.
It is no use for the noble Earl to get quite excited about the suggestion that people are trying to raise unfair warnings about the danger arising for agriculture in the future from the sort of thing that is going on now, in regard, first, to the agreement which has been come to with the Outer Seven, and, secondly, the proposal to move still further, if possible, to an agreement with the European Common Market. Even the noble Earl was anxious to say a word about the growing free trade which is visualised, although I do not think he went quite so far as the Minister himself has already gone. At any rate, the reports that I have seen in the Press from the Minister seem to indicate that he has given clear indication of growing efforts at entirely free trade. While that may please some Liberals—who by their attendance this afternoon do not seem to be very interested in this matter—the growing influence of the movement towards free trade is certainly something in which the farming industry have to be considered. Of course they ought to have their proper place: but how? One paper says, and says quite reasonably, that the farmers will be given a place all right, but that they are being squeezed into it; and this is one of the beginnings of the squeeze which is going on. A statement made by the honourable gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary (I believe at Cambridge) was on exactly the same lines, merely telling farmers that they have to be ready to fit their position into a growing degree of free trade.
All this time agriculture in this country has gradually been put upon a sound basis. That has been done, first, because the farmers came to the rescue of the country in a great war emergency, and secondly, because the prosperous condition of all firms and organisations
864
engaged in industrial production has been achieved, in the main, behind a heavy protective tariff—without which we in our bankrupt state as a nation in 1945 could not possibly have got exports going again. That is quite clear. In all that time Minister after Minister on the Government Benches in this House and in another place has argued that the subsidies which have been given through the guaranteed price system have been certainly no more than to offset the very heavy protection which has been given to industrial producers in this country.
Two documents of recent days are rather significant. The first is the Economic Survey, 1960. It is true that those Surveys do not often give very much attention to the farming industry. This year agriculture gets ten lines. From the lack of importance attached to agriculture by the Survey one would hardly think that in economic planning it has to be remembered that the agricultural industry is responsible for—I have not the exact figure in mind, but I believe it to be £1,500 million, a substantial part of the whole national production. What is more, if we had been unable to achieve the much higher rate of production of farm produce in this country to-day, as compared with pre-war, we should have had an even graver position from time to time with regard to our balance of payments. There is not the least doubt about that; but how much attention is given to it?
Look at the other document, the Hansard Report of the Budget statement by the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on April 4. He never really mentioned the place of the farming industry in the general structure of the national economy. Plenty of time was given to the position of other industries, and to what would be the effect of this, that and the other upon the general economy of the country; but not a word of thanks was said to the farming industry for the manner in which they are carrying on. Yet if we are really sincere in our local inquiries, as I am sure we all are in this House (there is a great deal of agricultural knowledge here; a great many noble Lords are themselves farmers and come in touch with local farmers and talk about farming; their talk is not confined to the few top machine-age farmers, farming very

865
large areas and employing greatly reduced manpower with much heavier use of machinery), we have to deal with farmers as a whole.
I would not argue for a moment that in the policies of post-war Governments a great deal has not been done in direct grants for improving productive efficiency. There has been a great deal of Government help in that connection, but it seems to me that in the present circumstances there is a grave danger of the smaller farmer being gradually pushed out of existence; that either he will be drawn into something like a big co-operative arrangement of producers combining together, or it will be a matter of getting rid of his land, selling out to someone who will run it as a big mechanised estate. I suppose that at times strong economic arguments could be advanced in that direction. On the other hand, Oliver Goldsmith's Deserted Village is not yet dead in our minds. Certainly one of the great backbones of a nation must be not merely the economic contribution but the human contribution to the life, health and integrity of that nation.
I am glad to welcome the words spoken by the noble Earl this afternoon in appreciation of the industry and of the people in it. It was very good of him to say that, and I appreciated it very much: but certainly the fear has been in my mind the whole time, since the Act of 1957, that this was the first real and main attempt to whittle down the 100 per cent. effect of the Acts of 1947 and 1948. There was put down clearly in print what the noble Earl himself has called this afternoon an indication of the intention to make more gradual and more tolerable the reductions that would take place; whereas it seems to me—
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but is he trying to develop an argument that in no circumstances and at no time should there ever be reductions in Exchequer support?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, not at all. We on this side of politics have always maintained—and we were very largely responsible for putting into operation in 1947 a permanent peace-time Statute for the structure of agriculture—that we should
866
have an Annual Review of Prices. We did not say at the same time that as soon as we got a sufficiently good electoral opportunity we would say, "Set the people free", and that the moment we begin to have some light showing through the tunnel of subsidies and coming out the other end we must take all controls off markets.
The noble Earl has emphasised again and again this afternoon the importance of the question: what is the market? When we have a planned economy, with an industry like agriculture we cannot afford to have a free market for commodities in respect of which substantial State support is being given, because inevitably we should see what in fact has been happening to agriculture—very large subsidies being paid out; and nobody disputes that they are not large in the total charge upon the Exchequer, for the amount is substantial. That is due to the farmers, however, because of their position in relation to the protection given by the State to all other types of industry in this country. But are the farmers getting the advantage of that?
Let us take a sample of the other side. Let us take a look at industrial production in this country. Compare the increase in the farmers' net incomes to-day with the increase in the incomes of those who are either directors or shareholders in industry. What kind of increase in his net income has the farmer had since the Conservative Government came in? Will the noble Earl tell me that? Can he give me any idea? It is stated in the White Paper that costs are up and income is not rising. What is the position in the rest of industry? The rest of industry has shown a boom almost completely unprecedented. We have large dividends being paid, enormous increases of capital shared out and untaxable capital gains; and we compare that to the position of the farmer, who is left hopelessly behind. He is, in fact, in the position put by Mr. Woolley, the President of the Farmers' Union, the other day: he is suffering a net loss of 5 per cent. on his income, which has not advanced pari passu with the rest of the producers' incomes throughout all other industry. He suffers that loss of 5 per cent. as against about the 30 per cent. increase which has been obtained by other industries in the country. Do you

867
think that that is fair, reasonable and tolerable? That is the kind of language which the noble Earl has been using this afternoon to try to persuade people.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think we must compare like with like. I will return to that subject if the noble Viscount likes, but I think we must compare how much of, and what is the proportion of, the incomes found by the taxpayer with the earnings on the market.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not follow that argument at all.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. The income of farming is made up very largely of the subsidy from the State.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The income is made up of what is contributed, you mean?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Yes; what is contributed by subsidy. And some industrial profits, of course, are not subsidised.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should say that most of the very large increases have been subsidised by a high protective tariff; and because they are made on goods which have had to be purchased in part in this country, the consumer has paid for them. In regard to the farming subsidy the consumer has no protection. It would not have been necessary to pay, in my view, any subsidy upon the fat stock of the kind that has been produced and sent to the market—and it is being improved all the time: the farmer is doing his best—if they had been sold without the kind of prices which are fixed at the ringside. You rely upon the market. I see a market in Essex where, in buying for the London market, there is only one buyer; and directly that buyer begins to bid the others retire. You make arrangements as to how they divide the profit after it is over. I do not know whether we are to have a Scottish reply this afternoon by the Minister for Scotland, but these are facts, as George Buchanan used to say, and they "wilna ding". The consumer has had no real benefit as a result of
868
subsidies and the return to the free market, and the farmer has not got what he ought to have in relation to the rest of the community.
May I point out this fact? In relation to the difference in the value of money being paid to-day compared with its value in 1951, when the Conservative Government came in, there is an enormous drop in the value of the pound. Is there anybody who can argue that the farmer is better off to-day? I look to the distributive trade which I know well—at least, I know a little about it. I used to argue cases on the other side, speaking for the distributive organisation, on commodities like milk. I know the trade pretty well, and it does not help the farmers much to hear about the present position of milk in the view of the Government when every cost in distribution goes up. The Milk Marketing Board have to concede a rise in the margin of the wholesale and retail distributors. They get their money all right. But I know—because I produce milk myself, so I have an interest personally, as well as on behalf of all the farmers—that I am getting many pence less per gallon for T.T. milk to-day than I was getting nine years ago, and my costs in relation to it go up and up.
It may well be that, in regard to disposal, the advantages to the milk producers of having a good Marketing Board and a regular monthly cheque, enable them, very often, to save costs in other directions which would come through the bank; the producer has regular cash coming in month by month in relation to his returns on milk. But a really good top cowman costs, with overtime, anything from £11 to £15 or £16 a week. Compare that to the position ten years ago! Where is the producers' margin on milk compared to what it was then? The whole of the facts show quite clearly that if you know about farming and think about it you will realise that in all these sections the farmer is worse off. He is certainly worse off than he should be; he is actually worse off in net income.
It is all very well for the noble Earl to have a cut at me and say that if people like myself would not agitate and would get the farmers to take this kind of view of the White Paper everything would be all right. Of course I know that I am a "wicked Labour leader". But

869
let us talk about the very respectable, truly Conservative weekly newspaper that is published in the constituency in which I live. I live about nine miles from Colchester. I should like the noble Earl to listen to this quotation. It is rather long, but it is worth putting on record. It is not really the "wicked Labour leaders" who are responsible for working up the difficulty. Just listen to this:
"The day that the 1960 price review was announced must go down as the greatest disaster for British farming in this century.
"The net result was as forecast, although I think the reductions on barley and wheat were harder than expected. It is such a short time ago that we were told what heroes we would be if we would kindly grow some barley and save valuable American dollars. Not so very long before that we had fed a hungry nation through times when U-boats sank a lot of the imported food before it even got here.
"The U-boats have retreated sufficiently far enough in the official mind to throw agriculture to the dogs. The Minister's statement last week must be one of the most despicable ever delivered by a member of a British Government."
That quotation is from the Essex County Standard, a weekly Conservative newspaper printed in Colchester by that very eminent old friend of Benham's—and all politicians who go to a certain book for quotations know the high standards of the family that own that newspaper. This newspaper, as a Conservative weekly, did its best to secure the return in the area of three Ministers, Mr. Butler, Colonel Alport and Mr. Hare, the Minister of Agriculture. This is a journal which has been in support of getting them in. But that is what it thinks of the White Paper. I do not think that the noble Earl really need bother to throw darts at me, if I may say that to him. He can get plenty of that from his own Party newspapers. And so it goes on.
Mr. Woolley, the Chairman of the National Farmers' Union said, as published in the Farmers Weekly on March 18:
"During the past twelve years the industry has increased its net output by 20 per cent"—
although I see that others connected with the other farmers' unions have said that it increased really more than that, and I think that probably in the twelve years the increase has been more than 20 per cent.—
870
"with great benefit to the people of this country. In the process the value of the industry's income, aligned with the change in the value of money, has gone down 5 per cent., while that of the population as a whole has gone up by 30 per cent."
If the noble Earl can prove to me in argument this afternoon that that is a mis-statement, I will accept it from him, if he will give me the facts. But is that statement true? And, if so, what case is there for cutting the farmer's position this year? It says:
"In the process, the value of the industry's income, allowing for the change in the value of money, has gone down"
by that amount. I spoke just now about the change in the value of money. Do we really believe that the farmer is making progress as fast as other classes of the community in adjusting his actual spending power to the differing values in money?
I must say that I find it completely impossible, among the welter of tables, statistics and general assumptions in the Market Review White Paper, to get the real facts about the situation. The general, average rise in production for the country as a whole, we are told, during the last few years, over all industry, has been about 2 per cent. Then we are told, all of a sudden, at the end of the season 1959–60, that agricultural production has gone up by 7 per cent.—from 161 compared to pre-war to 168 compared to pre-war. How do you get the figure? Where does it come from? Of course, if we accept it, it is a truly remarkable achievement compared with what has been going on in the rest of industry. But is it wholly true, or is it an assumption obtained from a few leading researches here and there? How was it obtained? We never hear what is the case that is put in detail to the farmers when they negotiate. We are never supplied, along with the White Paper, with any detail of what has been the main basis of argument put up by the industry on any part of this Paper. We never hear. If you take the 168 per cent., surely the farmers ought to be entitled to an increase in income, whereas in fact they have a lower net income to-day. And now the Government propose to make it more difficult for them to get a higher one by imposing this year a cut of £9 million in the guaranteed prices.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I interrupt with great hesitation, but these figures are so extremely difficult across the Floor of the House. On these estimates, the increased costs and the cuts will leave what has been called a "divi". They will leave an increase to the farmers this year, on the estimates, of £3 million.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am amazed. I can only just imagine £3 million. I shall have to begin to think of all the figures I have read and looked at. I have it. That means, of course, that the Government assume £25 million for increased efficiency. That is what it is. Then, of course, they take off from the increased efficiency the £13 million of extra costs, and that leaves £12 million as increased efficiency. That is what is left after deducting the extra costs. Then the Government are taking £9 million, so it is assumed on this very rough estimate that that means the farmers will be better off to the extent of £3 million, divided among 350,000 of them.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I was interrupting the noble Viscount only to say that, however small the increase is, it is not the same as the argument the noble Viscount has been developing all the afternoon so far: that their income is to be reduced.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I said the guaranteed prices are to be reduced, and that therefore that was to be assumed: and I think rightly so. Of course, the noble Earl can say, "Ah, yes, but we are relying upon a still further increase in efficiency every year cumulatively in order to get to that figure". That happens—every year. For the last eight years the Government have been arguing that the farmer is so much better off by increased efficiency, and they always set that against the claim for guaranteed prices and against the guarantee subsidy to be given to the farmer. That has been going on the whole time.
I would say that there is many a farmer who could demonstrate by his bank account that he is not better off. He may be able to show you, too, what it has cost him in extra cost to get this extra efficiency. He is very grateful to the State where he has been enabled, by way of building grants, ploughing-up
872
grants and so on, to get more efficiency; but, in respect of many of the grants, he has had to find a considerable amount of capital. Many of the farmers have not the capital, and so they overdraw at the bank, where they have to pay extra charges at a very high rate—say, 5½ or 6 per cent. If you really want to find out what the farmer's position is, you ought to take a few more samples of audited accounts, and not merely rely, as you seem to have done in the White Paper, on a few skilled economists at a university taking a few and then bringing you the answer. I do not think that that will do. At any rate, we in the farming community that I talk to sometimes are not at all satisfied that we are better off. We know that we are worse off as a result of the change in the value of money, of the decisions in Price Reviews over the last eight years, and of the depressions which descend upon us.
I should like to come to the last point, and that is the point that the noble Earl makes when he says that there is not the slightest ground for saying that this White Paper is in any sense restrictive. He said proudly, after this item and that item, "Where is the restriction?" I should myself say that, taking the White Paper as a whole, there is plenty to show restriction. The noble Earl says, "Take wheat—the reduction is only 8d. per cwt." But the guarantee price has been steadily reduced over the last few years. Is that not restrictive? If there has not been the same rate of restriction in barley, how do you account for the fact that there have been fluctuations in wheat cultivations and a steady increase in barley? But you still have reduced the barley only 3d. per cwt. and wheat by 8d.
We know that sugar beet, instead of being a struggling, climbing industry, trying to get out of the doldrums, as it was years ago, is now a large and successful industry. You are cutting the producers in this industry. On what basis? You think they have enough, and you want to restrict them. I am speaking from memory now, and I must be careful; but I think it is stated in the White Paper that this industry is doing very well, and that there is no need to go on expanding at the same rate. If you look at the East Anglian Farmer's Weekly paper, you will see the figures of the

873
expected position of the sugar industry. We have always had a good case for the peace-time production of sugar from sugar beet in this country, compared with the old arguments of Free Trade 40 years ago, when it was argued on the basis of a division of labour between cheap, black labour and white labour. It was a good thing to have Free Trade, so as to have supplies on the cheap; but we have got rid of all that in late years.
To-day sugar is not being produced abroad at the same rate of increase as demand for sugar in the world is increasing—not by a very long way. It is estimated that between 1965 and 1970 the position may well be that you will be shouting for a much larger increase in the sugar beet industry. I doubt whether the particular 2s. 6d. deduction from guaranteed sugar beet will make much difference in the acreage which is likely to be taken up; but it may lead to some decrease if you go on pursuing this kind of prescriptive medicine of reduction year by year, and in the end you will have to call it all back and try to reorganise the sugar beet production again. There is no real continuity in this policy.
The last thing I want to say to the noble Earl is this. He speaks about having to remove a great number of pieces of legislation and Statutes from the Statute Book if the kind of assumptions which have been made and certain criticisms, both mine and those of other people, were likely to evolve. Well, it did not take long to repeal the Corn Production Act; and if there is any merit in the legislation now on the Statute Book, it does not lie to the credit of the Party opposite but to the Party on this side of the House. There was nothing like the 1947 Act for agriculture before the war; and there was never any agreement to organise marketing boards until, as the noble Earl so generously admitted, Christopher Addison introduced the first Marketing Act in 1931. But I do not think that that is going to deter anybody.
I should like to ask a question on this point. I forget whether it was the noble Earl or one of his co-Ministers in the Ministry who said the other day that there would be no alteration in the principles of the 1957 Act, at least, not for the lifetime of this Parliament. Does that mean that at the end of this Parliament
874
you are going to come to a more serious revision of the present protection of farmers and that these are just moves on the way? As I say, I am not sure who it is that I am quoting.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount may be quoting from the Election pledge of the Party to which I have the honour to belong, which said that the figures in the 1957 Act would not be altered during the lifetime of this Parliament. I do not believe that any Party going to the country on an Election ought to be so ambitious as to think beyond the lifetime of its own Parliament, even if it is returned.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is most interesting. I am very happy to be reinforced in the statement, even in the manner in which the noble Earl has done it, from an Election pledge. But I wonder what sort of reliance the farmers can put upon such a pledge as that.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, really, I must protest, because I do not think the noble Viscount is being fair. Is he saying that he would make a pledge for the lifetime of another Parliament for which he may have no responsibility, but may still be in Opposition?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I certainly should not want to do that. All I can say is that I hardly expect the farmers to accept that as a very wonderful pledge, considering how many pledges the Government have made on the electoral platforms of 1951, 1955 and 1959. I have seen what pledges they have made.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: And all carried out.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And all carried out! That's "all my eye and Betty Martin"—I was reminded of that saying on the television the other evening; it is a very old one and a very nice one. However, I have given your Lordships my general view of this matter. I beg the Government to reconsider it in the course of this year—I know it is no good trying to get them to alter it this time. I beg the Minister to convey to his colleagues the feeling that there is in

875
the rural districts to-day; that is, that agriculture is not being given its proper place in the economy of the country. If he will do that, and see that Parliament, when it comes to judge upon the decisions of the Government, has full information as to why and how—because this White Paper is certainly a "poor little Paper," as the noble Earl says; but it does a lot of harm—then we shall have a better situation in the future. Give us some hope in the agricultural industry. Wherever I have been in the last three or four weeks I have not had to make much talk about the White Paper; the talk has been made to me, because they know that I come up here. The feeling in the country about this White Paper is almost indescribable, and it seems to be only the Ministers on the Government Bench who do not understand it.
4.26 p.m.
LORD FISHER: My Lords, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence as this is the first time that I have spoken in this House. I will be brief. There are many serious matters affecting this country and the peace of the world which call for your Lordships' deliberations. Among them, on the one hand, are the feelings of colour, race and creed, so deeply rooted in the traditions of the past; and, on the other hand, forces so modern that only a few know their true power, and we can only guess at how close we are to total destruction. However, we must assume that these threats to our peaceful existence will be resolved, for we are considering the farming industry in the long term; and we must assume that we shall continue to live in this Island home of ours, with the many ties we have with our friends and cousins in the Antipodes, in the New World and, indeed, throughout Europe and the other continents. That being so, we have a particular problem to deal with; that is, the maintenance of an agricultural industry in a country which is an ideal market for all the surplus food available in the world within the reach of the sea.
The majority of the population of these Islands will continue to earn their living in a factory of some sort, relying on their own traditional skill as engineers to produce goods which the rest of the world wishes to buy. This
876
is the basic fact that we must accept in reviewing the industry on which probably one-tenth of our nation depends for a living. The stability of the home market for the products of the nine-tenths of our people not engaged in farm production is maintained by tariffs on imported goods competing with them; so that, by and large, there is not a great quantity of dumping of foreign surpluses of manufactured goods here. That the pattern of these tariffs will change is more than likely; but they will not disappear. That is the key to the guaranteed prices.
I should like to bring forward for your Lordships' consideration three points which are being pushed into the background by the sheer weight of numbers of people who are ignorant of the countryside and of farming. It is no fault of theirs; they simply never see the country, rather as a Middle-Westerner may never see the ocean. The first point, and by far the most important, is directly related to these protecting tariffs, and it seems to have been overlooked in the general enthusiasm for the Government to spend less on the farming industry. It is that the food subsidies were not and are not paid out to "featherbed" the farmer, but were and are designed to protect the farmer from foreign dumping, while at the same time giving the urban dweller the benefit of being able to buy the world surplus food at the lowest possible price.
This country is still the greatest market for food in the world, and largely a free market. This cannot be repeated too often when the general feeling seems to be that the food subsidies are guaranteed only for a few years—say another three or four years—and are anyhow a sort of Government gift to the farmer. They are not. They are the guarantee of the stability of the industry, pledged by all Parties to preserve it, and to continue so long as the policy remains to import cheap food. In the last few years this seems to have been overlooked in the Price Reviews, when the emphasis has shifted from the reality that these are guarantees to the supposition that they are gifts to the farmers.
The second point is really part and parcel of this and concerns the Price Review itself, and the enormous gulf

877
which seems to exist between the views of the Minister and the farmers' unions. This is destroying the goodwill of the Government in the eyes of the farmer, especially when an increase in wages and a cut in prices come within a month. Each year costs go up, and each year the farmers are told that, owing to their increased efficiency, they can absorb so much of these increases on the principle that it is jolly nice of the people to give them anything at all. But in fact does any industry have its tariffs lowered as it becomes more efficient? No; the industry gets some benefit instead. Not so the farmer, whose reward for his enterprise and productive efficiency has in the past simply been a reduced guarantee.
Finally, the third, but by no means the least, of the subjects I wish to mention, concerns the wage awards to an industry which has not suffered a strike for the past century. These awards have been way below the demands. We have been and are being served by a loyal and skilled body of men and women. Admittedly the charge for labour is by far the largest of the farmers' costs, and any further rise in wages must be reflected in a reduction in the numbers employed. But compared with other industries their rewards are not high, and few people connected with the industry would disagree with the necessity for narrowing the gap between the average earnings of farm workers and those of unskilled factory hands. I thank your Lordships for your kindness in hearing me, and I ask you not to forget agriculture in this time of national prosperity.
4.33 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, on his excellent maiden speech. If I may say so, he delivered his speech with great authority, and I am sure I shall be voicing the opinion of your Lordships' House if I say that we hope to hear the noble Lord make many other speeches in this House in the future.
As usual, I must begin by declaring an interest. I believe that most people could have guessed what the result of this Price Review would be. In that respect I must congratulate the Government on sticking to the rails. I do not think we shall gain anything by criticising the White Paper, but rather I think we should look to see whether it was
878
based upon a correct or an incorrect foundation. I believe the White Paper was not based on the correct foundation—anyway, not on the correct foundation for 1960. Having said that, I want to give my reasons for that assumption and, at the same time, to make some recommendations for the future.
Our agricultural policy has not run off the rails, but I venture to suggest that ever since the Outer Seven was thought of the points have been turned the wrong way. No longer is British agriculture speeding down the main line together with other industries. It is now being diverted by the Government into a siding, where eventually it could begin to rot like other wagons that go into railway sidings. Ever since the Outer Seven was thought of, our agricultural policy has tended to become somewhat negative. Surely, it is wrong to have a policy of limited production, a "marking time" policy, when we still import nearly half the food we require—and this, incidentally, makes a big inroad on our balance of payments position—and when in this World Refugee Year there are still masses of starving and underfed people in various parts of the world. What a pity it is when in the British Isles we have some of the most go-ahead and certainly the best farm workers in the world! Our farmers, with a little incentive, could produce more; yet to-day the Government do not want to see increased production, except for beef and a moderate increase for pigs. All other commodities seem to have reached saturation points so far as the Government are concerned.
May I suggest that this is not a very rosy outlook for the farmers, especially when they hear of other industries expanding and sharing in making us a more prosperous nation. While others march on, some to the Summit, the farmer, each time he takes a step forward, is asked to tighten his belt one more hole. I should like to suggest that the Government should not try to control agricultural production. Instead, they should encourage all production from land which they consider to be either economical for food production or which should be used for agriculture on social grounds. The Government cannot fully control agricultural production without controlling nature, and nature is something that even the wisest of Governments cannot control. Take milk production,

879
for instance. The Government may find one day that they have gone too far with restricting milk production. They will think that they can increase the flow of milk at the next Price Review. But they may be surprised when they do not get that increase within a year. They will be even more surprised when they have to wait for at least three years before they get that increase. It would appear that in certain places the facts of animal life are not fully understood.
Now another point. The Government want farmers to bring down the cost of production without increasing production, except for beef and pigs. This they try to do by squeezing the farmer year by year, with the result that the farmer sees his income dwindling, slowly but surely. He has to cut down on one of his major costs, which is often labour. This means replacing manual labour by machines. But machines are very expensive, and to-day, with a small margin of profit, many farmers just cannot build up sufficient capital for this purpose. So, the farmer, rather naturally, is forced to tackle the problem another way, that of increasing his income by increasing production—in other words, in the case of the dairy farmer, by getting more cows and selling more milk. Yet that is exactly what the Government do not want.
I am sure that a little more investigation would show that the Government's present policy can bring hardship. For with a small margin of profit, resulting in the need for increased efficiency, the farmer is driven to specialisation. And this means that if the particular commodity in which the farmer specialises is out of favour with the Government, even though it may carry a very small percentage reduction, the farmer may suffer considerable hardship over a period of years. Make no mistake, my Lords, the farmer cannot easily change from one type of building to another, because to-day he is being forced to become a specialist, often with expensive buildings and equipment to suit his particular type of production. These buildings and equipment are much too expensive to change to suit the wishes of the Government, a Government which is concentrating all its efforts to ensure that our manufactured goods sell abroad. Unfortunately,
880
our agricultural industry is to-day a convenient tool for the expansion of other industries. The control of agricultural production is convenient because it enables us to sell our manufactured goods to countries where we purchase our foodstuffs.
I believe that few outside the agricultural industry itself realise that farmers are so dependent on, yet have so little control over, the weather. Owing to the weather, farmers often suffer great disasters. It is perhaps invidious to relate a personal matter, but I know this to be 100 per cent. true, and I think it well illustrates my point. In January of this year, in my part of Scotland, we had the worst snowstorm within living memory. Not far from where I live four people lost their lives in this snowstorm. A lot of cattle and sheep were lost, and in this one small area great damage was done to buildings. I myself had a steading which had 84 milking cows in it. That steading collapsed, causing roughly £8,000 worth of damage. There are many risks in farming; those risks have to be taken by the farmer, but they should also be taken into account by the Government when they are determining prices.
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government must get our agricultural industry out of the siding. We must decide on the land we wish, for various reasons, to keep in production, and must produce as much as we can off that land. While there are people in the world starving, and until our balance of payments situation is far better, we should be producing more and not less. Of course there will be surpluses at home from time to time. Surpluses should not only be a matter of concern for the Marketing Boards and the Government, but should also be a matter on which the Government of this country should speak to our friends and Allies across the Atlantic, the Americans, to see how we can solve this great problem of feeding the underfed people throughout the world.
I should like to make one suggestion about subsidies. I am sure it is well known that with the present system some subsidies find their way into the wrong pockets while other subsidies never get near the right pockets. This, I know, is a very difficult problem, and I have one possible solution to suggest. I suggest that all farms should be graded—

881
and this, I assure your Lordships, is not nearly such a monumental task as it may sound, as already the Ministry and the Department of Agriculture officers know the farms in their areas. Farms should be graded according to a number of factors; for instance, the soil, its location, the proximity of markets and a number of other factors. Then of all the agricultural subsidies paid out, the lowest-graded farms—that is the worst farms—should get 100 per cent. of the subsidies, while the highest graded farms—the best farms—might get only a small percentage of the subsidies. This, I maintain, is the only way to ensure anything like fairness over subsidies.
May I now turn to one particular matter that is causing considerable concern in Scotland? That is, the problem of the marginal land. Her Majesty's Government have so far acted absolutely within their rights. Marginal agricultural production grants were never intended to go on for ever or to be in any way untouchable. They were originally designed to get marginal land back into production. What I think the Government will now have to decide is whether or not they wish marginal land to remain in production, either for economic or social reasons. If the answer is "Yes" on even one of those grounds, then the Government must do something to assist the right production—and I would underline the word "right".
Unquestionably the crop that should be grown on marginal land is grass. Unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared in the future to give some assistance for the production of grass on marginal land it is absolutely certain that the present green grass will deteriorate once more into grey rough pasture, and the money, some of it the taxpayer's money, put into this land will have been wasted. Grass will deteriorate because grass on marginal land requires two or three times as much fertiliser to keep it in production as grass on good arable land. May I suggest that the way to keep grass on marginal land in production might be to increase the subsidy on fertilisers used on marginal land? Of course it is also important to use the best grass seed on this type of land, so some assistance over the purchase of grass seed might also be beneficial. We should make no mistake that in England there is the problem of the
882
small farmer; in Scotland there is the problem of marginal land. These are two separate problems requiring two separate solutions.
Finally, Her Majesty's Government are doing immeasurable good for this country as a whole, but rather, I am afraid, at the expense of the farming community. Much hard thinking about our agricultural policy must be done, and must be done quickly. British agriculture must once more be given its head so that our farmers can play their part in bringing prosperity to this country, especially by improving our balance-of-payments position and also in feeding those less fortunate than ourselves, the starving people of the world.
4.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, it is my great pleasure at the commencement of what I have to say this afternoon to offer my congratulations from this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, on his maiden speech. I know very well the area from which Lord Fisher comes, and I am therefore glad to find him in the House to add to our agricultural discussions. We enjoyed what he had to say, and I was particularly pleased with his reference to the farm worker. He bore out my own views entirely in that respect, and in other ways, and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing him on many occasions in the future. I congratulate him.
Irrespective of what the Minister has said about the reception of the Price Review, it is obvious from the widespread adverse Press comments and the resolutions from meetings of the farmers and others interested in the welfare of the countryside that never before has a Review been received with so much displeasure and criticism. The storm of protest is still rising. Only in the last two or three days I have seen most adverse comments about the Review, and in my view the Government are in heavy weather in this and possibly in other matters. No doubt noble Lords will wish individually during the course of our discussion to express themselves upon specific points which interest them—as indeed has already been done in the few speeches which we have heard. It is obvious, I think, from what we have already heard this afternoon, that the Government will have no smooth passage for their Resolution.

883
I want to mention one particular matter. As is known to your Lordships, I come from a rural area the farmers of which will feel the full force of the uncalled for action of the Government. I say "uncalled for" and I mean it, because in my view there cannot at this time be any valid reason or justification for reducing our farming income, and it is obvious that that is what the Government are doing. Generally, those incomes are small in comparison with others and in relation to the services we render to the community in the national interest—which is no small measure of service. Can anyone honestly say that there is any one industry at the present time more important for the welfare of this country and the world than that which, here and elsewhere, seeks to produce the foods by which we alone and others can live? Agriculturists do not seek to destroy, oppress or exploit, but to produce, nurture and tend their products so as to cater for the needs of mankind. There is no industry which is less self-seeking than agriculture. We render a service without exploitation, and our low annual incomes are the result of a year's hard work. We are necessary in the national life and economy, and what we can save in imports, which have already been referred to, can be transferred to alleviate starvation in the remote parts of the world. It is sheer lunacy to say that we can over-produce food here or elsewhere, or that any commodity is in ample supply, as the Review states in one particular, while millions are in daily want and distress.
We are entitled to prove the measure of disapproval by agriculture of the Government's agricultural policy by reference to the crops we grow, the methods of our farming and the difficulties under which practical and working farmers have to struggle to obtain a reasonable livelihood from the land. I have on previous occasions used the general low level of agricultural incomes and our dependence upon Government aid—a dependence which should not be necessary if we could be sure of assured marketing conditions guaranteeing that we could sell our products at prices to repay us for our efforts and outlay. The struggle has been such that, year by year, many industrious farmers, farm workers and their families have had to give it up
884
and leave the land owing to dwindling resources and adverse circumstances beyond their control. In some instances, such a fate has been quite undeserved, and, as I see it, the future does not warrant any optimism of better times to come.
I am not seeking to do what the noble Earl suggested is being done from this side, to say anything very derogatory in regard to the industry. If the industry is given many more doses of the same medicine as we are having at the moment, then a surgical operation of a controlling nature—I am greatly in favour of something which controls our industry—will be necessary to revive it. We cannot survive without some clearer thinking by the Government and the Minister. East Anglian farmers will suffer from each of the eight reductions in the Review. Sheep, eggs, wheat, barley, oats and sugar beet are "bread and butter" products with us. They are the main foundation of our general farming. All have received a cut.
Perhaps the most significant and unexpected at this time is the reduction in the guaranteed price of 2s. 6d. a ton for sugar beet. My noble Leader has made reference to this, but I will deal with it in more detail. The noble Earl who opened this discussion referred to it only in relation to the reduction of 2s. 6d. a ton in the price. I have watched this crop being produced in Norfolk for fifty years, since the factory at Cantley was first opened. These have been years of experiment, progress and increasing efficiency. Our record is good. Sugar beet has been steadily advancing in favour and usefulness. It played its part in two war efforts; it provides a high level of labour; it is costly to produce, harvest and market, but it has a ready-money aspect and certain conditions which conform more accurately to the provision of an easier market and guaranteed price under the Agriculture Act, 1947, than any other crop or stock covered by that Act. The profit margin, except in the case of high yields, is not unduly high. Two elements, of gambling and sharp practice in the disposal of the crop, are not so apparent to the producer, who knows more or less what he will receive.
In the 'thirties 250,000 acres of light arable land were saved by sugar beet

885
production. It provides tons of good cattle and stock feed in the tops. It plays an important part in our rotational farming. I want to ask, why has this crop come under the axe? What is its future to be? Will a further cut be imposed next year? Who will gain by reducing the farmers' reward for a year's hard work and enterprise? None goes to the Revenue, as is actually shown in the Review record of subsidies and grants. So why penalise the sugar beet producer? Have any capitalist sugar group or undertaking been prodding Her Majesty's Government for their own ends? We are entitled to know and I ask the noble Earl the Minister to give a real and reliable explanation if he knows the answer.
The Review disposes of the sugar beet reduction in three very short paragraphs. Paragraph 34 tells us that each year the contract acreage is over-subscribed and that sugar is in ample supply. Paragraph 19 of Appendix VI tells us that the guarantee arrangements for 1960–61 will be similar to those in operation in 1959–60; and paragraph 20 states that transport arrangements for 1961–62 are to be negotiated. Those are the sole references to sugar beet in this Price Review of Her Majesty's Government except for the statement of the reduction in price. If the Government think they can dispose of an important cut in this way they are very badly advised as to the feelings of sugar beet growers. In this respect I could show them, here and now, some references at meetings of people interested in sugar beet as to what is really thought of the Government at the present time.
Let us look at the hollowness of the reference in paragraph 34, the statement that the contract acreage has been oversubscribed and sugar is in ample supply. Possibly it may be that here and there, in sugar beet factories, a farmer may have an extra acre or two, through having had extra seed; but here are the national figures for last year: Table A, Appendix I (page 11 of the Review) shows that it is estimated that the acreage for 1959–60 (which must be known by now) was down by 4,000 acres, and tonnage by 414,000. These figures do not suggest over-subscribing of acreage or over-production of sugar.
May I say a word or two about the financial implications? The noble Earl
886
the Minister has been trying to persuade us that from the farmers' point of view very little money is involved in these various reductions. But here is what is involved in regard to sugar beet: assuming that this season's crop is the same as last year's, namely, 5,328,000 tons, the reduction of 2s. 6d. per ton would mean a loss to the farmers of this country of £666,000—two-thirds of £1 million. On an average of 12 tons an acre (which was the national average for last year) that would mean a reduction in price of £1 10s. per acre. But the reduction in the farmers' income does not rest there, by a very long way. This year they will have to meet higher costs than last year—higher labour costs for agricultural and harvesting operations an a weekly piecework basis; increased bank and loan charges; in some cases, increased rents; higher costs of repairs and cost of cottages; and a number of contingent expenses. In all, these will amount to around £4 or £5 an acre.
On the basis of last year's acreage of 435,000, the difference, on the wrong side, for the farmers will be nearly £2 million on sugar beet alone. In this respect the action of Her Majesty's Government is lamentable. Agriculture has a case for an increase in prices, but sugar beet producers have a loss of nearly £2 million inflicted upon them by the reduction in price and the higher costs which the crop will take to produce. It is no wonder that the National Farmers' Union and other agricultural leaders have disowned Her Majesty's Government and would not be party to their Price Review.
I want to say just a few words about the Paper which we discussed earlier to-day. A few weeks ago I raised a point with the noble Earl the Minister on the possible leakage of information on deficiency payments in regard to the deadweight centres. I see by this new Paper that the definition of "producer" is the same as in previous Papers. On that occasion the noble Earl the Minister told me that my reading of the word "producer" was not quite in conformity with the views of the Ministry, and that the word "producer" included the name of the person who presented the fatstock for certification. My difficulty is this: the noble Earl mentioned that the Fat-stock Marketing Corporation could be classified as the sender for purposes of certification and that other people could

887
be classified in the same way, also. I find no quarrel with the Fatstock Marketing Corporation in respect of the fact that they publish their prices week by week and then, when they have notification of the exact amount of deficiency payment or stabilisation payment for that week, publish and pay to their senders the proper price.
My difficulty rests with those concerns who publish their prices at the commencement of a week in which pigs are sent to them but who have no knowledge whatever at that time of the amount of the deficiency payment or stabilisation payment—which are not published by the Ministry until probably ten days after their advertisement has appeared in local newspapers. They have published their weight prices (whether grade 1 or grade 2) to include the deficiency payment, and it may well be that there is there a leakage which should not arise and should not penalise the actual sender of the stock to the certification centre. It may be stated that there are advantages in that they can receive the deficiency payment when it is made by the Government, but there is no guarantee whatever that the full amount of this deficiency payment is handed over, either to the sender or (as in my instance) to the producer—who in my view is entitled to the full deficiency payment. Is the noble Earl going to reply to that point now?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to leave the point it may be convenient if I attempt to deal with it now, for there will be a number of points to be replied to at the end of the debate. The producer is a free agent. He can do what he likes in this matter. If it is convenient to him to have his stock presented to the certification centre by a third party, whether it is the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, to which the noble Lord does not seem to have any objection, or to these other people he has not named to whom the noble Lord does object, is entirely up to the producer. If in the following week, when he works out the prices, he sees that he has not been paid enough, what is he going to do? He is not going to give them more business. We are always doing this on my own farms. We check the prices we get in the market with the prices from the Fatstock Marketing
888
Corporation and so on, and decide what is the best way of marketing our products and the most convenient way. If the producer does not think that the people who are presenting his stock for him are doing it rightly, he goes somewhere else next week.
LORD WISE: My Lords, that may be all right. I commend the Fatstock Marketing Corporation because I think they act honestly in the matter by stating their prices at the commencement of the week; and when they come to the deficiency payment they amend the prices to include the deficiency payment. That is what I want everybody to do in order that the deficiency payment cannot leak. I hardly like to state it in your Lordships' House, but it is within my knowledge that a well-known group of processers have benefited to the tune of several hundred pounds by this particular method; and in the interests of the producers of this country I want to stop that. The advertisements I have here are from local people. They have stated their price for this week, but they do not know now what the deficiency payment is likely to be; and the poor miserable farmer (I almost said that the noble Earl was one of them, if he does not know what price he should get) sending his stock to these particular people who state a definite price may be subject to fairly heavy losses.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord and I will agree.
LORD WISE: We had better discuss it afterwards.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Lord refers to "the poor miserable farmer". I would say the poor stupid farmer—if he accepts evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Wise, that there is somebody who is going to "pinch" some of the subsidy and "do him down". He should not do that twice. I cannot conceive any reason why he should, and I really do not think that he does. He must think that there is some advantage to him for doing this.
LORD STONHAM: Surely that is not the point, my Lords. This is taxpayers' money. Government money; and apparently the Government are conniving in, or are willing to close their eyes to, an obvious leak, which has been admitted by the noble Earl.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is not a leak, and I do not admit it. I am sorry that we must go over all this again. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, in this new Order the definition of "producer" is the same as that in the previous Order. It says:
"'Products', in relation to any fatstock, means the person in whose name the fatstock is presented for certification."
There is no leak. The Government are not being swindled so long as they hand the deficiency payment to the producer so defined, namely the person who presents. How that person gets the stock is another matter altogether.
LORD WISE: My Lords, let me finish in regard to this. I have quoted prices which are issued at the commencement of a week. The sender of pigs to those particular concerns does not know in the least how much deficiency payment is included in the prices which have been printed in the papers. So he cannot check up the following week, when the deficiency payments are announced, to see whether he was fairly or unfairly treated in regard to those prices.
Now may I conclude? I have dealt with one branch of arable farming which has been treated harshly in the Review. I could prove an equally good case for proper treatment in respect of cereal crops, wheat, barley and the rest, all adding up to a severe condemnation of the Government's agricultural policy. We are tired of this chopping and changing about year by year. We want stable conditions which will leave us alone for a reasonable period. We want more clear thinking in Government circles, with a better understanding of the farmers' difficulties. Most farmers obtain their reward by hard work, day in and day out, not by living on their wits to catch other people. Above all, we have a feeling that there should be greater efficiency—a word we often hear, and I expect we shall hear more of it—aniong those who at present have the guidance of our fortunes and livelihoods in their hands.
5.15 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, some years ago, when food was very short in this country, there used to take part in our agricultural debates many noble Lords who were not agriculturists; they were hankers and eaters and the like.
890
I thought it would not be a bad idea if we revived this process to some extent. I approach this debate as a plain, simple eater, and also as a taxpayer. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and though I am not very technically acquainted with sugar beet, from my brief acquaintance with a beet factory I did notice from the statistics that the production of beet appears to be approximately double that of pre-war. Seeing that our West Indian Colonies are almost entirely dependent on the production of sugar and the marketing of that sugar in this country, I think the East Anglian farmer has not got a bad share of the British sugar market in the circumstances, if he can get a subsidised production of double that of pre-war. I do not know how he grew any at all last year. From my brief excursion into Norfolk in the early days of October, and with happy results in one of the constituencies there, it is a mystery how any sugar beet survived in the ground.
Each year I listen to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition; each year his farming losses get heavier. How attractive this way of life must be, that a man can go on tilling the soil for so long at ever increasing losses, my Lords! The noble Viscount is, quite clearly, becoming more and more the hobby farmer every year. I was very pleased to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Fisher, because he echoed many of my sentiments; and I hope that we shall hear him again in defence of the countryside, because I believe, like him, that a nation is not a balanced nation without a prosperous countryside. And seeing that our farmers are handicapped by climate, size and so on, and have to compete with the very specialist producers all over the world all the time, it is obvious that they cannot do it without support of some sort or kind.
The Party opposite would like that support to be in the form that the Government would buy everything the farmer produces. That is being done in America, and it has tied up the most colossal sums of the taxpayer's money in the support of prices. I believe that great warehousing space in the United States is also tied up in that way, so I do not think that is a very good idea. I personally am rather inclined to tariffs,

891
but the Electorate are not very fond of tariffs, and the Government have produced this extremely ingenious method by which farming is given support to-day. I am fully willing to pay taxation in order to provide that support, to provide that prosperous countryside; but I want to insist that the money is going to the right people and in the right direction, and I am not always satisfied that that is the case.
I have for a long time been very unhappy about the egg situation. The subsidy for the year which has just ended has apparently run to something like £36½ million, and one wonders what could have been done for agriculture, in the way of new buildings and so on, with this sum of money. I am doubtful whether it is necessary to subsidise the production of eggs at all. In fact, this £36½ million has gone merely to reduce the price in the shops to the consumer; and I have seen it reckoned that something like a 1d. an egg has been knocked off the price of eggs in the shops by the taxpayer. In the present state of prosperity in this country, a food subsidy of that nature is absolutely unnecessary.
The Government have got into a most appalling tangle with this 1947 Act, which, in my humble opinion, ought never to have contained eggs at all. They have got into a position whereby any producer can come forward and can demand subsidised support for any quantity he chooses to put into a packing station; and the more he puts in the more the market is depressed, and greater is the amount that has to be provided by the taxpayer. The Government get the worst of both worlds in the end, because they have to lower the price in every Review in order to try to discourage this production. It will ultimately produce bankruptcies among some of the producers, and the others—the farmers' wives, and so on, who do not keep costs—will go on producing more and more in order to keep up the volume of their pin money—because they do not pay for the hens' food themselves.
I believe that one of the most important things at the moment is for the Minister of Agriculture and his advisers to start thinking out a new plan for eggs. I have read the present Eggs Order, and so far as it is possible to understand it (it seems to be still more complicated
892
than any of the others), I think it is not very likely to restrict the loss; because, fundamentally, until you tackle the question of providing an open outlet for every egg that anybody chooses to bring along, you can never get out of this tangle which you are in. I submit that no thinking farmer could demand such conditions for farming: that, without any restriction on quantity, he is entitled to a support for eggs which can go down only a very small fraction each year. Therefore we must have something quite new.
These things have been done in other places, and the Minister's advisers have, of course, access to all particulars. In my short experience I have come across two things which might contain the skeleton of a scheme. There were the Brazilian coffee arrangements before the war. There exactly the same problem arose. Brazil divided the coffee into three different quotas. The producer got the full market price for the market quota; the next quota was called the "equilibrium" quota, which was put on the market only if it was required, and for this he got a lower price; and, finally, there was the destruction quota, for which he got just the railway freight to the nearest destruction depôt. The Japanese were faced with the same problem when their cloth imports into India were restricted before the war. They had to apply a quota to all producers; and if a new producer wanted to come into the market, he had to buy a small portion of quota, which was put up to auction every so often. We shall have to look at eggs again under some such scheme as that. It is no longer possible to expect the taxpayer to underwrite every egg laid in this country, regardless of quantity. Otherwise, there will be a revolt by the taxpaper. Moreover, he realises perfectly well that, whatever opinions he and other people may have about the palatability, freshness and so on, of the eggs going through the packing stations from the egg factories to-day, nobody can deny that they are low-cost producers, and can probably produce as cheaply as anybody else in the world.
My Lords, all these schemes to support agriculture are getting more and more elaborate. My noble friend Lord Forbes had a new elaboration of grading farms. As they get more

893
elaborate, I think that these schemes get more and more vulnerable to the original sin of man, and I must confess that I immediately thought of one or two ways by which the grading of farms could be turned to profitable account in the Highlands. When we turn on to sheep, of which I know absolutely nothing, except that I like them roasted, I find that the subsidy has gone up in this last year from £11·7 million to £25·9 million. The White Paper says:
"The subsidy in 1959–60 will be more than double that for 1958–59. and over the year as a whole the unit rate of subsidy will average about half the market price. This is due in part to abnormally heavy marketings at the peak period; but the prospect, even with a more normal pattern of marketings, is of continuing heavy subsidy".
Half the market price subsidy!
The other side of the picture seems to be represented by a cutting that I have here from the Sunday Express of March 27, 1960, which I am sure the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary, has seen. I realise that not everything printed in every Sunday paper in this country is always absolutely accurate, but when one sees at a very prominent place in a very prominent paper headlines such as "Sold lambs kept until prices rise", and "Swindlers net fortune from sheep subsidy", quite clearly some investigation has to take place. Of course, this is all substantiated by interviews with people.
LORD AMWELL: May I intervene? If the subsidy amounts to half the market price, is it not about time that, in a debate of this character, something should be said about the monstrous leakage between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays?
LORD HAWKE: I was not going into the details of this article, because the writer goes into some detail, and it might put ideas into the heads of some of my Scottish sheep-farming friends behind me; but it is all entered into there. It is a system by which some farmers, who have apparently obtained a subsidy without having a sheep killed at all when the market price was very low, have then brought them back and marketed them later, when the price was very high. There are allegations of an elaborate swindle. If there has been a démenti published, I have not read it, and I should be very pleased if my noble friend would tell me immediately. Obviously, there is no need to pursue the point.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not want to make an elaborate reply to the point, but I want to say this at once. I do not know that a démenti has been published, because there is no swindle here, elaborate or otherwise. I will elaborate on this point later, if I am asked, but just to allay my noble friend's fears I would say now that there is no swindle here at all. Perhaps it would be convenient if I endeavoured to answer the point now, because my noble friend gave me notice that he would mention it and the matter was raised in the newspapers. When you have a sheep or lamb ready to earn its subsidy, you present it by a number of means (and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will agree) to a certification centre. The presenter will get the deficiency payment, if there is any deficiency payment due, there and then. The lamb then has a punched hole made in its ear so that it cannot be presented again. You must not take that lamb and breed from it, because it has been presented for slaughter: that would be an offence; and our inspectors go round the country to see that sheep with these holes in their ears are not being used for breeding. That would be a swindle.
A swindle was not alleged in this case. What was alleged in this case was that, the sheep having been presented and the deficiency payment made, it was not then immediately slaughtered but was retained and sold later. So it may have been. The subsidy was paid at the time the subsidy ought to have been paid. The sheep was presented later on because the man took a gamble that the market was going to rise. And it did rise. There is no leakage of money here at all. This practice, I am told, took place last summer, although not to the extent that the newspapers say, because there was a large marketing of Scottish lambs, particularly, due to the pasturage being so dry. This in fact had the effect of steadying the market. The lambs had been certified and the farmer got the subsidy and then said, "I think the price is going up", he retained the lambs for a time and then sold to a butcher later on. It is not a swindle, and there was no leakage of Government money.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the subsidy is paid on estimated dressed car-case weight. In the instance the noble

895
Lord was quoting, was the subsidy paid when the sheep were killed, or was it paid when they were first presented?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: If the sheep were sold by auction it would be by estimate. If it were sold by dead weight it would be—but no, it could not have been done that way; it must have been presented at auction.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? If that lamb or sheep was kept long enough, would it be possible to obtain a second deficiency payment on it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No; there could not be a second deficiency payment, because the lamb was marked.
LORD WISE: I know that. But would the ear-marking have worn off?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No. I think it is difficult for a large hole punched in an ear to wear off.
LORD HAWKE: I am glad to hear that there is no criminal misappropriation in this way by the farming community of the Government's funds. But to a layman it seems that the great elaboration of these schemes and Orders has meant that there is a certain amount of what the layman would regard as unpremeditated leakage. I bring this point up rather to emphasise how important is the confidence between town and country. It is a very delicate plant and it is vital that agriculture should keep its house absolutely clean. I regard the National Farmers' Union as something in the nature of a guild of farmers, and I have no doubt that if farmers were found to be cheating over subsidies of this nature the National Farmers' Union would expel them. As the Ministry Orders tend to get more and more elaborate, I emphasise that the staff of the Ministry will have to get more and more alert to the original sin of man.
5.35 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, my only interest in this subject is as a consumer and a taxpayer; but consumers and taxpayers, after all, are the vast majority of the citizens of this country and their interests are not unimportant. First, let us look at this from the
896
point of view of the taxpayer, who is contributing £259 million a year by way of subsidies to agriculture. Let us compare that with the aggregate farming net income of £356½ million a year. What is coming from the Exchequer is equal to 72 per cent. of net farm income; that is to say, 72 per cent. of the return to the farmer for his work and for the capital which he has invested. Or compare it with the total labour cost in agriculture of £318 million. The Exchequer support, therefore, represents over 80 per cent. of the labour costs in agriculture. These are certainly rather surprising figures, and I do not know any other industry which is being supported by the taxpayer to that extent.
It may be that one would feel happier about this if the result to the consumer were more agreeable. But what is the position at the present moment? Everybody in this country is complaining about the food which is bought in the market. They complain that it is unappetising and inferior. It would be an interesting thing if some altruistic person would conduct a public opinion poll upon this; and I think that the results would somewhat surprise the Government. I do not find anybody who is satisfied about the condition of the food which is for sale in this country. Let me give some illustrations. The potatoes are tasteless, full of blemishes and have been treated with chemicals in order to prevent sprouting; nobody dares to eat a potato skin any longer; in some cases the haulms have been treated with arsenic or other chemical in order to wither them and some of that penetrates into the soil.
Eggs are all passed through egg marketing stations; they reach the consumer stale and are of poor quality in many cases, having been produced by mass production means in batteries, where poultry are kept under most artificial conditions. Chickens are in many cases implanted with hormones in order to save a certain amount of feeding, or they may be treated with antibiotics in order to get a quick result; and the quality of the meat is not what it used to be. In many cases they are reared under extremely artificial conditions, kept in confinement from hatching until they are slaughtered. Pork is also something which may be

897
treated with antibiotics, and when I asked a question about this recently the noble Earl said that it was quite impossible for the consumer to know whether this had happened or not. Consequently he cannot have any satisfaction with regard to what he is eating.
Milk is almost invariably extremely stale. In the large towns like London it is quite commonly two or three days old before it reaches the consumer. In the vast majority of cases it has been pasteurised, a process which at the present day is entirely unnecessary for the purpose for which it was originally introduced, because all dairy herds in this country now are tuberculin tested, and the original object of destroying the germs of tuberculosis no longer has any significance. It is in fact pasteurised for a purely commercial purpose, and that is to enable it to be handled in bulk and to be kept for very long periods before it reaches the consumer. The result of that, of course, is that it has been altered in quality by the heat treatment, and it is gradually deteriorating during storage. It does not turn sour, but merely gradually turns putrid.
Green vegetables are coarse and flavourless, due, no doubt, to the conditions under which they have been grown and stimulated with fertilisers, which produce a lush growth but which destroy the quality of the vegetable. In many cases there is the risk that they have been contaminated by sprays which have been used for agricultural purposes and therefore are potential carriers of poisonous substances. Fruit also has been subjected to spraying, sometimes many times during the course of its growth, and there once more one does not know whether it is a carrier of toxic substances or not.
As to wheat, that does not reach the consumer in its natural condition; it reaches him in the form of flour or flour products, and therefore perhaps it is impossible to judge what the quality of the wheat is. We can only judge what the quality of the flour is, or what the quality of the bread and other flour products may be. The general public know perfectly well that the bread which is now supplied to them does not keep. It gets stale and mouldy in a very short time, with the result that immense quantities of it are thrown away as waste and are not consumed at all.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords could the noble Lord explain to a layman how it is that, if our food is so unutterably beastly, the health of the country seems to improve by leaps and bounds?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, the noble Lord is assuming that the health of the country is improving by leaps and bounds. It is a well-known fact that, although the death rate in early life, and particularly in infancy, has diminished greatly in recent years, not due to the food supplies about which I am talking but to better hygiene and a better standard of living generally, it is not true that the health of the people of older ages has improved to the same extent. The prevalence of chronic diseases of various kinds, rheumatic, bronchitic and so on, is well known. So it is not correct to say that health generally has improved to that extent, or that the improvement is due to the quality of the food which is eaten. It may indeed be due to the fact that the standard of living has risen generally and that people are able to get food in abundance. There is no doubt that that is so, and also that the economic condition of this country has changed greatly during this century. That is an entirely different subject which has nothing to do with what I am talking about at this moment.
There is no reason why this country, which is now one of the richest in the world, should not have both an abundant food supply and one of the best quality. But who is there who speaks up for the consumers? The Ministry of Agriculture and of Food ought to be the protectors of the public, but what is done in order to ensure that we should have food of good quality which we are justified in expecting, having regard to the enormous amount of money which is spent as subsidy in one way or another to agriculture?
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I must declare a triple interest in this debate—I am an eater; I am a taxpayer, and alas! I am a farmer. I am really very disappointed that the racket my noble friend and I were cooking up, of sheep-running on moors, is not going to be profitable. But probably it is just as well. I have no quarrel with the general theory of price review;

899
nor the determination of prices, nor the system. But I have some reservations. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, asked us to keep this matter in perspective, which I think we should do. An enormous number of figures, world trends and averages and general things of that sort, have been bandied about, which I find very hard to follow, and I should like to try in a very few moments to get down to something nearer the ground. This is an agricultural debate, and I think the earth should come into it.
May I read Section 1 (1) of the Agriculture Act, 1947? Talking about guaranteed prices and assured markets it says:
"The following provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting and maintaining, by the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act"—
and this is the part which I ask your Lordships to note. I have read the whole subsection so that I could not be accused of taking it out if its context—
"a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry."
I want to question whether the whole of that subsection is being met by this Price Review. May I point out that docking £9 million off the Exchequer contribution really increases the total food bill of the country by ·05 of 1 per cent.—not a very large proportion perhaps, but that is the figure: ·05 of 1 per cent. of the amount that the country spends on food.
Last year, 1959, we had a negotiated Price Review, and on the whole, after a very interesting debate in your Lordships' House, we all agreed that it was more or less just and reasonable. If it was just and reasonable then, it seems to me to follow that farmers should be able to expect the opportunity of earning at least the same reward for their efforts this year, under the 1960 Price Review, as they did then; otherwise, the two things do not tie up. Whether they have that opportunity remains to be proved.
900
The Government's contention is that it is so, and my contention is that in certain circumstances it is not so. The real bone of contention is this £25 million increased efficiency. I think difficulty also arises through the taking of averages. The average, of course, is the point in the middle; there must be a point on one side which is higher and one on the other side which is lower. Either the chap on the high side is getting too much or the chap on the bottom side is getting too little, if the thing is cut really near the bone.
I should like to apply this Price Review to see how it affects a farm of my own which I am farming myself, and I should like to go into a little detail because I do not want it to be said this is purely a hobby farm, or that I have not taken advantage of all the opportunities offered by the Government, on which they are charging or theoretically debiting this £25 million. The farm is a classified farm, a classified stock-rearing, area, and that prohibits me from doing anything else than rearing store cattle. I can keep a few yearlings; I can keep pigs, chickens, sheep. But I cannot—and this is the point—fatten an animal; and therefore I cannot avail myself of a guarantee price. There is no guarantee price for the chap who produces stores. The Government will say, "You are getting, the hill cattle subsidy". I agree. But there is no long-term guarantee that it is going to stay. The same thing applies to the calf-rearing subsidy, which I get, and to the ploughing subsidies, which I also get. The man producing store cattle is not protected to the same extent, except indirectly, as the man producing straight commodity products; and he is prohibited also from doing so.
On my farm I have one man on 97 acres. I have yet to find how you divide a man; you must have one man on one farm, unless it is an adjoining farm. In point of fact, I have four farms in this area, and two crofts. My total labour is four men. I do not think anybody would say that that was excessive labour, and I do not think anybody would say that I could pay off a man. On this particular 97 acres he produces the feed for the winter keep of 30 yearlings; he produces the summer grazing, rotational grazing, and part-time grazing for 60 hill cows and calves, and, in addition, about three weeks' keep for

901
a flock of sheep which we lamb on the turnips. That man is pretty busy. In addition, he has three miles of fence, three-quarters of a mile of road, and, I think, four miles of ditching to keep up. So he is not idle. Also, to make sure he has something to do in the evening he keeps a store sow which produces two litters of pigs, store pigs, but with no guaranteed price. There are no chickens because I think it would be too much. In times of harvest, silage-making, and so on, I work the four men on these four farms, two crofts, together in a gang. They work on farm A, B, C and so on.
The Government say, "Improve efficiency". How can you? With one man you cannot cut your labour bill. They say, "Keep more cattle". But the ground will not keep it. They say, "Get your advice from the Government Advisory Centre in Aberdeen". I do; and I follow it. They say, "Employ rotational grazing. Plough up more land, and get more land in rotational grazing". This land has been in rotational grazing for 30 years, and that applies to a large number of farms in Scotland. In order to produce feed it is farmed in what is called the six-shift system, which means I go right round the farm in six years. There are 34 acres in oats, 17 acres in silage and turnips, and the rest is in grass for three years, some made into hay and some silage, as well for winter keep of these animals and for summer grazing. It is impossible to use that classified ground harder than that—I think it: is probably too hard as it is. I have taken all available advice I can get, and nobody has produced any scheme that I can employ which will not only increase the efficiency but turn that increased efficiency into money. The only thing I can sell is the cattle I can breed on the place, the calves; and the amount I can get is determined by the number of cattle I can keep, which is already the full amount, and a bit of luck if no losses arise.
I am sorry to be so long, but I want to point out that there is a limit to this efficiency business, and the limit is reached on a small farm far sooner than on a large farm. I always bought my lime at a time when the maximum subsidy, 70 per cent., was given. I cannot do that now, because the Government have reduced the subsidy by 5 per cent.,
902
though they said they had put it up by 5 per cent. The most efficient chap buys in the best market, and that was at a time when the subsidy was 70 per cent. So far as I am concerned Her Majesty's Government have now reduced the subsidy by 5 per cent. As maintenance dressing I require to apply two tons to the acre on 17 acres. On a 17-acre break, it is a neutralising value of about 45 per cent. on this year's prices; and I get a very cheap rate because I have put all the land together. That means that on that farm it will cost me a reduction in benefit of 85s. I come to the fertilisers, compound fertilisers for the grain. On grass and turnips again I get them at an extremely cheap rate, and again I buy them in August and store them, in order to get the 30s. a ton discount by doing so. That works out at a price of £12 a ton. The subsidy on that is reduced by 5 per cent., which means exactly the same as a 5 per cent. increase in price, so far as I am concerned. Then 14 per cent. basic slag, at £5 a ton, means another 5 per cent. on costs.
Then my labour has gone up 7s. a week. I do not grudge it—the man is worth it; but I have to pay it. That increases my bill by 364s. a year. The average yield of oats on that ground is poor; it is only five quarters, and it is very poor ground. My deficiency payment, or rather the guaranteed price for that 34 acres, works out at minus 128s. So that on this farm, owing to the particular conditions—there are hundreds of other farms like it, because nearly all farms are small ones—my costs are up by about £31 a year, and my deficiency payment in subsidies and suchlike things on oats, which is the only side product which I can sell, is down by £6 10s., so I am really £37 worse off under this Price Review than I was last year.
These farms are costed by the College in Aberdeen as a sample; they are part of a sample of about 40 farms. The profit on this type of farm, if everything goes well—and these farms are run quite well—is in the order of £500. So that by taking ordinary advice, doing everything that I am told and getting on with the job, I am now to be docked 7 per cent. on that basis. There we are. I do not expect the noble Lord to bandy figures about the Floor of your Lordships' House to-day, but I hope that he will read and will check those figures.

903
I should like to say how glad I was that my noble friend Lord Forbes took up my hobby horse with which I bored some of your Lordships in the last agricultural debate, When all is said and done, the organisation is there. I was criticised that I was intending to set up a new bureaucratic organisation. If I may be so bold as to say it, I think that that really is pretty nearly rubbish, because it is there already. I was also told, "You cannot have a means test." What on earth is the Small Farmer Scheme? When you have to put in a scheme to make your farm viable and also other schemes of assistance, you can get assistance only—and rightly so; I am not querying it at all—on proving that you cannot get along without it, and that it is going to be a profitable thing to do. That is just as much a means test as anything we are suggesting here, and I hope that the noble Lord will in due course give it serious attention. I did not warn him last time and I got a "brush-off" which I rightly deserved; but I hope that this time, with both of us at it, he will seriously consider that matter.
Of course, the same thing applies in Scotland to the abolition of M.A.P. Scheme. This is a most serious matter. It is easy enough to abolish these things, but if nothing is put in their stead then you will, of course, lose confidence. It is much more a matter of confidence. The actual harm that this Price Review will do to a few farmers is a row of beans—I quite admit it—but I do not think that the Government have complied in entirety with the spirit of Part I of the 1947 Act. They have looked after their own side of it, but not the farmer's side. I feel that for the sake of saving £9 million and reducing the overall cost of food to the consumer by ·05 per cent. it is rather unworthy.
6.5 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, has raised a Scottish point, perhaps I could reply quite briefly at this juncture. We will study with great interest the speech of the noble Viscount. As he forecast, I am not able to deal with the details that he raised. He raised a technical problem which he says is very
904
real: that we are now reaching the limit of efficiency. I join issue a little with him, in that one never reaches the limit of efficiency; but as one goes along, progress necessarily is slower. I can see the point about being taken as an average farmer. As he rightly says, one is never ion the line; one is always either above or below the line.
I should like to say a word about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, who said that one was never satisfied with the food of this country. I hope that he was referring to England and Wales, because nowhere in the world is there tastier or better quality meat and fish than in Scotland. All the food in Scotland is of fine quality. My problem is not to get good food, but not to eat too much of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, raised some general points, to which my noble friend will refer when he comes to wind up. He made special mention of the Marginal Agricultural Production scheme in Scotland. As noble Lords know, the Government have made a three-year scheme under Section 75 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, to cover the three cropping seasons 1960, 1961 and 1962, during which period the needs of the farms that have been receiving M.A.P. assistance will be kept under review. The reviews will be carried out by the agricultural executive committees, who, in making their reviews, have discretion to adjudge the degree of marginality of a holding. They are also to take into account the benefits derived from other forms of assistance (such as the improvement grants), and the economics of the enterprise as a whole.
Before the end of the three-year scheme, a special review will be carried out by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the agricultural executive committees of those farms still receiving assistance. The position of these holdings will then be discussed with the National Farmers' Union in the light of the review and of other forms of assistance then available. Generally speaking, the Government think that now, after achieving expansion in hill cattle numbers, marginal upland farmers should be able to maintain the fertility of their grazings with the help of the general subsidies—ploughing grant, lime and fertiliser subsidies, and calf subsidies, as well

905
as the special hill cattle subsidy. I have noted what the noble Viscount has said about not being sure that these will be continued, but I think that his fears are unfounded. But, in any case, we have undertaken to review the position before the end of the three-year scheme, and we must await that review. We do not underrate the importance of the agricultural and social considerations which are involved and to which my noble friend Lord Forbes referred. I would assure the noble Lord, who has told me that he cannot be here for the winding-up, that we have taken note of his comments and suggestions about grass and marginal land.
6.9 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, on his excellent maiden speech. I feel sure that his live intellect will be a great asset to your Lordships' debates. I must commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on the filthy food which he is forced to consume. I myself find that my frame increases in direct proportion to the enjoyment of my food. His evidently decreases in direct proportion to the misery which is inflicted upon him at mealtimes. I can only suggest to him that he takes the advice of Dr. Barbara Moore and lives on wholesome honey which is not touched by the wicked farmer.
We have heard to-day a certain amount about the flourishing state of agriculture. Figures have been put forward to prove that. I am afraid that I am going to disagree with a great deal that has been said. What I have to say, and any arguments that I may put forward, are based on the fact that to my mind confidence in the future of agriculture is decreasing, and decreasing rapidly. This Price Review has merely resulted in accelerating that. Over the past ten years agriculture has become tighter and more competitive. I hold no quarrel with that—it was to be expected—but profitability has decreased. I do not entirely blame Her Majesty's Government for that, though I expect noble Lords opposite would like to do so. I shall blame Her Majesty's Government if they refuse to recognise it.
It is true that agriculture has had much helpful legislation over the past fifteen years from both types of Government,
906
but there is one commodity which no legislation can manufacture, a commodity that is engendered and comes about and one on which the whole future and prosperity of agriculture depends, and that is, confidence. To my mind confidence has been gradually going out over the past five years, and if Her Majesty's Government fail to see that, I can only say that they must be staring at a magnesium flare and apparently unable to see.
I blame Her Majesty's Government not so much for reducing the subsidies under the Price Review by £9 million but for failing to realise that by reducing subsidies by that sum they are merely encouraging this dissipation of confidence, which is worth far more than £9 million. It is said that the agriculture bill rises each year and must be contained. It is true that £250 million is a large sum of money but what does it amount to?—£5 per person per year, 2s. per person per week, the price of ten cigarettes. That does not seem to be a large premium to pay for the prerogative of the public to buy limitless cheap food.
It is said that we must keep a fair balance between the demands of agriculture and those of the taxpayer. That is perfectly true, but a fair balance does not mean a balance in which the scales of agriculture are consistently the lighter. It is not universally stated (although the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition did state it this afternoon) that in real terms, taking into account the change in the value of money since 1948, the farmers' income has decreased by 5 per cent. whereas that of the rest of the community has increased by 30 per cent.; and yet during this period farmers have modernised their holdings Out of all proportion and poured millions of pounds into their business—and for what? For a smaller return.
If the noble Earl does not like my taking 1948 as the starting year—for he may say it is loaded in favour of my argument, and possibly it is—then may I suggest to him that we take 1947? I would ask your Lordships to bear these figures in mind because they are interesting. Since 1947 the agricultural net output has increased by 33⅓ per cent. whereas that of the rest of the community has increased by 36 per cent.—virtually the same increase. Yet in the same

907
period the real net income of those in agriculture rose by 3 per cent. while in the rest of the community it rose by 34 per cent. That is a very significant difference. If the noble Earl is sceptical as to who the rest of the community are in this context, let me assure him that these figures represent the total of all personal incomes, including wages, salaries, professional earnings, pensions and so forth.
I am not concerned that farmers themselves are less well off—they expected to be. My concern is this. Why should people be expected and encouraged to invest their money in agriculture when they know as a sure and certain fact that they are going to get less and less for the products they sell? It is like running up an escalator that is going down. If one runs hard enough one may keep pace, but a sensible man will get off that escalator and find one that is going in the right direction.
In the past I have supported Her Majesty's Government whenever there have been cuts because I considered it right and proper, in the national interest, for agriculture to become tighter; but there is a limit to the amount one can squeeze a balloon without it bursting, and I believe that that limit has come. If we destroy, or even damage, an industry the size of agriculture, we bring down with it not only farmers and farm workers, but also the engineering industry, the fertiliser industry, freight and haulage, millers, compounders, and all those other people whose very existence is so intimately connected with a prosperous agriculture. And let us remember that agriculture has an output of £1,500 million. It is the largest industry in the country, an industry with an output three times that of Imperial Chemical Industries, and one and a half times the size of the motor and shipbuilding industries put together.
The noble Earl will probably agree with what I have just said. Where we disagree is on how much tighter the balloon can be squeezed. I believe that this has gone too far, and I can see this reduction of £9 million resulting merely in confidence running out of the industry. In that respect, I feel that the Price Review has been a misjudgment. We are told that agriculture is lucky, because under the 1957 Act Her Majesty's
908
Government could have made reductions of 2½ per cent.—which in this year would mean £19 million—whereas in fact they have made reductions of only £9 million, so that a further £10 million could be taken off. I deplore that attitude. I remember the Bill being introduced into your Lordships' House and with what joy it was obtained. I was an enthusiastic supporter, for I thought that here at last was a Bill which would give the farming industry confidence and stability. A very different complexion has now been put on that Act. It is now a method of reducing the agricultural support annually. That is an action which I personally deplore.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him on this point? There is no different complexion on the Act now as compared with the time when it was introduced into your Lordships' House. It was to regulate and make tolerable the decrease that might become justifiable in the determination of the Reviews. There is nothing more or less in it than that, and it is quite unfair and wrong to say that the Bill is being interpreted now in any way differently from the way it which it was said it would be used when it was introduced.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I did not imagine that the noble Earl would let that fly past his head, but the fact remains that this Bill came in with the interpretation that it was a support for agriculture, and the farmers accepted it as such—
EARL WALDEGRAVE: And so it is.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is like having one's arm cut off, and then, when one complains to one's persecutor, being told one is lucky not to have lost one's head as well. We are told that farmers' incomes have risen and that they ought to be satisfied, though in real terms their incomes are decreasing.
Her Majesty's Government, too, have forgotten one important point. In the last five years the broiler industry has greatly increased its output, from one million to 115 million birds, with a gross output of the value of £50 million. This is an industry which has grown and flourished without any kind of support. Yet these figures are taken into the general agricultural Price Review figures.

909
If the figures of this new industry were removed from the figures of the agricultural industry as a whole it would be found that there is a very much greater difference in output and income in the five years between then and now.
Agriculture is an industry which must prosper. There are so many varied opinions. Some talk scathingly of farmers' subsidies. It is not the farmer who is subsidised. If an industry sells its produce below the cost of production, then surely the one who benefits is the one who, because of the subsidy, is able to purchase artificially cheap goods. In this connection I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention a few details. Last August, English wheat was sold at £17 per ton. At home, imported wheat was £26. The Government bore a subsidy of £9 a ton. But who, in fact, received the benefit of that subsidy? The farmer did not. He received the cheque, but the housewife did not receive any benefit from cheaper bread. The person who received the benefit of that subsidy was the man who, because of it, purchased cheap wheat. The same applies to barley. In 1954 one would have turned down 110s.; this year one accepts gladly 82s. 6d. or 85s. One is told it does not matter because the deficiency payment will make up the difference. But who is benefiting from that? It is not the farmer; it is not the beer drinker; it is the person who purchases this artificially cheap food.
I would draw your Lordships' attention also to the fertiliser industry. What would happen if the fertiliser subsidy were removed? The first thing is that the price of fertilisers would come down. We have already had an example of one firm that has been accused by the Monopolies Commission of overcharging. But who is getting the benefit of the subsidy? The fertiliser manufacturers, because they can keep their costs at an artificially high level. If I may give an example, I would draw your Lordships' attention to white fish meal, the price of which, in December last year, was £71 a ton; and that in this country is virtually a monopoly. The Peruvian fish meal was imported at £53 a ton, and since December the price of fish meal dropped in England from £71 to £59 10s. I cannot believe that any noble Lord would imagine that the farmer has had
910
the benefit of that subsidy which was on fish meal at £71 a ton.
These thoughts prompt one to ask numerous questions. Are we right to subsidise agriculture? Are we doing it in the right way? Is the subsidy going where it is intended to go? Is it large enough? Is the farmer's return on his capital large enough? Is he joining in on this "Never had it so good" era? Is his standard of living going to double in 25 years? Is the nation getting the full benefit of these subsidies? Are we right in asking for an impossibility: for the farmer to reduce his costs and at the same time to reduce his output? I know my answers to these questions, but they will be different from other noble Lords' answers. They will be different from the answers of noble Lords opposite; they will be different from the answers given by townsmen and crofters in the North of Scotland and hill sheep farmers in Wales. Everyone has his own opinion, and there is more divergence of opinion over this great industry, agriculture, than any other. It is like driving through a fog: we tend to follow the lights of the car in which we sit.
It is for those reasons, my Lords, and to clear up some of these vital and important points, that I should like to see the appointment of a Royal Commission on Agriculture. Such a body could inquire into these many difficult and highly controversial points and details, and could throw some reasonable form of light, which at least would be impartial, on to them, in order that everyone—the farmer, the taxpayer, and indeed the whole country—might benefit. Such a Commission would certainly clear the air a great deal. Agriculture must progress for the benefit of the whole country. But do not ask it to make itself more efficient, cut its costs, cut its output and then slice its income. If we do that we are asking the impossible, and disaster will follow. The first important ingredient for future success is confidence in the future, and I believe that this confidence has diminished as a result of this Price Review. We are not being asked to-day to approve Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy. We are being asked something far simpler: do we or do we not approve this present Price Review, yes or no? My answer, my Lords, is, No.
6.25 p.m.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, I should like to join in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, for his most important and useful maiden speech, in that he pinpointed the vital issues of agricultural policy that confront us at this time. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just now referred to the Motion before the House. The tenor of this debate would have me equally believe that we cannot support this particular Motion. I should like, however, to declare my personal interest, in that I am, first of all, a farmer; secondly, I happen to be a director of a fertiliser company; and thirdly, I have actually taken part in the Price Review discussions referred to in the Motion. If I may at this point of time, I should like to pay tribute to the high sense of responsibility and, indeed, great ability displayed by the President of the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales, Mr. Harold Woolley, who led the Farmers' Union side at this Review. But I should be equally failing in my duty if I did not commend also the statesmanlike way in which the negotiations were conducted under the chairmanship of the Departmental official along with all his colleagues.
Indeed, there is little difference between us on the basic data. One of the interesting facets of the negotiations as they have developed over the years has been the degree to which we have got closer together more and more each year on the basic data. Where, of course, inevitably there is room for difference of opinion is on the interpretation of the data, and it is from that basis that the present controversy stems. The noble Earl in his opening remarks talked about the charge against the Government that the policy adumbrated in the White Paper was restrictionist. I would contend that it is the only construction that could be put on the policy statement under the heading of "Production and guarantee policy".
Let us look at the commodity for which you claim a prospect of expansion, milk. There has, indeed, been acknowledgment of the gigantic efforts made by the milk industry—that is, the Milk Marketing Board and distributive trade—in increasing the sales of liquid milk. And the recognition of that endeavour, and that producers' money and distributors' money should be in line with the increase
912
in the standard quantity of milk because of that increase in liquid consumption, is long overdue. We have also acknowledged the need for a safety margin. But here we are in a country importing something like 50 per cent. of the total consumption of dairy products, and yet we are still trying to restrict the amount of milk that is produced and diverted into manufactured milk products.
And what has happened as a result? The first time we get a drought, or, indeed, a short supply of dairy products on the world market, because we have not ourselves been producing to capacity the consumer has to "pay through the nose". Indeed, when the shortage of cheese existed some while ago, the Dutch Government put a surcharge on the export of cheese to our market, and in consequence the consumer of cheese here was exploited to that extent. We have invested in the physical assets of manufacturing plant in the dairy industry in this country a vast sum of money, and we have a considerable potential production of dairy products from this dairy industry if we sought to use it. And that, I repeat, is in a section of the industry where 50 per cent. of the total consumption of dairy produce is in fact imported.
Now we come to another commodity, sheep, where it is said positively that we must check the expansion of production. In order to facilitate this check there has been a reduction in the price not only of mutton and lamb, but also of wool, and the qualifying criteria have been so tightened as to cut out of support a substantial number of sheep. Then the weights of sheep have been adjusted in an attempt to get weights and sizes of sheep progressively down more nearly to meet what is assumed to be public taste. There has been a concession with regard to pigs, calculated to create a moderate increase in the production of pigs. But let us not deceive ourselves: that is merely to redress real damage that was done two years ago, which precluded the possibility of our continuing to supply pigmeat from home sources and thereby making it more necessary for our market to be satisfied by imported sources of bacon pigmeat.
That concession, nevertheless, is welcome, as, indeed, is the method of operating the guarantee; and I should like to endorse the proposals made in the

913
Order that has yet to come before this House, because I believe that they are calculated to improve the lot of the pig industry of this country—namely, in regard to pigs which are offered on deadweight and grade, the majority of which go to bacon production. I believe that the proposed alterations in the scheme are indeed worth while, and are calculated to make some contribution to the position, if not, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, going the whole way and dividing, specifically the two categories of pigs—for I think one realises that there are some positive snags in that particular procedure.
Then we go to eggs. Granted, eggs have, in common parlance, "taken a knock". They took a very serious knock last year because of the application of the profit-sharing arrangements, due to the loss of revenue from the market of something like 5d. a dozen; but a further cut of 1·38d. could well be calculated to do precisely what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said and undermine the confidence of the egg producer until there is a repetition of the position we had in pigs. We ran short of pigs, and we could well run short of eggs because of the prejudice to the producers position. Let it not be so, because what we want to do in this country is to maintain the satisfaction of the consumer market for home-produced eggs, and not make room for the alternative source of imported supplies. The commodity for which we are given no discouragement, in which we are told there is scope for improved production, is beef. Yet here is a commodity which, by common acceptance of the agricultural economists, has shown a very definite decline in profit. But is there any redress in this Review for increased cost in beef production? No; just no change.
Let us look at the three commodities, therefore, which are consumers of the crop which the Government said so clearly in their White Paper is to be the crop requiring the greatest encouragement. It says in the White Paper, under the heading, "Commodity Objectives":
"… continuing emphasis on the better production and use of grass as a means towards reducing costs of production. In general, this will call for the maintenance or increase of the area of rotation grass".
914
Why do we grow grass? Is it to make into hay for packing material because there is no stock to eat it? Or, indeed, do we grow grass because, with two blades where one used to grow, we can transform it into meat for the consumers of this country? Here we are discouraged to produce milk and milk products; we are being told to check the expansion of sheep; and we are told that there should be no positive encouragement in the production of beef, which has already suffered increased costs and shown a very definite decline in profit. I call that a restrictionist policy, and that is what the Farmers' Union meant when they made the declaration. That is what has caused this undermining in the confidence of the farming community. Therefore I feel, quite frankly, that the significance of this Review lies not only in the harshness of the settlement; it is, in fact, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, a real knock at the confidence of the farming community in what really is the rôle of agriculture in this country, where we are talking in terms of a free market and a liberal trading policy.
Now had we seen a change in the fortunes of the beef producers, I personally believe that it would have had two major effects. First, I think it would have effected a switch between, certainly, the medium and the large-size milk producers, who, because of their very versatility, could have switched over to beef—presumably a wanted commodity. That, in turn, would have made more room for the smaller producers of milk, who, by their own progressive efficiency, could well have stepped up production and satisfied the gap left by those weaned away to beef production. Had that been the case, then any other short supply from the standard quantity already determined would have been taken care of by the diluting effect that the price mechanism has on the reward per gallon of milk produced. So any concern about the open-ended Exchequer commitment would, I think, have been well taken care of. I therefore believe that the fault of this Price Review determination is really that it has not left room for selected expansion of British agriculture along the lines which are best calculated to make a contribution to the national good, and it is on that premise

915
that I object to the form of the determinations, because of their impact on production policy.
Of course, we are challenged as an industry always to increase our efficiency. The real criterion of efficiency, when all is said and done, is the unit cost of production. That, in the final analysis, is the real yardstick. The noble Earl quoted a statement that I made in 1958, but he did what I think is within his licence—or indeed, is within the licence of anybody: he quoted only part of what I said in 1958. I should like to remind him of what I actually said, if I may be permitted so to do. This is how he quoted me:
"What indeed was the challenge to agriculture? I would suggest that it is this: how can we progressively reduce the extent of the payment made annually by the Exchequer to the agricultural industry?"
With that I agree, but I then went on to say:
"You may look askance, but the happiest day of my life will be when we can negotiate in February a reduction in our price level because our costs have been reduced already."
Now there is a very great difference between interpreting efficiency in the reduction of costs where you have a stable level of costs, as compared with the reduction of prices against an inflationary cost position. Therefore, my Lords, I feel it is unwarranted to make that sort of challenge to the industry without taking due account of the extent of the increased cost that the industry has had, and has, to bear.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I really must ask the noble Lord if he will give way for a moment. Is he suggesting that we have not taken into consideration the increased costs this year in the Review?
LORD NETHERTHORPE: May I deal with that particular aspect as I come to it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Certainly.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: The fact of the matter is, as I say, that the real criterion of efficiency is the unit cost of production. But if it is bedevilled by constant increases in factor costs, then it cannot reveal itself in a reduction of unit cost. That is the problem that besets us; and it is the reason we can
916
claim progressive efficiency to an outstanding extent, when we realise that from 1948 up to, and indeed including, 1960 the industry has absorbed without recoupment no less than £200 million worth of increased costs—an annual average of something like £16 million to £17 million. But that has been done, I would remind your Lordships, largely on the basis of an expanding production.
It is true that efficiency, as such, can be interpreted in one of two or three ways. It can be greater production from the same inputs; it can be the same production from less inputs; or it can be more production from less inputs. But in agriculture, curiously enough, it is one of the facts of agricultural life that the real effect of increased efficiency almost invariably means an expanding outlet for production, and everyone who is worthy of the name of farmer in your Lordships' House knows that that is absolutely true. Therefore, if you are going progressively to increase efficiency, there must be room for an expanding outlet, at least on a selective basis. That is the contention of the industry, I am sure, when they object to the nature of this particular settlement.
We have, as the noble Earl has said, faced the increases in costs. We have had our costs increased on this Review by £13 million, so far as the Review commodities are concerned, but in excess of that, so far as the whole industry is concerned—and the economy of the industry must be kept in mind, as well as just the producers of Review commodities. Nevertheless, £13 million applies to Review commodities. It is suggested that in order to meet an increased cost bill of £13 million the reduction of £9 million in the price of the guarantees can, in fact, be an award virtually of £3 million to help the farming industry to pay those increased costs. I despair of that sort of philosophy. May I show your Lordships how wrong it can be? If the same principle had been applied to the settlement last year, when the award was plus £3 million and the net income was £360 million, by that same token the 1959–60 net income should have been up to £380 million. It is, in fact, £6½ million worse than it was last year. So for the Government to contend that they have awarded the industry £3 million this year, and to hope that they are thereby enabling it to improve its

917
net income position, does not stand up against the experience of the previous year's operations.
I am the first to admit that we in the agricultural industry have, during 1959–60, in monetary terms and in actual income improved our position from 1958–59. But from what a deplorable level! From a level, indeed, in which due account had to be taken of the abnormal weather conditions in 1958–59. This time we had more normal weather conditions—if one ever dare talk about "normal weather conditions" in this country—and. in consequence, the net income on the actual basis did come up. But in normal net income terms the figure has, in fact, shown a decline.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am sure the noble Lord will not mind if I mention this point, because he will not want to overstate his case. I really think it is a slight exaggeration to say that last summer, the best summer I remember in my life, was more nearly normal. It was a very good summer.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: I defer to that comment, because I have been taught that it is always nice to be fair and favourable; and I should regard last summer as a fair and favourable one.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Not for feeding-stuffs.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: If one starts discussing what is a normal year, then the intricacy of the calculation done departmentally of what would be normal, as contrasted with actual would baffle people not so clever as those entrusted with the task.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and indeed many other noble Lords, have referred to the evaluation of efficiency at £25 million. That is a purely arbitrary assessment for which there is no actual justification on actuarial grounds; and to contemplate that you can, year in and year out, with the variations of the seasons as they are, have a constant of increased efficiency at a valuation of £25 million is, in my view, little short of ludicrous. Therefore it is really a question of how resilient the industry is to face the increased costs such as we now have to face. What are they, in fact? Costs that are likely to decline subsequently? Hardly that! One is the labour cost. We
918
believe that our men are going to be looking over their shoulders at industrial workers' earnings. So that that cost is not likely to go down. The other is the rent increase permitted by the 1958 Act. In consequence of these inroads into our resources by increased costs, we are being asked, in the middle, so to speak, to help to support our two partners in the industry with a declining income ourselves. In my view, it just does not stand examination.
The financial position has been so adequately dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I will not take up the time of your Lordships' House in repeating it. Nevertheless, I should like to make one particular point with regard to the long-term assurances in the 1957 Act. I had perhaps as much to do with the drawing up of that Act and the negotiations that led up to it, as the noble Earl the Chief Whip well knows, as anybody else; and I utterly repudiate that the 1957 Act was anything but a piece of legislation to substitute for what had been so inadequate in the minimum price arrangements under the Act as it was before the amendment. In other words, it was to insulate the producers of agricultural products from the prospect of catastrophe. It was underpinning the long term. It was never an entitlement to Government that they could automatically reduce, year by year, the income of the farming community by a cut-back in guarantees.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Nobody ever suggested, unless the noble Lord is suggesting it now, that the 1957 Act was an Act whereby the Government automatically reduced by so much. The Act said that if the determinations showed that the farmers' profits had gone up so much, and their costs had gone down so much, we could justly reduce the guarantees by 30 per cent., even then we were not to do that by more than 2½ per cent.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: I accept that angle of it, but it makes no difference at all to the point I am seeking to make. In other words, there is no virtue to be claimed by Government that they could have gone back to £19 million, because that was never a concept of the Act nor the principle behind it.
I should like now to make one or two comments with regard to the value the country gets from the support given to

919
the agricultural industry through the subsidy. First of all, I think it costs the country 5 per cent. of the total bill for food consumed in this country. For that 5 per cent., despite the forebodings of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, about the quality of food, I believe that this country is better fed and more cheaply fed than any other country in the world. That is only because the contribution made by British agriculture has made it possible on two grounds. The first is the production we have ourselves made; and the second is the fact that, if we had not been making it, we should have been buying in a sellers' market a reduced availability of food for a bigger indent. And I am perfectly certain that, in those circumstances, costwise British consumers would be paying a tremendous lot more for the food than they are now, when we have sustained the level of production that we have done.
In another place only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer complimented one of the speakers contributing to the debate because he made a reference to a particular Government expenditure and related it to the total Government expenditure and to the national product. So far as the food subsidies are concerned, the facts are that they absorbed 1·2 per cent. in 1959–60, as against 1·5 per cent. in 1954–55. That was the first year after decontrol, and that is the proportion of the gross national product. So, in fact, although the subsidies now stand at £259 million and, because of the very nature of them, they are bound to fluctuate, they still represent a lower percentage of the national product than they were immediately after decontrol.
One of the other things I feel prompted to say, arising out of a further remark of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is this. The Government of the day chose this type of agricultural support because they construed that the balance of advantage to an industrial manufacturing nation lay in having the freest possible market for raw materials and food. An expert committee under Dr. Haberler, of the United States, operating this Committee on behalf of G.A.T.T., confirmed that it was the least likely method of giving support to agriculture if the object was to prevent inhibiting freer trade. But
920
the decision taken by Her Majesty's Government was that the deficiency-payments concept was the way of giving effect to this particular type of support.
This system comes under public scrutiny once every year, and it is before your Lordships' House now. If, however, it had been a tariff, we should have been in the position of having a tariff until we were committed to have it reviewed. There would have been no public spotlight. The surcharge would have been there on the price at which we sold our food; and then, if we had increased efficiency, we should have been able to share that efficiency between the producer and the consumer of food on a proportion calculated to sustain the best interest, first, of our market and, secondly, of our economic financial position. That would have been the position resulting from that sort of policy. But instead of that, because the Government have chosen to operate a deficiency-payments system on direct Exchequer payment, the first charge on progressive efficiency now becomes the Exchequer liability, and the reward to the farming industry for increasing its efficiency is beclouded and bedevilled by that first charge which is made against it. I believe it is imperative that we should have a more equitable share between the producer, the taxpayer and the consumer of the accepted increased efficiency of the farming community.
One final word, if I may, on the policy, rather than the Review Determinations. Under the free market concept and the price support programme we have a means of permitting a free flow of food produce into this country from any other country with surpluses, regardless of the real cost of that food in the country of origin. But at the other extreme we have the safeguards of the anti-dumping legislation, which it is not always easy to persuade the appropriate Government Department to invoke. Between those two extremes there is, in my view, the need for some complementary action to try to create stability in the market for agriculture and food products on this, the tone-setter, of the world market for food. Here may I go back to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, when he was talking in this vein about other industries and ourselves. I believe, and I think all other farmers believe, that it is necessary to keep a very fine

921
balance between the price of food to the consumer as produced at home and the reward to primary producers whose markets we hope to supply with manufactured goods overseas. Therefore, in my view, the essential complement is machinery and positive action by the Government to try to create more stability within the market. Then we shall not, I feel, be up against the sort of criticism that Government action has been harsh and unjustified. It is in that spirit that I say I cannot support the Motion.
6.57 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I think every one of us in this House wishes to see in this country a prosperous agriculture. We have just listened to a most persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, who speaks with such tremendous authority on this subject. I do not want to enter into a verbal battle with him, because I know what a tremendous expert he is. But there is one question which has been worrying me, which is that, in discussing this Price Review, there is a difference of opinion over whether or not allowance should be made for efficiency. The figure that is quoted in the Review is £25 million. I think the tenor of the noble Lord's remarks was that the policy was restrictionist and that therefore one could not accept this figure of £25 million as justified. On the other hand, during last year production increased considerably, from 161 to 168 per cent. In fact, agricultural production has been increasing. I cannot quite understand, therefore, why, in an increasing agricultural production, one cannot take some account of efficiency.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, may I be permitted to correct any misunderstanding? I never claimed that the industry was not progressively efficient; nor, indeed, that due account should not be taken of it. What I said was that there is no basic calculation which can justify the precise figure of £25 million per annum—indeed, it is bound to vary year by year. What I emphasised is that no proportion, or an insufficient, inequitable proportion, of the efficiency factor is left to the producers to spur them to greater efforts and to give them the income to invest in more efficiency.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that over this Review we need to keep our sense of proportion and to realise that we are dealing with a cut of £9 million on the very large figure of £1,270 million, after a year when farmers actual income—I know not the adjusted income—has been increased by £41 million. I realise that at the moment many farmers in the country are extremely worried about the situation. I do not think that after a Review one has ever heard so many people clamouring for the resignation of the Minister. But again I feel that we ought to keep a sense of proportion. I think that the great trouble at the moment is psychological rather than actual. I cannot feel that the actual cut is going to be a very serious one. I think there are a lot of farmers who feel, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said, that they are on the down escalator going up, and that their incomes are not increasing while everybody else's income is going right away from them.
Is that, in fact, the case? It depends very much, of course, where you start your calculation. If you take the year 1948, just after the main injection of capital, you come to the conclusion that there has been very little increase, and in fact, in real income, a slight decrease. But why should one take 1948? The situation is rather different if you take 1946–47; it is more favourable. If you go back to the 1939 figures, I agree that is a most unfavourable time for farmers. But the farmer, in terms of real money, is twice as well off as he was then, while the rest of the community in real terms, I gather, is 40 per cent. better off. So in that way he is not quite behind in the race.
I was looking at some figures in a paper called, Preliminary Estimates of National Income and Expenditure. There are figures given for the very rapid increase in personal income. There has been a tremendous increase in wages, but that has not necessarily been general throughout all sections of the community. If one takes "Other small traders and partnerships"—small businesses—between 1954 and 1958, if my calculations are correct, they have improved their position in taxable income by 13 per cent., the farmer by 12 per cent., the professional man by 16 per cent. The whole of that group of

923
self-employed and small businesses and professional men from 1954 to 1959 had increased their incomes by 16 per cent., as opposed to the farmers' 12 per cent. I agree that the farmer has not increased as rapidly as the others, but only in that case by a matter of 4 per cent. And I think everybody will realise that in the earlier part of the time, during the war and immediately after the war, the farmer probably increased his income more quickly than some other sections of the community. I am not saying that I do not think the farmer ought to have a higher income, but I think one should keep a sense of proportion in these things.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Could the noble Lord tell me whether those very interesting figures take account of the capital invested and the different risks in farming from, say, keeping a small sweet shop?
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: This is their taxable income. Of course various businesses would have various amounts of capital locked up in them. I agree that the farmer has very much more; but, of course, these increases are only percentages increases and not actual income. I do not think that anybody who goes around the countryside at the moment can believe that farming is a depressed industry.
I was interested in one figure I was reading the other day and that is the figure for the investment per farm in farm machinery, which in 1948 was £900 and to-day is over £2,000. There is a tremendous investment going on, and we all know how much use is being made of the Farm improvement Scheme.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And hire purchase.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: And, of course, the facilities for borrowing, which the banks make available, where the total has gone up from £200 million to £300 million. There are, however, one or two trends which I think are very disturbing. Looking first at dairy farming, I was interested to see in the Milk Marketing Board's Report what I thought were rather surprising figures—this is dealing only with recorded herds. Between 1954 and 1958 the number of recorded herds has gone down by 4,000,
924
whilst the number of cows had remained stationary, which does rather look as though the smaller farmer is finding a great difficulty. There was another report on that subject and there was a census of the accounts of a number of farms—I believe it was in Aberdeenshire. In one group were those with under 30 cows, and in the other group were those having 30 and above. It was discovered there that the cost per cow in the smaller herds was £10 higher than the cost in the larger herds. I believe that that was largely attributable to the fact that many of the smaller herds were in family concerns, so that the cows received a great deal more individual attention. But the cows, being ungrateful creatures, repaid this extra care by giving 100 gallons per cow less than in the larger herds. So I think that there is at the moment a great deal of difficulty among small farms. But, of course, we have the Small Farmer Scheme which should help to deal with that situation.
This is not purely a problem that affects only this country; it is a problem which affects most countries in the world at the moment. After all, France is not without her problems over small farms. Surely we are in a position where, owing to increased efficiency, fewer people are processing more and more food for the world to eat, and the purchasing power of the people who are the potential consumers of it has not gone up in proportion, so that we are getting these world surpluses. To say that one should encourage everywhere a policy of unlimited production—this has been said once or twice this afternoon—in present world circumstances would lead to disaster. One would merely have more and more unsaleable products. I am not saying that there are not a number of starving people who do not need them, but as the economics of the world are at the moment they could not be taken up.
I do not see that we can run our agriculture completely in isolation. Naturally, we are bound to be affected by the increases in our market leading to export difficulties in many foreign and Commonwealth countries; but it is a most intricate pattern, and any large injection of extra money into the Price Review which stimulated a lot of production might not only lead to considerable difficulties in the future with our relations with other countries, but

925
also lead to heavy burdens on our own taxpayers. Therefore, in any Review it must be a matter of striking a balance between three different things.
I should have thought that it was difficult to see in regard to which of the commodities in this Review one could have increased the price, except possibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, said, that of meat. I do not really see how one can increase the price of milk or of eggs. I should have liked to feel that one need not have cut the price of sugar beet, because it is a useful crop and, being a sugar-beet grower myself, obviously I do not like having a cut. On the other hand, there is no doubt that most growers of sugar beet apply for many more acres than they are growing at the moment because it is an extremely good crop. Not only is it a profitable crop in itself, but it has a large number of by-products—there is the pulp, which you get back, and the sugar beet tops.
I cannot imagine that anybody would give up or reduce his acreage of sugar beet if there is a cut of half-a-crown a ton, which is something like £2 an acre on a crop worth nearly £100 an acre. I do not think that we face disaster over that, particularly as at present there is an abundance of sugar in the world. Quite recently, when I was in Queensland, in Australia, sugar cane was being ploughed in because there was a glut on the world market. I think that in that case, unpleasant as it is, the cut is justified. Naturally, I, as a farmer, should have liked to see the total value of the guarantees raised, but I do not think that this Review will, or should, lead to any disastrous contraction of the farming industry, which at the moment is, I think, on a very sound basis. Therefore, I am prepared to support the Government.
7.17 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should hope that farmers were going to gain more comfort than I do from Lord Amherst of Hackney's suggestion and advice that they should keep a sense of proportion and that their trouble is psychological rather than actual. I do not think that that will comfort anyone much at all. We are used to the noble Lord viewing the Government's acts and deeds through rose-coloured spectacles, but I
926
should have thought that, even through such spectacles, he would have noticed, in mentioning that the annual farm income was up by some £41 million in this year as compared with the previous year, that, adjusted to normal conditions, it was £7 million less. I do not think, therefore, that any farmers are going to take much comfort from regarding that as a mere psychological difference. When we are quoting figures I think we should quote like with like.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, the point is that at other times when there is a bad year and incomes are down, appeals are always made to the Government to take into consideration the fact that it was a particularly bad year.
LORD STONHAM: The appeals are never made by the farmers' representatives, the National Farmers' Union, who always base their case on sound facts. I think it would be agreed that, apart from the speech to which I have just referred, every speech in this debate has been highly critical and, in most cases, condemnatory of the Government's policy as expressed in the White Paper. That statement does not exclude a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fisher. I join with others in congratulating him on a first-rate maiden speech. If I may say so with respect, it had all the qualities of a good speech in that it was direct, had a lot of common sense, was well delivered and was reasonably brief. Perhaps there might have been one tiny fault in it, in that it was apparently not so uncontroversial as the noble Lord might have thought, because all the cheers came from this side. I only hope that we shall have many opportunities from this side to cheer him again.
Turning to the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, the longer I listened to him the more sorry I felt for him, because his speech was one long apology which became the more passionate as his case became weaker. Even his intervention seemed unfortunate, when, for example, he got up to interrupt my noble friend Lord Netherthorpe, and said that as far as he was concerned last summer was the finest that he ever remembered—which it may well have been. He was endeavouring to disagree with the noble Lord who had said it was an average or balanced year.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "normal."
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. May I ask him to look at the figures in his own White Paper? There he will read that the 1959–60 forecast of annual income was £356½ million, which, adjusted to normal weather conditions, was £355½ million. It would be impossible to imagine a more normal year than that, when the difference was only one-quarter of 1 per cent.
I thought that the speeches, particularly those from noble Lords opposite, varied greatly. There was the blistering attack of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who, I thought, effectively pricked the noble Earl's balloon in commenting on his statement that the price changes were fair, balanced and reasonable. There was the speech, which I thought was completely devastating, from the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, dealing with the statement by the noble Earl that Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to restrict production. That was a quite absurd statement. I was surprised by a burst of humour from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, earlier. I thought he accurately summed up the Government's policy when he said they were sticking to the rails. After all, if one sticks to the rails one does not move. The noble Earl then made his point even more clear by saying that agriculture was being diverted into a siding, and that if it stayed there it would rot.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made it quite clear that as a non-farmer and a taxpayer he was willing to support subsidies for agriculture, provided he could be assured that they were going to the right people for the right purposes; but even he said that Her Majesty's Government had got themselves into a most appalling tangle. I do not think there is any question but that, in a sense, we have got to the parting of the ways. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, as it were, made a plea for the Price Review. He said the changes were so tiny. That is the age-old plea of the housemaid—that it was a very small baby. No doubt on the first occasion the housemaid was forgiven; but if, like Her Majesty's Government, she had kept on coming back with the same small baby many times, the cumulative effect would have become disastrous.
928
I have taken part in a number of agricultural debates in your Lordships' House, and I have several times declared my view that in substituting price support for fixed guaranteed prices Her Majesty's Government destroyed the farmers' charter, the 1947 Act. The noble Earl said, of course, that if we were going to destroy agriculture we should have to scrap the 1947 Act, the 1957 Act and all kinds of other Acts. But one does not have to scrap them: one has merely to undermine them completely so that they do not operate. That is precisely what Her Majesty's Government have done and are doing.
I say that the price-support policy of Her Majesty's Government will destroy itself and, in the process, will destroy British agriculture. I feel that the truth of these two conclusions can no longer be denied. I would ask your Lordships to look at two inescapable facts. The first is that the taxpayer is providing 73 per cent. of the farmer's net income. Support to agriculture is costing £259 million, out of a total net income of £355 million. That is a tremendous volume of support. That is fact No. 1. Fact No. 2 is that for every £1 worth of food the farmer produced in 1948 he is now producing 25s. worth, and is getting only 19s. for it. I believe that that answers all the two-and-fro points to which we have listened. In 1948 terms, comparing like with like, the farmer is producing 25s. worth of food for every £1 worth that he then produced, and he is getting only 19s. The volume of his production has increased by 24 per cent., but his real income has dropped by 5 per cent. This is the result of what the noble Earl calls "enabling agriculture to maintain its prosperity". It is a prime example of failing to maintain prosperity, because despite working ever harder and more efficiently, the farmer cannot maintain his position—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke of being unable to maintain one's position on an escalator. Yet in the same period to which I have referred, company profits in industry have increased by 85 per cent., and, as has been stated several times, the real income of the rest of the community has gone up by 30 per cent.
It is the Government's price-support policy which has created the intolerable situation where, on the one hand, the taxpayer is mulcted to the tune of £259

929
million while, on the other, the farmer, despite remarkable increases in efficiency, is worse off than at any time since 1945. In their self-created dilemma the Government know inevitably that the total subsidy Bill continues to be a heavy burden upon the taxpayer, and so they try to impose a static agriculture which, as the noble Lord, Lord Forbes said, is impossible; because agriculture, like Nature, cannot stand still. Then the industry is implored to reduce its unit costs of production, to improve its methods and make better use of its resources. But it has been doing this for years, to the tune of £25 million a year, and Her Majesty's Government have been steadily taking away that £25 million, and more besides.
Farmers are also advised to reduce production of certain commodities. But output cannot be reduced without increasing the cost. Greater efficiency means increased output. The two things are inextricably linked. Surely the whole object of production grants for fertilisers and machinery, the Farm Improvement Scheme and the Small Farmers Scheme is to increase efficiency and output and reduce unit costs. But under the price-support policy increased output must mean a higher subsidy bill, and so inevitably the Government have to reduce the price again, in order to reduce the overall level of the subsidies which the taxpayer is called upon to pay. Thus this system carries the seeds of its own destruction. In paragraph 12 of the White Paper farmers are advised to concentrate on the more remunerative lines at the expense of others. Have not all of us who know anything about agriculture in our own practice said how wrong it is to go chasing more remunerative lines? If there is any sound policy in agriculture it is a long-term and continuous one. Supposing the farmers take the advice of the Government and go into more remunerative lines, what happens? Up goes production, up goes the subsidy bill and obviously down comes the price; and the line is no longer remunerative. That is absolute nonsense.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I have been listening to his argument with great interest and I hope he will propound his alternative.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to make my own speech in my own way. I know his eagerness, but I assume that he has conceded so far the case I have made, for obviously if he disagreed he would have interrupted me sooner.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have certainly not conceded the noble Lord's case. I have not interrupted him sooner because I wanted him to run on as I thought he might be going to tell me what he would do when we are producing 101 per cent. of the eggs needed by the market.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, I propose to do just that. But I hope that, so far, I have the general agreement of the House in this respect: that when farmers, through higher efficiency, using their resources better, increase production, then by the very nature of things the price at which they can sell goes down; by the nature of things subsidies go up; and the Government come along and say, "We cannot possibly afford it" and therefore the price is forced down again. There is no argument about that; that is a fact. If they are to survive with this cut-price policy, farmers are compelled to a greater intensification of production and greater output; and this is often dependent on the purchase of feeding-stuffs, which means increased imports, the very thing we want to avoid.
I say that this vicious, crazy circle is entirely created by injecting subsidies into a free market of distribution, allied, as it were, to support prices for the farmer. You are trying to marry something which is completely fluid and something which is semi-fixed, and that is why I say that it will destroy itself unless agriculture is destroyed first. These are facts, in my view—I may with interest hear the noble Earl deny them—which cannot be denied and which ought not to be ignored. I hope that the National Farmers' Union will put them to the public with all the force they can command.
In case there should be any doubt about this, let me say that we on these Benches fully support agricultural subsidies provided they benefit the farmer and the consumer. But the time has come—and this is the point that was

931
raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—to ask the question very seriously whether they can do either. I made a close examination of the prices at which farmers sell Review commodities and the prices paid by the housewife. The results are quite startling. First, I should like to deal with wheat. I interrupted the noble Earl during his speech and he invited me to make my point on this. I now make it, and I hope he will interrupt me immediately I quote any inaccuracy. The listed prices for imported hard wheats from August, 1959, last year, to January of this year varied between 25s. 3d. and 26s. 1d. a cwt. The home wheat price for the same period varied between 17s. 10d. and 22s. 2d. a cwt. Australian wheat prices were steady around 23s. 6d.; and French wheat prices varied from 22s. 6d. to 23s. 5d.
My first comment on that is that the average subsidy the taxpayer was therefore compelled to pay on our wheat was £7 a ton; and the price of hard wheats was anything from £4 to £8 a ton more than the millers paid to our farmers. In case anyone argues that hard wheat was worth more, I would point out that the Australian wheat, which is a fairly soft wheat, was £5 a ton above our price; and the French wheat, strictly comparable to ours, was always £1 or £2 a ton more. It is fantastic that we should tolerate a situation where we pay up to £10 a ton subsidy on wheat and allow the millers and distributors to confiscate two-thirds. That is what it means, and that is what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was saying about fertilisers. And why is it—perhaps Lord Waldegrave will tell us—that whereas all the imports were virtually steady in price throughout the year, ours varied from 17s. 10d. to 22s. 2d., a difference of 25 per cent., which makes a cruel farce of the guaranteed price to the small farmer? If the merchants can pay such prices for foreign wheat, why cannot they do the same for ours? I think that the most important point arising from this is for the public to realise that the British farmer is getting less than 2d. a lb. for his wheat, and the British housewife is paying 1s. for a 1¾ lb. loaf.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have left the point of the difference between the price
932
of foreign wheat and that of home-grown wheat. I am sorry that he gave no notice of this, so that I have not the figures in front of me or at my fingertips, but I am sure his figures are correct because he is very careful. But I think we must be careful of the conclusions we draw. May it not be a fact that, in this country, we get small parcels of wheat to be picked up by buyers from farms, a few hundredweights at a time—wheat that has not been cleaned, wheat that is wet—and is it quite fair to compare those figures with the figures of wheat in bulk at the quayside that can be handled in great tonnages and quantities? I think a good deal of the difference will be accounted for in that way.
LORD STONHAM: Of course, my Lords, I take the noble Earl's point, but the figures I am quoting are the official average figures, not only for the hard wheats and Australian wheats but for our own home-grown wheats. The figures are supplied by his own Department. If those figures are wrong—
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I did not for a moment suggest that they were wrong. The noble Lord must be fair. I said I had not the figures at my fingertips or with me but I had no doubt that the noble Lord quoted them correctly. I then tried to give an explanation of the difference.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not want to pursue that particular point. I have pointed out this great difference. I have asked a particular question as to why the foreign imported and Commonwealth wheats should be virtually steady in price throughput the year, and are brought on the open market, and why—and this is true—ours vary by as much as 25 per cent. I think that that is a vital point.
I want to repeat what I regard as the most important point. That is, the British farmer is selling his wheat at less than 2d. a lb. and the British housewife is paying 1s. for a 1¾ lb. loaf. When the taxpayer paid a bread subsidy of £55 million, the loaf was 6d. Now, with a wheat subsidy of over £20 million, the loaf is 1s.—double. Your Lordships will perceive that there is a difference of £35 million cost to the taxpayer. That £35 million is equal to 2d. a loaf. It means that the other 4d. on the loaf which we are

933
now paying—we are paying 1s.—is going to the millers and distributors. There is no other possible explanation. Again, I am quite willing to be interrupted, but there is no other possible explanation. Whilst bread prices have gone up, wheat prices have gone down. After the first cut in the bread subsidy the loaf went to 72d. That was in 1952. When the subsidy was finally removed in September, 1956, the loaf was 8½d. The value of the then remaining subsidy was 1¾d. a loaf; that is, on a total cost of 10¼d. So in four years since then bread has gone up 20 per cent. with no comparable increase in costs.
Meanwhile, the average market price for home-grown wheat has dropped from approximately £23 a ton in 1956 to just over £20 a ton, and this drop in recent years in wheat prices is equivalent to 1½d. for a loaf. There is no question that the distributors have pocketed this extra profit and, of course, the subsidy as well. So the net result—and this is the important thing to remember—of the Government's policy in respect of wheat is that the farmer is getting a lot less for his wheat, the housewife is paying double for her bread, the taxpayer is paying £20 million in subsidies, and the millers and distributors are pocketing the subsidy and vast profits besides. It is a scandal and a racket which, in my view, the Government, as it must be known, are aiding and abetting. If Her Majesty's Government want to help the farmer and reduce living costs, they must deal with these racketeers and stop them from making vast profits out of public funds.
The noble Earl asked me what can be done. I suggest that he should investigate the possibility, at least at the wholesale stage, of fixing wheat prices; because if the millers (and I hope the noble Earl will not just smile over this) voluntarily, as it were, can virtually pay fixed prices for imported, hard Australian wheats, why can they not, with the help of the Government, do much the same for ours? If that is not done, if some control is not instituted, then this racket will continue. It must be done: how overwise can farmers follow the Government's advice to get returns from the market—a market which is rigged against them in this way?
Next, a word about pigs, pork and bacon. In 1951 the farmer got £23 for a good bacon pig, and the housewife
934
paid 3s. 1d. a lb. for best bacon and 2s. 6d. a lb. for loin of pork. To-day, with subsidies about the same level, the farmer gets £16 or £17 for his pig, and the housewife pays 4s. 8d. for the same kind of bacon—and on Saturday I saw in a butcher's shop a loin of pork at 5s. 6d. a lb. Again, does anybody want to challenge it? Again, is there any explanation for it other than the exorbitant profits which are being made in distribution? That is apart from the absurdity that bacon, despite the cost of processing, is selling in the shops at much lower prices than fresh pork.
My Lords, it is impossible to obtain official figures for the global retail price realisation value of any of the new commodities, but after much inquiry and considerable trouble I have arrived at a recent estimate for a number of them, and have compared each total with the tonal figure received by the farmer. The results are quite staggering. For example, the official figure for the value of output of fat pigs, included in the guarantees, is £158 million. This includes £21 million of subsidy; so it follows that the farmer actually sold the pigs which qualified for subsidy for a total of £137 million. According to my estimate, including the £21 million he provides as a taxpayer, the consumer is paying £301 million for that same tonnage of fat pigs, assuming they were all sold as pork. That means £137 million to the farmer for breeding and rearing them, and £164 million to the distributors—an increase of 112 per cent. on the farmer's price. It is this which accounts for the crippling price which the housewife has to pay for the pork. Even this might be supportable if the farmer were better off; but he is not. His price is lower than ever; and the lower his price the higher the subsidy and the fatter the profits of the distributors. It is an intolerable situation.
In some ways, the position with lamb is worse. The subsidy on lamb amounts to £26 million—that is, one-third of the total value of output. That means that the farmer sells the total output for £53 million, or an average of 2s. 2d. per lb., compared with the guarantee price of 3s. 3d. By my estimate, the consumer taxpayer pays £111 million for what the farmer sells for £53 million—an increase of 110 per cent. for distribution costs.

935
I am conscious that this, like my other estimates, may be an understatement, because there have been occasions when the subsidy amounted to more than the price at which the farmer sold, but this drop was never fully reflected in the retail price. Then fat cattle. The subsidy element, of course, is almost negligible, but the pattern is the same. The farmer sells his beasts for £200 million, and the consumer pays £452 million—an increase of 125 per cent. on the farmer's price. But the largest "on cost", so far as my discoveries go, occurs with potatoes, which should be the easiest Review commodity to distribute. The farmer sells his potatoes, according to the official figure, for £65 million—£66 million included in the Review list, less £1 million subsidy—and the consumer pays £171 million. Again, this increase of 160 per cent. for distribution may be a serious wider-estimate.
Apart from milk, eggs are the only Review commodity where distribution costs are reasonable, and the only one where the housewife can be seen to be getting an advantage from the subsidies. The producer sells his eggs for £124 million, and the housewife pays £158 million for them, plus £36 million in subsidy. This reasonably satisfactory outcome is due in part to the fact that home producers supply virtually the whole market and partly to the work of the Egg Marketing Board. Certainly there is nothing else which begins to compare with it in the whole field of agriculture. Again, the noble Earl might like to look at that as a pointer to what might be done to reduce these distribution costs: give the producers very much more power in the formation of producer marketing boards.
My Lords, in my submission, in the case of wheat and bread the actual, undeniable, official figures prove that we are suffering an unconscionable racket. With the other commodities, all my figures are the official ones, except the retail realisation, which is an estimate—and I believe an underestimate, which your Lordships can largely confirm from your own experience. But at the very least they add up to an overwhelming case for an urgent inquiry into the way in which the benefits for agricultural support are finally distributed. I am certain that such an inquiry would prove
936
that farmers and consumers derive little or no benefit from the greater part of the subsidies. If that is so, and if it is shown that distribution costs are unjustifiably high, we must alter the system so as to ensure that subsidies achieve the purpose for which they are intended—namely, a progressive and prosperous agriculture combined with reasonable consumer prices.
There must also be a decision regarding the place and scope of agriculture in our economy and the way it is to be achieved and maintained. At present, we have no policy, just a mass of stupid contradictions: 350,000 farmers, three-quarters of whom occupy only one-quarter of the land and employ only 20 per cent. of the labour force. The right hand of the Government squeezes the little man out of the industry with their price policy, and the left hand puts him back again with production grants and small farmers' schemes. British agriculture has the highest mechanisation and the highest productivity in the world. We could have a sizable industry without subsidies, but it would mean farming in bigger units and leaving much land untilled. It would also mean a rural revolution, and would change the face of Britain. Surely no one wants that. But we cannot go on under a system which makes efficiency and consequent high yields a disaster, and where the Minister bewails favourable weather conditions because they make the cost of support so heavy. That is the economics of Bedlam, yet that is the system the Government have created. I have proved, my Lords, that the money we are paying as consumers and taxpayers is not going to the producers but to the distributors. We must end this madness and give our producers a chance. A healthy, prosperous agriculture is in every way essential to a prosperous, healthy Britain. The Government must make the necessary changes before it is too late, or make way for those who will.
7.49 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we have had a long debate, and I will be as brief as I can, but a great number of points have been raised to which I ought to reply. I should like first to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of

937
Hackney, who made, I thought, a most sincere contribution to this debate; because what he said was this, "As a farmer I naturally should have liked to have more, but as a reasonable man I did not really expect it. I make a lot of money out of my sugar beet, and I think the Review is sound." My Lords, we have been having some very strong speeches this afternoon, and I would say that it is that kind of statement which the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, made, that I have been meeting as I have been going round the country. I met it as recently as last Friday when I was in Devonshire addressing farmers in that county. The complete contrast to that speech was that of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to which we have just listened. He went so far as to say that farmers get no benefit from these subsidies. That is an exaggeration. It cannot be right to go as far as that. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, comes out quite clearly and we can see what he is about.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl may I say that my exact words were that farmers and consumers get little or no benefit from the greater part of the subsidies.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No doubt we can read the actual words to-morrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble Lord is really not concerned with this Price Review at all. He is concerned with his theory that the support system which we operate, the guaranteed prices and deficiency payments, is a bad one, and that the Socialist system of bulk buying and State trading is a good one. It really does not arise out of this Price Review, and I am not going to follow the noble Lord through his argument. All I would say is that when I go abroad—and I was abroad the other day at the Agricultural Ministerial Meeting of the O.E.E.C.— I find it interesting to note that all the representatives of foreign countries say to an Englishman: "We envy you your system of agricultural support. We wish we could afford it."
The other thing the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said was that all this money was being wasted; it is leaking away; it is a racket of the middlemen. That is a roost irresponsible statement to make. The noble Lord sits next to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, who has all his life. I believe,
938
been connected with the Co-operative Movement. The Co-operative Movement are one of the largest bakers in the country. Are they racketeers? The noble Lord's thesis was that all this money is going to the middlemen, and one of the biggest middlemen in the country is the Co-operative Movement.
LORD STONHAM: Would the noble Earl deal with the point I made and tell us where the money is going? It does not vanish into thin air.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: At this time of night I am not going to analyse the distributors' costs, the retailers' costs, the wholesalers' costs, the first retailers' and factors' costs all the way through.
I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, on his maiden speech. It was a very good speech. From my point of view, it was not all that I should have liked, because it was slightly critical of the Government; but I would add my congratulations to the noble Lord and I hope that we shall hear from him again. His views were sincerely stated.
I come now to the remarks of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. Again, I cannot answer all the queries he raised, but there are two points to which I think I should reply. He asked how these estimates are produced, and said, in rather a despising tone, that these are a lot of figures produced in the universities or somewhere. That is not so. These figures are produced by the Ministry's economists and statisticians, and they are accurate. They are checked, and found to be extremely accurate, by the cross checks that we take when we go to the despised university economists. They are based on firm statistics of sales of farm produce. In the powerful speech he made, the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, said: "We have no disagreement about the data." So I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, can be assured, and need have no fears as to these figures having been thought up by a wicked Government and being all wrong. We have no disagreement about the data on the statistics. The noble Viscount then said something which somewhat surprised me, and I have ascertained that my surprise was justified. He said that nine years ago, which

939
would take us back to 1951, he was getting pence a gallon more for his TT milk than he is getting to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I have had these figures looked up, and in 1950–51 the average pool price was 2s. 10·1d. a gallon. In 1959–60 the estimated net price realised by farmers for all types of sales was 3s. 0½d. a gallon. I think that the noble Viscount must have been misinformed when he used that figure.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Is that a figure averaged over the whole of the marketing boards in existence, or is it for England and Wales?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I cannot answer that question straight off; but I do not think it could make much difference.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I will have the actual prices paid to me checked so that we can confirm whether I am right or wrong, and if I am wrong I will apologise.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I now come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, which was partially answered by my noble friend Lord Craigton. We really must try to keep our feet on the ground here. One of the points made by the noble Lord was that we should have a higher price for milk. He said that if the price of milk were reduced we should be getting more milk, because farmers would have to produce more, and that would embarrass the Milk Marketing Board. But if you put the price of milk up, surely you will get even more milk. It may be right that if you put the price of milk down you will get more milk, but it is certain that if you put up the price you will get more. I am a dairy farmer, and if my manager told me to-morrow what he was going to do, as the price of milk had gone up by 6d., I am sure that he would say he would try to produce more.
But the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, was this. He used this argument about tariffs, and said that industries are much less exposed than agriculture. Surely this argument
940
overlooks entirely the immense advantages which farmers derive from the guaranteed prices and deficiency subsidies system. The effectiveness of a tariff depends on the price of the imports to which it applies and on a system of guaranteed prices. On the other hand, not only is the farmer effectively protected against the effect of reductions in world prices, but the Exchequer takes the brunt of the effects of foreign competition by making up the average market price to the level of the guaranteed price. I am satisfied, particularly when we are moving into an era of freer trade, that the tariff is not such a good weapon to protect us as is the system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments. Figures have been used this afternoon to show that the measure of the farmers' gain from subsidies is about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. But my information is that the tariff equivalent, if I may use that phrase, to our subsidy system is at least 25 per cent. This is a handsome margin of preference over either the foreigner or the Commonwealth.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, suggested that there was no reason for reducing any of the subsidies, and he asked for clearer thinking on this side of the House. The clearer thinking, surely, must come on the other side of the House. I could not follow the figures the noble Lord, Lord Wise, quoted. He said that the reduction in the price of sugar beet was going to cost the farmers in East Anglia £2 million. That was not very clear thinking.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the loss of 2s. 6d. a ton is going to cost the producers of sugar beet in the region of £2 million for the acreage produced last year. If the noble Earl will work it out for himself, he will find that I am right.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I will certainly work it out, but I will not get that answer. I cannot attempt to follow the noble Lord through this sugar beet trouble of his. He asked why the cost was not in the White Paper. It is because it is paid by the consumer. There is a different system for sugar beet from that for the other products. I think we had sufficient answer on sugar beet from the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, who was frank enough to say, "What is 2s. 6d.? What is £2 on £100 profit per acre?"
LORD WISE: May I come back and ask the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, to bring his sugar beet returns next year, and see where he is then?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It is not £100 profit, but £100 return per acre. However. I think we should leave that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, mentioned eggs, and he was looking for a new system altogether for the support of eggs. He thought it was not possible for the Government to underwrite every egg laid. I do not know, but I think that that goes rather far of the Review which we are considering at the moment, when the matter before us is a question of the reduction of 1·38d. per dozen. The noble Lord raised the point about there being a leak in the sheep subsidies about which I hope I was able to allay his fears. But I omitted to tell him that the farmers' Fatstock Marketing Corporation were one of the big buyers of sheep at this time of alleged swindle (which was no such thing) and they put these sheep into cold store and steadied the market all round, which was a good thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, painted a very gloomy picture indeed. I do not think he wanted me to answer him, and I am quite certain he would not agree with any answer I gave, so I hope that at this late hour he will allow me to pass on. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, was answered by my noble friend, Lord Craigton. The noble Lord had a harrowing picture of how his farm had gone down by £6 10s. 0d., I think it was, but the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, dealt with that. Then we come to a very powerful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He used an argument with which I find it difficult to keep patience. He used what I call the "ten-cigarette" argument. It is said, "With these huge costs, could we not have more money for this? It is only equivalent to ten cigarettes a week for all of us." You can argue anything on that basis. We were having a debate the other day in your Lordships' House about putting power lines underground, and somebody said that to put all the power lines underground would cost one Blue Streak. One cannot argue like that about economic subjects. There must be a balance and a proportion.
942
There is one point I must correct in the powerful speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I do not know how much of it was as inaccurate as the point he made about broilers, but he said that these broilers, representing a fine new industry in which he was engaged and which is not subsidised in any way, were of course taken into the Price Review, and so on. But they are not. The £1,270 million, which is the total value of the guarantees, and which is the amount we can reduce by 2½ per cent., has no figure in it for broilers, because they are not a Review commodity.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? If I have made an inaccurate statement I certainly apologise, but I have always understood, from all the figures one sees, that the figures far table poultry were taken into account in these Reviews. If that is wrong, I apologise.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Of course, I accept that. The point at issue is this. The permitted reduction under the 1957 Act—as I explained in my opening remarks—is 2½ per cent. of the total value of the guarantees. That is calculated at £1,270 million, and does not include any amount for broilers.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: Nevertheless, it is true to say that broiler production does come into the calculation of the net aggregate income of the industry. I think that that was the point the noble Earl was trying to put.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: The noble Earl may have been trying to put that point, but he was using his argument as a reason why the 2½ per cent. reduction was unjust.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt once more? What I was endeavouring to say was that when we are told that farmers' incomes have been increasing and output has been increasing, that does contain the figures for the output of chickens, which has increased considerably.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: Of course, the gross output of the industry includes broilers, brussels sprouts and all sorts of things which are not a Review commodity.

943
The main point, and the main substance of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, can be summed up in this way: there was too little money left in the pockets of the farmers and, more galling than that, the prosperity was not keeping pace with the prosperity in other branches of industry. Now how much money, or how much less money, will the farmers be earning in 1960 than in 1959? It would be a bold man who would say that he knew the answer to that. Statistically, the position seems to be this. Costs are assumed—we have had these figures over and again, but they are important—to have gone up by £13 million. It is presumed also that efficiency will increase the farmers' income by £25 million. So far, the picture is that the farmers' income improves by £12 million. Against this, however, is the reduction of the guarantees by £9 million. If all these figures are accurate estimates, in the next year the farmers will improve their position by £3 million. But the critics say that that is too small an increase for a great industry such as this. But all these calculations—and this is what we really must remember in keeping this Price Review in proportion—are the best that the statisticians can do. No one will claim that they are anything like a scientific or accurate forecast of what will actually 'happen. The weather will come in to put the arithmeticians wrong. If doubts are cast on any of these figures, we have to cast doubts on all of them.
I ask your Lordships to remember that in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, said, "We have never quarrelled with the Ministry's officials about the data". Let us remember that. If it is fair to suggest that this £25 million for increased efficiency is excessive, it is equally fair to say that the figure for increased costs may be proved to be excessive.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, would the noble Earl permit me to repeat the point I sought to make? He contended that, all things being equal, if the efficiency increased by £25 million, despite the fact that there was a reduction in the cash value of the guarantees by £9 million, and despite the fact that there was an increase in the costs of £13 million, the net income of the industry
944
should increase by £3 million. That is the contention of the noble Earl. May I remind him of the position as it was last year when the same £25 million (which is as yet unestablished actuarially) was reputed to be in play where, in fact we had an £11 million increase in cost; and we got, not a reduction of guarantees of £9 million, but an increase of £3 million. On the hypothesis the noble Earl now postulates we should have had a net income of £380 million in 1959–60, whereas in fact we show a decrease in net income of £6½ million from the then existing net income figure. I only wanted to make sure that that was the argument sustained on the noble Earl's own premise.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I would say that we have enough on our plate in dealing with one Price Review, and I do not think we had better open last year's as well.
On the £25 million efficiency estimate I want only to stress that it is only 2 per cent. of value of gross output. It has never been challenged as a reasonable figure to take for efficiency. It is the sort of figure which other industries achieve and of which agriculture must surely be capable. I should be the first to admit that all statistical calculations are uncertain, and I have always thought that the gunners are right: that when you have done all the calculations it is better to see that the gun is not pointing 180 degrees in the other direction. On these "dead reckoning" tests, I think we can, for farming efficiency, rest assured. We cannot make a precise calculation of what this efficiency amounts to. We can, however, produce one concrete figure. The Government have for many years been supporting agriculture outside the scope of the price guarantees by a number of improvement schemes. Noble Lords will be familiar with the Farm Improvement Scheme and Land drainage and water supply grants. There are also considerable sums spent on advisory services and research, all of which contribute to the increased efficiency of agriculture. It is good that this service is being given, but it is also some evidence of the steps being taken to secure increased efficiency. In the last five years the value of these services has amounted to more than £100 million, quite apart from the grants for lime and

945
fertilisers, the Small Farmers Scheme and other items included in the Review. When one adds to that the investment from the industry itself, and the outstanding advances in science during these last years, it seems to me that on the "dead reckoning" test it is not unreasonable to go on sticking to this conventional figure of £25 million.
The other point I should like to reply to is this question of farmers' real income, the charge that it has declined by 5 per cent. since 1948 while that of the rest of the community has increased by 30 per cent. This sort of statistical exercise is a fascinating game, but let us take one comparison of this kind, because the true picture depends very much on the year one chooses for comparison. If comparison is made with the pre-war position as the base, the real income of farmers has increased by 100 per cent., while that of the community generally has risen by only 40 per cent. Having said that, we can, of course, agree there was enormous scope for improvement of the pre-war farming position. But even considering only the post-war period the choice of base is of exceptional and great importance.
One thing has struck me forcible about the speeches in the House that I have listened to this afternoon. I think that all noble Lords have spoken from the premise that a healthy and profitable and prosperous agriculture is desirable. Most noble Lords, certainly those on this side of the House, agree that it is the aim of Her Majesty's Government to maintain a healthy and profitable agriculture in this country. Their criticisms have been directed not at the general aim and policy but at the methods of achieving it. I respect honest doubts; I do not object to such criticism; I think I can meet it; I think the solid arguments are on my side. I tried to express them in my opening remarks, and I am quite confident that time will show this year's price determination will bring not disaster but added strength to British agriculture.
But there has been another type of criticism which I must confess I am sorry to hear in your Lordships' House, and I am afraid that I can describe the criticism only as a charge of insincerity; that my right honourable friend and the Government, while saying openly that a
946
great and prosperous agriculture is their aim, are at the same time secretly plotting to kill it by slow poison. My Lords, what else do such words as have been used this afternoon mean? "We are going back to 1920–21]"—words used by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I know well how naked agriculture was in the 1920s, because during the 1920s I was reading for an agricultural degree at the university—
LORD STONHAM: I did not use the words 1920–21 or make any reference to 1920–21.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am much obliged. I think it was the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I went into public print on that, and I said that there was a danger of it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: An imminent danger. There were not many of us reading agriculture in those days, and we were not taken very seriously. But I suppose that we had faith that there would be change; and change there was. The change came. Most certainly the 1947 and 1948 Acts would have been unthinkable in those days. The Party of the noble Lords opposite cannot take all the credit for those Acts. Little did I dream that, 30 years after taking my degree, I should be in charge in your Lordships' House of the 1958 Act, designed to improve and strengthen and bring up to date those great Acts which were by then ten years old.
If, then, it is really true that agriculture is in imminent danger of this 1920–21 treatment, my right honourable friend and the Government must now at this moment be actively engaged on undermining these solid foundations, and preparations for dismantling this whole massive structure must be well in hand. But what are the signs of this? Let us look at the last three years. Mr. Amory's 1957 Act, immeasurably strengthened the guarantee price system and for the first time provided for the payment of capital grants for the fixed equipment of the industry. Then there was the 1958 Act—the Act which strengthened the partnership between landlord and tenant. Then there was the 1959 Act which helped the small farmer. Then, only a few weeks ago, we put upon the Statute

947
Book the 1960 Horticulture Act to help that section of the industry. This is not evidence that it is going to get my right honourable friend convicted on such a charge. There is no evidence. This is factious criticism which I reject utterly and completely, and I am only sorry that it should ever have been raised in your Lordships' House. We have been discussing to-night the affairs of a healthy
Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.

FATSTOCK (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) ORDER, 1960
8.25 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Earl Waldegrave, That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1960, be approved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, the Question is that this Order be approved.

OCCUPIERS LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES BILL
8.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
and prosperous industry, and it is the firm intention of the Government that that satisfactory state of affairs should continue.
On Question, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Craigton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Digby, L.

Mills, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Morley, E.

Amwell, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gosford, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Grenfell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Spens, L.

Chesham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Teviot, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lawson, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Attlee, E.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Netherthorpe, L.

Strang, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Taylor, L.

Granville-West, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wise, L.

Kershaw, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Assistance to persons providing sea transport services
1.—(1) For the purposes of maintaining and improving sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands (hereinafter referred to as "the purposes of this Act") the Secretary of State may assist in accordance with this Act persons—
(a) who provide, and are wholly or mainly engaged in providing, such services.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "Act", where that word occurs a second time, to insert: "any district council which provides such services, or". The noble Lord said, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Greenhill (who unfortunaately cannot be here to-night) and myself. I think I can deal with this point very briefly, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not make a long speech. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill, which we on this side of the House fully support, gives the Secretary of State power to make grants for ships and the provision of sea transport services, and

949
services ancillary thereto. Those ancillary services, naturally, include the provision of such things as ferries, jetties and piers. Indeed, it will be possible under this Bill when it becomes an Act, for the Secretary of State to make a grant to a private individual engaged full time or fairly substantially in operating a ferry. The applicant for a grant can be a large shipping company or a single person and the Secretary of State may or may not approve the application.
However, piers and jetties in connection with sea transport services are more likely to be provided by local authorities—or, at least, local authorities would perhaps like to provide them—and there is provision in the Act for those who are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, to do so. My understanding of local authorities who fall within that meaning is that they are county councils. It is our submission that local authorities who would be most keenly and directly interested in the provision of small things ancillary to a sea transport service, such as a jetty or ferry, would be the smaller district councils. We feel, therefore, that the words in this Amendment should be inserted in order to enable a district council in Scotland to apply direct to the Secretary of State for a grant if they want to provide a ferry service, a pier or jetty or something of that kind.
I am well aware, because I have been informed on this subject, that there are many small district councils in this area—small, not necessarily in a geographical sense but in the numbers of their citizenry; and it is therefore argued that they should not be given power to apply direct to the Secretary of State, because already they can be made agents of the county councils. If county councils apply to the Secretary of State for these facilities and they are granted, they can delegate those powers to the district council as agent. That shows that the district council is able to operate these services and is not too small to do so or grossly incapable of doing so; otherwise, of course, powers would not be delegated by the county council. Our submission is that the district council should have power to apply to the Secretary of State direct. We say that for this reason: that it has been shown that county councils, in the
950
main, have not been so urgent in making representations to the Secretary of State when similar services—though not exactly of the kind mentioned in the Bill—have been required by district councils.
To give an example, the small Island of Eriskay has been asking for a pier since 1950. Although scheduled ten years ago, it has not yet been provided, merely (as I am informed) because no demand has come from the county council. Of course, we cannot expect the Scottish Office to go round finding out that these little things are wanted, but if the county council do not make the demand, it means that the district council cannot do anything, and people are deprived of a badly needed amenity. In fact, I understand that in some cases considerable dangers have arisen and that fishermen and others in the seafaring profession have actually given up in despair because much-needed facilities of this kind were not provided.
If the smallness of these local authorities is argued, I would say to the Under-Secretary that if the councils are fit to exercise these powers when delegated to them by the county council, they are fit to exercise them when they are delegated direct from the Secretary of State. In addition, if their rateable value is small, as I understand it is, I would remind him that these funds will be coming direct from the Secretary of State. We all want to see, I hope, as much devolution of powers as possible in these matters, and we want to see local interest created. We want the people not to feel frustrated but that here are things with which they can go ahead. I hope that that will be within the spirit and terms of this Bill which we all welcome, and I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will tell us that he will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("any district council which provides such services, or").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very kind, sensible and helpful way in which he has proposed his Amendment. I believe the noble Lord realises that in the Scottish local government set-up, between the county council and the district councils there are burgh councils. Perhaps

951
"between" is not the right word, but burgh councils also have powers under the present Bill. I agree with the noble Lord that we want to see more devolution of powers.
Though I have not been able to check this, I believe I am right in saying that district councils are not even universal in Scotland, and that there are areas where no district council operates. But that does not detract from the point which the noble Lord wishes to make. I should like to give him a technical reason which I hope he will accept, in explaining why we cannot accept this Amendment. The Bill authorises my right honourable friend to help with finance, and in other ways, those who provide sea ferry services. This is not a Bill intended to give any added or new powers to operators to provide sea services. It gives no new powers and authorises the Secretary of State only to pay money. I see that the intention of the noble Lord is to help district councils to operate sea ferries and ancillary works, but I have to advise him that his Amendment as framed—although, of course, one never stands upon that—would not have that effect.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I just interrupt the noble Lord? He did not interrupt me, and I understood that he agreed when I said that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to give a single person the right to operate a ferry or receive a grant. How is it that a district council cannot provide a sea service in the shape of a ferry?
LORD CRAIGTON: I asked myself that question, and I will endeavour to give the noble Lord an answer. The Amendment, like the Bill itself, provides money, but does not provide powers to operate. The giving of powers to district councils to operate ferries raises wide issues which cannot and should not be dealt with in this Bill. At present, as the noble Lords knows, district councils have limited powers and powers can be delegated to them by the county councils. I agree with the noble Lord that county councils have not been too free with the delegation of those powers.
I will look into the particular point about Eriskay; but some district councils are very small and it is not for us to pre-judge views taken by county
952
councils. Before any extension of the powers in the existing Act was agreed, there would have to be discussions with the county councils; and I would say, quite seriously, that in that the whole field of local authority responsibilities would be involved. To give the noble Lord one example: for the intention behind this Amendment to be effective district councils would need powers to rate for the service beyond their present statutory 1s. rate, which, in general terms, is all they are empowered to raise.
Furthermore, as I believe the noble Lord realises, it would be necessary to amend the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, under which county councils and burghs, but not district councils, obtain powers to run sea ferries. That is the technical position, but I can assure the noble Lord—and this may help him in the view he takes—that the actual position is nothing like so grim as the technical position. So far as the operation of ferries is concerned, the county councils have full powers to delegate all the operations of the sea ferry to any of the district councils in the area who they consider could do the job with advantage. But ferries, as the noble Lord points out, need piers and associated works; and here, in addition, district councils can also act on their own initiative—the noble Lord may not be aware of this—and get help from the Secretary of State without the aid of this Bill.
LORD STONHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I point out that in those circumstances they get only a 75 per cent. grant. Under this Bill, if my Amendment were accepted, they would get a 100 per cent. grant.
LORD CRAIGTON: I take the noble Lord's point, but my point was that they have considerable powers now. At least one district council already owns a pier, and others could acquire piers to operate under the General Piers and Harbours Act, 1861; and my right honourable friend has powers to assist with finance in the Highlands under the Congested Districts Act, 1897. I do not want to argue with the noble Lord about the rights and wrongs of the position. The district councils can now operate sea ferries and piers if the county council delegate powers; they can operate piers, should they wish,

953
and they can acquire the piers, and my right honourable friend can help both operations. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, on the grounds that the district councils are not completely shut off from sea, ferry and harbour operations, and on the ground that we should not seek to alter the longstanding powers of local authorities in a Bill of this nature, which seeks only to confer a power on the Secretary of State.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his careful explanation and for the spirit in which he has dealt with this Amendment. I think I may say that, although he cannot accept the Amendment, the greater part of what I want to achieve is already in being, and it may well he that the difference in the main is that certain district councils could under certain legislation get a 75 per cent. grant and not a 100 per cent. grant as I would hope. But, if I may say so with respect, I feel that the greatest good will come out of the assurance the noble Lord has given that he will pay particular attention to this point, bring it to the attention of county councils and remind them of their duties so that they do not neglect the pleas of smaller authorities in their areas. If he does that I think it will achieve all I could possibly hope for. This is the fourth occasion on which, under force majeure, I have had to take part in Scottish occasions, and I am grateful that I have emerged alive. And, rejoicing at my escape, I would ask the Committee for permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

CHURCH PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE, 1960
LORD SPENS LORD SPENS rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Church Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, 1960, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. The Measure referred to in the Motion was prepared by the Church Commissioners to cure a number of difficulties, mainly of a legal conveyancing nature, affecting property, partly in relation to loans and payments by the Commissioners and partly in regard to a number of other technical matters which have arisen in administering the complex legislation with which they and the various diocesan authorities have to deal. Although the Measure contains six Parts and 30 clauses the Church Commissioners took the view that no provision should be included in the Measure which was in any way controversial. Every diocesan board was consulted, and I believe that every board and their legal advisers welcomed the provisions of the Bill. The Diocesan Chancellors have also welcomed the Measure, and. Clauses 7 to 23 were inserted at the express request of Diocesan Registrars. The Church Assembly itself approved the Measure without a division at any stage. Finally, the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported unanimously in favour of the Measure.
My Lords, may I draw attention to some of the more important matters included? By Clauses 1 and 2 powers are given to an incumbent to exchange a parsonage house for a more suitable residence and to take a lease of a house in his corporate capacity. Clause 3 gives a diocesan Bishop power to carry out improvements to a parsonage during the vacancy in a living, the most suitable time for such alterations to be carried out. Clause 5 authorises the Church Commissioners to acquire a new building to be used partly as a church and partly as a church hall, a requirement very common in new parishes. Clause 6 makes some technical but very necessary Amendments to the Parishes Measure of 1943.
Part III gives additional powers relating to Church lands; for instance, power to incumbents to enter into covenants binding on their successors and powers to an incumbent to take or grant easements. Part IV gives additional powers to the Commissioners in relation to loans and payments—as, for instance, in Clause 13, to capitalise part of a loan to an incumbent so as to make available to him a capital sum for certain approved capital purposes. Clause 16 authorises distribution of the Tithe Maintenance Fund as to three-fifths to diocesan stipend funds and two-fifths to the Commissioners' General Fund. Part V deals with the Church Estates Commissioners and the transfer of their functions to the Commissioners. Part VI contains some miscellaneous technical provisions. My Lords, everyone who has had to consider the Measure heretofore has approved its provisions, and I trust that it will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Church Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, 1960, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(Lord Spens.)
8.48 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London was to have spoken but has, unfortunately, been detained by a pastoral matter of some importance. I therefore rise in his place to support the noble Lord, Lord Spens. Had the Lord Bishop of London been here I think it is doubtful whether he would have spoken at any length. He has, however, a reputation for saying some striking things in a very few words; and though I cannot lay claim to his ready wit I will at least, bearing in mind the late hour, try to follow him in the matter of brevity and detain your Lordships for a very few moments only. Indeed, I want to call your Lordships' attention only to one point: that with the desire to avoid contentious legislation the Church Commissioners have, as your Lordships have heard, consulted every diocesan board of finance and every diocesan dilapidations board, as well as the Standing Committee of the House of Clergy and the Associations of Diocesan
956
Chancellors and Diocesan Registrars Throughout all the lengthy discussion which has taken place no substantial objection has been raised to any of the provisions of the Measure, and no Amendment has been put forward except by the promoters. That is, I think, a truly remarkable thing. All the consulted bodies are in general agreement with what the Measure proposes, and accept it as generally necessary and desirable. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will approve its provisions, for the Measure will undoubtedly be of great assistance to the Church Commissioners, as well as to the dioceses.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SAINT MARTIN'S PARISH CHURCH BIRMINGHAM BILL> SAINT PETER'S CHURCH NOTTINGHAM (BROAD MARSH BURIAL GROUND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
  ASSISTANCE TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
  ASSISTANCE TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES