I beg to move, pointed by the Ministry of Health, which sat under the Chairmanship of Lord Trevethin, contained in Clause 14 of their Report issued in 1923, and which is as follows: fection that as a result of primary prophylaxis only 13 infections resulted. Surgeon-Captain Hamilton Boyden, who was in medical charge of the Naval Gunnery School at Portsmouth during the two years from 1918 to 1920, says that 923 bottles of 1 in 1,000 solution of potassium permanganate were supplied to men who intended to incur danger of infection, and only one man was infected. During 1917 the men at the Royal Artillery Barracks at Portsmouth were carefully instructed to disinfect without delay, and out of 3,750, only five were infected during a period of nine months. There is also evidence from Colonel Harrison as to what would be the effect of similar steps on the civil population. His experience during the War shows what could be done to reduce venereal disease in the civil community. It seems to me perfectly clear that the civilian population should have free access to reliable preventives against venereal disease. It is not only a question of the present generation, we have to consider the effect of this terrible scourge on future generations. The best medical opinion is unanimous that a very large proportion of the cases of paralysis, mal-formation, mental deficiency, insanity, epilepsy and blindness, which cost the country almost untold loss in the efficiency of the population, and a direct loss in keeping these unfortunate victims, are due directly to parental syphilis or gonorrhœa.

I will give the House only one example as to blindness. The Report of the Departmental Committee on the Causes and Prevention of Blindness, which was issued by the Ministry of Health in 1922, states that 1,855 cases of school blindness occurring in the schools for the blind of the London Education Committee, in 1920 alone, 369 were due to parental gonorrhœa and 618 due to parental syphilis. The cost of the present method of dealing with this disease exclusively by curing it, instead of dealing with it, as far as we can, before the germ is allowed to penetrate from the surface, is, according to the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health for 1924–25, very great. The grants paid in one year in aid of venereal disease schemes amounted to £281,000, and the cost to local authorities of carrying out those schemes was over £358,000, making a total of £600,000. That is but a very small part of the cost to the country of the results of this terrible disease. I appeal to the House, not only to give the Bill a First Reading, but, as all quarters are agreed as to the need of the Bill, to give it a Second Reading in due course. Whatever else this House may do before the end of the Session, at least we should pass this Measure for the relief of suffering Humanity.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Basil Peto, Mr. Bennett, Major-General Sir John Davidson, Sir William Davison, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Haden Guest, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Mr. Snell and Dr. Watts.

Venereal Disease Act (1917) Amendment Bill,

"to permit the sale by chemists of disinfectants for protection against Venereal Disease; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

With regard to Clauses 40 and 41, it appears to me that the one Clause can hardly be debated fully without reference to the other. I, therefore, propose that on the first Amendment to Clause 40 there should be a general Debate on both Clauses. That Debate, however, cannot be renewed on the discussion of Clause 41.

I had intended to put to you that suggestion. I think the arrangement would best meet the convenience of the Committee.

I beg to move, in page 31, line 32, to leave out the words national Exchequer, and those who had done special damage to the roads, it would appear that merely to strengthen the Road Act would achieve that purpose. But the whole thing has got into such a chaotic condition during the past few years that it seems to me that, before we introduce any new duties or any new legislation for the financing of the roads, there is ample scope for a Royal Commission to make a thorough inquiry into the whole position.

There is ample ground for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, in introducing the Budget, that the present method operates very hardly on the railway companies, and, I would add, operates much more hardly on the tramway authorities. The proposed scale of taxation will operate very hardly with regard to certain sections of these vehicles, inasmuch as no regard is paid to the amount of use that is made of the roads, the scale of duties being based on hard and fast lines relating to weight, engine power and so on. There is no doubt that the Road Fund has done a very great work, so far as the main roads are concerned, but, unfortunately, the increase of traffic upon the main roads has been such that, even with the improvements made, it has driven a great amount of traffic from the main roads on to secondary and unclassified roads, for which local authorities get no consideration from the Road Fund. We are finding to-day, particularly on the outskirts of large cities, that roads which were comparatively derelict and unused have become important switch roads, which are of great convenience in facilitating traffic. And yet the local authorities are given no consideration whatever in respect of them.

Then, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned, as to the allocation of the Fund, that he proposed to allocate a definite proportion to rural roads, with which decision I have no quarrel whatever. But take the position of the various tramway authorities of this country with regard to the Road Fund. The local authority or the tramway authority receives no assistance whatever from the Road Fund. The Minister of Transport is giving every possible encouragement to omnibus companies to run in competition with the tramways. He is compelling local authorities to grant licences to them, although they contribute nothing to the rates of those local authorities or to the upkeep of the roads. They are taking the places of undertakings, either privately or municipally owned, which not only maintain their rails in an efficient condition, but also have placed upon them by the Tramways Act, 1870, the duty of maintaining the surface of the road. This means that in some of our large cities the tramway authority is maintaining the surface of the main roads between the tram rails and 18 inches on either side, or, in some cases, two-thirds of the total road surface. Further, if a grant is being made from the Road Fund nothing is allowed, even though it may have been necessary to shift tram lines and re-lay them. Nothing is allowed from the Road Fund in such cases. Therefore it seems to me that if the Government, for some reason which is obscure to me, feel it desirable that tramways should go out of existence and should be replaced by something else, a big burden will be imposed on the local rates for the maintenance of roads now maintained in the way I have described. Consequently, local authorities look with some suspicion on the Minister's desire that the motor omnibus should take the place of the tram.

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to do me an injustice. He says it is my desire that the motor omnibus should take the place of the tram. I would point out to him that I am most severely criticised in London for trying to protect the trams.

Whatever the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have done in London, he certainly has not done much in the provinces in that respect. He knows that I live at Bradford, and I am familiar with the kind of work which he has been doing there. If the Minister is the white angel that he claims to be in this respect, I would point out to him another difficulty. A very heavy tax is being placed upon these authorities by reason of the weight of the traffic which now passes over the paved roads. As a matter of fact the crushing of sets by heavy motor vehicles is the cause of a great deal of expense to local authorities, for which they receive no compensation, and although the present duty would, to some extent, place a penalty on the use of these heavy vehicles, a great many authorities in areas where the greatest damage is done would receive no portion of that duty to recompense them for that special damage.

This grievance did not press so heavily when the tramways had a virtual monopoly in the various localities, and were making profits. It was just as well that those profits should be used for the upkeep of roads as for any other public purpose, and no grievance arose. To-day, it has become a great grievance, and one which is of quite as much importance to various authorities as is the question of Waterloo Bridge to those who are interested in the preservation of that bridge. One might well suggest that a Royal Commission would do a greater public service by inquiring into the points which I am raising than by inquiring into the question of what is to be done with Waterloo Bridge. I feel that the Minister cannot have considered this matter from the point of view of the interest involved. Both the tramways and the railways are performing a public service very efficiently, and there is a good case to be made out for them. Why should they pay rates to maintain roads upon which their competitors are given facilities to compete with them? There is no need for me to advocate the case of the railway companies because there are many hon. Members in the Committee who will be able to do so better than I can. Still, they have a case, and they are entitled to consideration before these duties are imposed. Neither the tramways nor the railways have been well treated in my judgment.

I am not quite sure what is the hon. Member's argument, but I would point out to him that this Clause only deals with the question of the amount of the duties which is to be paid into the Road Fund. That is a different point from the merits of the duties themselves.

I am coming to that point. My objection is that the whole of the proceeds of the duties is not being paid into the Road Fund. I think the Road Fund could do with it, if the roads are to be brought up to that condition of safety for the pedestrian which ought to be the standard in this country. Hon. Members have received complaints of hardships in certain respects connected with these duties ever since the Budget statement, and I am quite convinced that these duties, instead of being based on weight or engine power, should be based on the use made of the roads, which could be calculated according to the amount of fuel consumed or in some other way. That, again, is a subject for careful inquiry by experts, and I still contend that such an inquiry might well be made by a Royal Commission before the duties are imposed. At any rate, the present method of taxation is wholly bad. We have a vague promise that future legislation may be introduced to alter the method of collecting this tax, and base it upon the use made of the roads. I fear we should probably be disappointed if we accepted that vague promise and did not secure a more definite pronouncement before agreeing to this taxation. To give some idea of the way in which the duties would operate, and to prove that there are grounds for further consideration, we have only to take the case of the public utility vehicles used in collecting refuse.

I am afraid the hon. Member is reopening the discussion on Clause 13. I do not wish to shut out any arguments which are relevant to the Clause with which we are now dealing, but I do not see that the hon. Member's present argument is relevant to it. No Amendment to this Clause will affect the duties themselves, because the Clause only deals with the question of the sum which is to be paid into the Road Fund.

I am seeking to postpone the operation of the duties for a period of 12 months in order that inquiries may be made as to the best way of achieving the object which the Chancellor has in mind.

That will not be effected by the Amendment. Even if the Amendment were carried, the duties would continue to be levied, but they would all go into the Road Fund.

That is so.

This Clause does not touch the question of whether the duties are right or wrong. It merely deals with their destination, and not with their incidence or amount.

I want to ensure that the destination of all of them shall be the Road Fund. I am afraid, Sir, under the ruling which you have given it is very difficult for me to pursue the subject any further. I have very great difficulty in appreciating your ruling, because I believe that the effect of the taxation is a very important part of the case for holding an inquiry. However, I bow to your ruling. There is another important consideration, and that is that part of this Fund is to be devoted to support the Revenue, and to that, very grave objection can be taken. Whether we like it or not, the road transport industry is a very important one, and while a very good case may be put up from the point of view of a luxury tax, certainly no case can be made out for taxing one particular industry to support the Revenue. You might as well just put a tax upon every ton of coal that is brought up from the mines as put a tax on every vehicle that runs upon the road and takes that coal from the mine, on the ground that it ought to go on the railway. I will leave it at that, and trust that the Committee will see the wisdom of postponing the whole thing until it can be gone into more effectively than appears to have been the case, and until we can effect a means of raising a revenue for our roads and for the national taxation in a more effective and efficient way than that which is proposed in Clause 40.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Palin), who has submitted this Amendment to the Committee, has spoken from a very long and very wide and close experience of the transport problem, and he has dealt with certain details into which I shall not attempt to go. I shall endeavour to confine myself to the broader aspects of this question. May I say, at the outset, that the presence of the Minister of Transport on the Front Bench this afternoon is another example of the influence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercises over all his colleagues in the Government? It is a very extraordinary thing that we should have the Minister responsible for the administration of a Department coming here to support the taking away of revenue by which the efficient administration of that Department may be carried out.

He is getting more money this year than last.

Why is it odd that Ministers should support one another in carrying out a common policy?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has evidently missed the point of my observation. Except from the point of view of loyalty to a colleague, there ought to be no common policy between a Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to deprive a Department of the Government of the resources by which it operates, and the head of that Department. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer occupies a unique and isolated position in every Government. It is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a watchdog over the administration of every Department of the State, and I can only congratulate the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on the influence that he wields over his colleagues in that respect.

He is giving £3,000,000 more this year than last.

4.0 P.M.

I would be very much obliged if the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) would kindly reserve his observations, and I would suggest that in the meantime he should make himself acquainted with the subject which is before the Committee. It is impossible to understand the question that we are to discuss this afternoon without knowing something of the history of these motor taxes, the reason why they were first imposed, and the purposes to which they have been devoted. They originated in a proposal which was made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his Budget of 1909. It had become evident at that time that there was going to be a great increase in motor road transport. The motor had just come into existence and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in that Budget, with the idea of devoting the proceeds to the improvement of the roads, levied certain taxes upon this new form of transport. He considered, I suppose, that he was not in a posit on at that time to impose taxation of a general character for the improvement of the roads, and he therefore made the suggestion that motorists should submit to a special form of taxation, on the distinct understanding that the proceeds of that taxation should be used for the improvement and development of the roads. May I, in order to support that statement, read one or two extracts from speeches which were delivered by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in making those original proposals? In his Budget speech in 1909, the right hon. Gentleman said: the general revenue of the country during war time would be again used for the purpose for which they were originally imposed. In 1919 the motorists again made a bargain with the Government. Is it necessary that I should read the many pledges which have been given by Ministers, many of whom are Members of the present Government, which puts that matter beyond all doubt?

Before I do so, may I make my position with regard to these duties quite clear. I have never felt that a bargain once made is for all time irrevocable. I do not say that the legislation of 1909 was according to the laws of the Medes and Persians. But, if circumstances change, and if a case has been established for a reconsideration of the original bargain, then I do say that no Government has a right to break that bargain without consultation with those interested and without agreement of the other parties to the bargain. More than that, no Government has a right to take funds which have been supplied under a definite bargain and for a very definite purpose, and to appropriate those sums for another purpose of a retrospective character. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to do by these proposals. Whatever he may be able to say in defence of the appropriation of one-third of the duties upon motor-cars for general revenue purposes, he can make no case whatever for raiding the accumulated funds of the Road Fund which have been subscribed under those very specific conditions which I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee.

Parliament, I say, can alter an arrangement, if the circumstances have changed. I will go further and admit that if a case can be established that there is no longer any need for the use of the growing resources of the Road Fund for road improvement and road maintenance, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be quite justified in asking Parliament either to lower these duties or to use the proceeds for some other purpose. It will be urged no doubt from the Treasury Bench this afternoon that ear-marked revenue is not a very defensible policy. I would be quite prepared to admit that. Of course, no Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to have a revenue, and especially a growing revenue, which is outside his own control; and, in general, I would say that the policy of assigned revenue for ear-marked purposes is not a defensible policy. Therefore, if we are to defend this, we must prove that there are special features, special conditions, and special circumstances which justify an exception in this case to the general rule; and that, I think, it will not be difficult to establish. There are two reasons which, I think, establish the exception to what is, in general, a sound financial policy. The first is the history of this tax, with which I have already to some extent dealt. When these taxes were originally imposed they were not, as I have said, a contribution to the general revenue of the country; there was a kind of bargain with the Government that the proceeds should be for the specific purpose of improving and maintaining the roads. I come now to the point in regard to Government [pledges. In the House of Commons, in 1909, the present Foreign Secretary, who at that time was Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the new taxation of motor vehicles, said: were part of a bargain. Sir Edgar Harper, who was until recently a very important official of the Inland Revenue Department, has said this in regard to these taxes:

Our case is that, growing as the Revenue is from these taxes, it is insufficient to meet the growing need. I said, in the course of some observations I made a week or two ago, that it might be possible to spend usefully tens of millions, scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions on the roads. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seized upon that and said, "The right hon. Gentle- man wants to spend hundreds of millions upon the roads!" I am quite sure that we could, and it would be one of the most remunerative and productive things that the State could do. But without being so ambitious as that, is the sum of £20,000,000 a year—it will be about £17,500,000 this year—beyond what could he usefully spent at the present time in the improvement and development of the roads? I venture to submit that it is too little, and every day the urgency of this problem is growing. The need for road improvement is growing far more rapidly than what we are doing in dealing with the increased traffic on the roads. I am sure there is not a member of the Committee who will dispute that statement for a moment. I have the authority of the present Home Secretary in a speech he made in inaugurating a new school of motoring, reported on the 9th June. The Home Secretary said:

There would be a very large increase in the yield of the duty.

Yes, and there would be a large increase in the number of people killed in the streets. Can the Committee imagine what the state of our roads will be if the motor car becomes as popular in this country as it has become in the United States of America? It does not mean doubling the number; it means five times the number of motor vehicles on the roads. The number of motor vehicles on the roads in this country has doubled in less than five years. I do not think anyone for a moment will dispute the statement that in three years' time we shall have double the number of motor vehicles on our roads that we have to-day.

And double the revenue.

Really, the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very foolish one. It may well double the yield of the duty, but it will not double the yield, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have his way. It will not double the yield for the purpose of dealing with the growing traffic, but it will double the yield to be used in order to squander in other ways. That, certainly, is a possibility, and, therefore, instead of lessening the amount of money available for the improvement of the roads, we ought to increase it.

We are.

For the third time, might I ask the hon. Member not to exhibit his ignorance on this question? In regard to the Road Fund, may I call the attention of the Committee to the memorandum issued by the County Councils' Association, in which they point out that there are 152,736 miles of roads in England and Wales, that the county main roads extend to 29,439 miles and the district roads to 110,254 miles. They go on to point out that only 12–3 per cent, of our roads are in Class 1, and 7.4 are in Class 2, that is to say, that lees than 20 per cent, of our roads are classified. Third-class roads are now passing into second-class roads, and second-class roads are passing into first class. Therefore, the need for assistance to those roads is correspondingly increasing. Then they give figures, showing that, approximately, 22 per cent, of Class 2 roads should be transferred to Class 1, and that approximately 31 per cent, of the unclassified roads should now be classified. Of the existing classified main roads, only 48 per cent, are fit to carry modern traffic. What a need there is for the improvement of roads, and the making of new roads, when approximately 38 per cent., they state, require reconstruction at an estimated cost of nearly £25,000,000, and approximately 27 per cent, require, in addition, widening or diverting, at an estimated cost of nearly £44,500,000. We are getting pretty well on to the £100,000,000 I suggested the other day in those two items alone. They go on to point out how much needs to be done in bringing the unclassified roads into a state fit to deal with the burden thrown upon them by increasing motor vehicles. It is most important that the roads should be rendered fit to take the heavy motor traffic which is being used to an increasing extent, and this has a most important bearing upon the whole agricultural problem. One of the main reasons why the cost of provisions is so high in the markets of our large towns is the heavy toll of the transport service, and if we could only improve our roads, then we should have a cheap transport system which would reflect itself in the lower cost of food.

The other point I mentioned was as to whether the money we are spending on the roads now is out of proportion to the expenditure which is devoted to other public services. I may say about that, that this is a new service. It has been made a new service by the revolution in transport, and, therefore, we ought to regard it as a new service. What would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say if I were to make a comparison between this and, say, the Air Service? The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say we were spending so much upon the roads 10 years ago, and we are spending so much to-day. In the years immediately preceding the outbreak of War, we spent about £17,000,000 a year on the roads. It fell down during the War. Considerable arrears have had to be made up, and, in the meantime, there has been this increase in motor transport service. Therefore, you cannot compare this service with an ordinary, well-established and non-growing service.

The point is, whether we are spending as much as the needs of the occasion demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says we are spending probably more than we can afford. On the contrary, we cannot afford not to spend as much as is necessary for dealing adequately with this problem. If ever there were a case when the bid adage about being penny wise and pound foolish applies, it certainly applies in this case, because we cannot keep off this road development for all time, and the longer we neglect to deal with it, the more expensive it will be when we are compelled to deal with it. In the meantime, we shall be suffering all the loss and disadvantage of neglect. There is all this trade loss through these delays. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put additional taxation this year upon the users of commercial vehicles. If he is going to make them pay more for the use of the roads, they have a claim to the use of good roads. A bad road, probably, reduces the life of a commercial vehicle by about one-half. I am told by people who know about these things from the technical point of view, that a £1,000 commercial vehicle on a good road will last 10 years, but on a road which is not good its lifetime is only half that period.

This point about the uneconomic policy of postponing inevitable developments applies not merely to new roads, but to the maintenance of existing roads. It has been found that if the roads are not kept in good condition, they cost a great deal more to repair. For instance, it has been discovered that foundations of six-inch reinforced concrete are unsuitable for the heavy traffic which the roads have to take, and, when we can afford it, those foundations are to be taken up and nine-inch reinforced concrete substituted. Therefore, if the roads are to be kept in good condition, they will be more expensive to maintain, and if they have to be done cheaply, it means there will not be good roads, and the cost of maintaining them will, naturally, in a few years be much heavier than if the work were done thoroughly at first. Then in regard to road construction, delay is a very expensive policy. We have allowed towns to grow up with insufficient roads. Now we are discovering that we must pull down buildings in order to make proper roads. What is the result? That through the lack of foresight the local authorities have to pay extraordinary prices for the property which has to be removed. What are the actual facts? Where a new road is made through an urban area and property has to be acquired, 85 per cent, of the cost of the road goes in the acquisition of that property, and only 15 per cent, in the cost of the construction of the road. On the other hand, if you make your road through an undeveloped district, only 25 per cent, goes in the cost of the land and the acquisition of property, and 75 per cent, on the cost of construction.

I want now to say a word or two about this diversion of the £7,000,000, to which reference has already been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about a surplus in the Fund. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transport knows that there is no such surplus. He knows, and has said, that all the money has been allocated for prospective expenditure. How can the £7,000,000 diversion be justified in that case? I have already pointed out that it has already been allocated for a specific pur- pose. Now the Chancellor proposes to divert it to some other purpose. He is devoting it, in part at any rate, to meet increased expenditure on the Navy. When we raised this question a few weeks ago, the Financial Secretary made the most extraordinary defence of a proposal which was ever put forward from the Treasury Bench. He said that, seven years ago the Treasury made a grant of £8,000,000 for expenditure on the improvement of the roads—that was seven years ago—and that now he was justified, on that account, in taking £7,000,000 out of the Fund.

What were the circumstances of that time? We ought to remember that during the years of the War the motor vehicle taxation had been diverted to general expenditure. The two years after the War were most expensive years to the local authorities. Hence the grant from the Treasury was made to help these local authorities to make good the wastage which the War had imposed upon the roads under their control. That explanation is brought forward from the Treasury Bench as an excuse for raiding the Road Fund. This was described by a supporter of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wells Division (Sir R. Sanders) as petty larceny. It might be much more properly described as highway robbery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there is no intention of going back upon the commitments which have already been made. That may be so, although I am informed—if wrongly the Chancellor of the Exchequer will doubtless correct me— that since last August the Treasury have sanctioned no new schemes, nor have they made any new or additional allocations from the Fund.

Our point is this: There must definitely be a reduction of expenditure, if you are going to take £7,000,000 out of the Road Fund. It is understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take one-third of the taxation of private cars, which he has described as a luxury tax, and which he estimates' will give him £3,500,000–1 am not quite sure of the figures, but something like £3,500,000—if so, this also must be so much less money to spend upon the roads. Instead of having less money to help progressive local administration, ought there not to be more? The Chan- cellor of the Exchequer will no doubt say that the Road Fund will continue to expand even after the raid which he is making. I meet that by saying that there was the normal expansion before this proposal, but it was not sufficient to meet the growing needs of the roads.

Schemes will certainly have to be abandoned. New schemes cannot be embarked upon. There is bound to be a deterioration in the quality of the roads. Assuming that the local authorities receive less from the Road Fund than they have hitherto anticipated, one or two things must happen. They may spend less upon the maintenance of the roads, and thus we shall get less efficient roads. But suppose they are determined to keep up the standard of their roads? They can only do that by an increased call upon the ratepayers. Anybody who knows anything about the burden of the local rates at the present time will agree that such a course is highly improbable. The idea at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when the Fund was inaugurated, and which showed his vision and foresight, was the prospect of more rapid and improved transport over the roads, and that the roads were becoming less and less of a local matter and more and more of a national character. Apart from that, the decentralisation of road control is bad, because with decentralisation you do not get uniformity of management and method. Whether we like it or not, the Government must be prepared to assume more and more the responsibility for the maintenance of the main roads. That is a very good and sufficient reason, and an additional reason, why we should oppose the proposals now before the Committee.

To sum up our opposition. This is not the time to limit expenditure on roads. It is really the time for increasing that expenditure, and placing more money at the disposal of the roads, in view of the growth of motor traffic in the country and its importance to industry. Sooner or later, if we neglect this matter, we shall find that it has become more expensive, and we shall have to pay for the extravagance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for his methods or relieving his financial embarrassment. Has it never occurred to the right hon.

Gentleman to look at some of his old speeches? If he had done so, he would have possibly discovered what would be now of service to him. Let him look up a speech he delivered in the theatre at Edinburgh some years ago, in which he pointed out that every expenditure of public money increased the value of the land. He pointed out that if the State or the community would only acquire the increased value of the land due to the expenditure of the inhabitants the more improvements the merrier, as the improvements would pay for themselves. There are many hon. Members on his own side of the House who in their hearts disapprove of these proposals of the Chancellor. Above all, I think the agricultural Members are not going to be bribed by this paltry and inadequate contribution that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests of something like £1,250,000 to rural roads. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you do?"] I never made a raid upon the Road Fund. When I had the opportunity, in office, I gave permission for a large number of new schemes, one particularly in Scotland, a large scheme, which alone amounted, I believe, to £2,000,000. The Chancellor said some time ago that he regarded the maintenance and upkeep of the present roads as more important than the construction of new ones. I do not think that is a good point. As a matter of fact, however important the maintenance and upkeep may be it is desirable to encourage the making of new roads. Whether this Amendment is carried or not the proposals meet with the unanimous disapproval of the local authorities who are interested in the control and the administration of the roads.

The right hon. Gentleman made a comprehensive survey of most of the familiar issues which have been raised in the course of the controversy which has arisen on this subject; but for all the care which he had devoted to the matter I do not think he was able to overcome the belief, which evidently possessed him, that reasonable public opinion had already declared itself decisively against the point of view which he was advocating. Is it not perfectly clear, from the present state of the Committee, that the whole position in which this controversy stands, here and out of doors, has altered—that the proposals which we have made, at this difficult time, for extending in some measure the scale and scope of motor taxation, and for allocating some portion of the fruits of that taxation to the Exchequer, are regarded on the whole—and it is on the whole that you must judge this case—as a very moderate, fair and reasonable settlement of different and conflicting interests? I have said before on this subject that the Government have to take a general view of all the forms in which public money is expended and the limited funds available. In taking that view, is it not reasonable to say that the allocation made to the Road Fund in the current year is an adequate assignment of public revenue? It seems to me, as far as I can judge and measure the movement of public opinion, that those who are interested in motoring and in the Road Fund, the local authorities and so on, have been extremely relieved, and even gratified—with that negative form of gratification which comes from not suffering as much as one expected to do—at the proposals which we have made. As far as public opinion is concerned, this matter has decided itself already. There is no doubt about that.

Leaving opinion and coming to the merits of the matter, one would suppose, listening to the right hon. Gentleman, that our roads were in a most neglected condition. One would have supposed that no money worth speaking of was being devoted to their repair or extension. What are the facts? It is quite true that if you are comparing the roads with extreme ideals in road construction, you may say there is a limitless field of expenditure before us; but I can see many other matters in which, if you take the advice of, and fulfil all the aspirations of, those who are particularly interested and instructed, you would find a limitless field of expenditure. The roads of this country are in a far better condition than the roads of any other country in the world. More money is being spent upon them than in any other country of the same size in the whole world.

More money is being spent on them this year than was spent last year, and more money is being spent this year than was ever spent before. We are spending £3,500,000 more this year than last year. In the current year we are spending actually £21,000,000 on carrying out schemes of extension and reconstruction and on the upkeep of roads. As I have pointed out, that is more than the whole amount required to maintain our Air Force; it is two-fifths of what we spend upon the upkeep of the Royal Navy; and it is—and here I use a similitude which is more likely to win sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman —half of what we spend from public funds upon the education of our children. It may not be enough. There never will be enough for everything while the world goes on. The more that is given the more there will be needed That is why life is so interesting. But reasonable men, dealing with practical affairs, and having to measure and divide up the limited resources of the country between many desirable and deserving objects of public expenditure, will consider that in providing £21,000,000 for the development of our roads this year—their further development after all that has been done, all the great arterial roads that have already been constructed—we have made ample provision, and all that is justified in the present state of the national wealth.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on several of the more hackneyed points of this controversy. In the first place he spoke about allegations of breach of faith which had been made. A bargain between parties where one side gives something in consideration of what the other side gives is a bargain which has behind it every sanction of public faith and strictness; but a bargain between the State and Parliament on the one hand and a body of taxpayers on the other is not a bargain of that kind at all. To describe it as a bargain is a misnomer. It is a declaration of the intentions of the Government and Parliament. Those intentions, once declared, ought not to be altered except for good reasons, nor ought they to be altered capriciously or with undue haste or levity; nor is that the case at the present time. To say that Parliament, which has taken a certain decision in regard to taxation, is not entitled after a lapse of years, when the conditions have completely changed, to revise its judgment, if it thinks fit, is to make a contention which no one in this House will attempt to sustain, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself would certainly not sustain. There can be no bargain between the State and any body of taxpayers. Everything must rest in the plenary authority of Parliament, subject to the ordinary conditions of contract and of good faith which attach to contractual relations. The right hon. Gentleman, in talking of the taxation of motorists, quoted someone as saying that it was voluntary taxation.

The Minister of Transport.