asked the Minister of Transport whether he will revise the general line of the projected motorway to link the Birmingham. Bristol motorway to Exeter and the West, in such a way that it passes to the south of Bristol instead of to the north, in order that Dorset and south Somerset may derive some benefit from it.

The line of the route for the southern section of the Birmingham-Bristol motorway from Twyning to East Brent is still being investigated by consulting engineers. It is too early for me to say what my proposals will be.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to look again very carefully at this before he decides to run the motorway with the sea on one side, in view of the large area to the south in Dorset and south Somerset where we have had very little share of modern motoring facilities?

I will look at that, but so far the indications are that a by-pass to the north of Bristol will have advantages over a by-pass to the south-east of the city, but I am bound to say that further investigation is required but the point my hon. Friend has made will be taken into account.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this very important motorway should pass to the north of Bristol so as to provide modern road communications for the growing, progressing port of Avonmouth and for the new chemical works at Severnside?

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) will consult my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) to settle these matters between them and arrive at a considered decision and then let me know.

asked the Minister of Transport what decision has been made to improve road safety on the unrestricted stretch of the Durham Road at Stockton-on-Tees.

As the hon. Member now knows, we are prepared to agree to a 40 m.p.h. limit, subject to consideration of any objections which may be received when public notice of the proposal is given. I hope that this measure, in conjunction with the continuous guard railing already erected and a roundabout proposed for the near future at the Two Mile House junction, will effect an appreciable improvement in safety.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this decision will give great satisfaction to many people living in this area? Would he bear in mind the need possibly for another roundabout halfway down the stretch of the road?

I am glad to know that the hon. Member and his constituents will probably be satisfied with what we are doing. I will bear in mind the other point that the hon. Member made.

asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in standardising road signs with those of other European countries.

Signs on motorways already mainly follow continental design. I am considering whether we should have a general review of signs on other roads. Such a review would naturally embrace the questions whether, and how far, we should adopt the continental system.

I wonder how far Continental people would adopt our system. In view of the increasing number of people who are taking cars across the Channel in both directions, is it not desirable that a decision should be reached as soon as possible?

The motorway signs have been absolutely first-class. I think that everybody has approved of them. As that inquiry was so successful, I am considering seriously whether we should have a similar inquiry into all our signs. At the moment I believe that there are too many signs, that they are not at all clear in some respects, and that they are not standard in some respects. Motorists should be able to find standard signs in any part of the country. It may well be that an inquiry will be held; I will go seriously into that matter.

asked the Minister of Transport when the Maidenhead Motorway by-pass will be completely open; and if he will make a statement about the work of the surveyors, engineers and contractors responsible for the surface and grading of the section already open.

The Maidenhead by-pass will be fully open to traffic as a motorway on Monday, 26th June, 1961. I believe that the whole of this motorway, including the section now open, will be well up to the high standard of design and riding quality we have come to expect for motorways in this country. I should like to thank all concerned for their work on this project.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it will be a great relief to holiday-makers going to the West when this motorway is opened? Having driven two or three times on parts of it, may I add my congratulations to the surveyors and engineers on the grading and surface?

I know the stretch of road very well myself because it is on the way to my constituency. I am delighted with what is being done.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, although traffic has doubled on the M.1 and A.5 roads in Buckinghamshire, accidents have been reduced by 49 in one year; whether, in view of this and similar circumstances on other parts of these roads, he will press forward with the construction of the Leicestershire portion of the M.1 road; and if he will make a statement on progress relating to that portion of the M.1 road.

I agree with the hon. Member about the value of M.1 in reducing accidents. Although the five major projects must continue to have priority, we are making progress with the statutory procedures for the next sections of M.1. The Side Roads Order for the section in Northamptonshire was published on 28th April, and for the Leicestershire section on 26th May, 1961. Orders for the remaining sections will be published as soon as possible.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "as soon as possible"? Is he aware that for the last seven years he or his predecessors have been pressed to get this road made and that at least £1 million a year have been lost as a result of it not having been made? What on earth is the hon. Gentleman delaying about now? Why does he not press ahead as quickly as he possibly can and get the road completed? Has he not the vision to understand what is necessary?

I have lost count of the number of times I have told the hon. Member that we cannot proceed in this matter any faster than the statutory processes laid down by Parliament will allow us. That is what we are doing, and we shall press on with that.

asked the Minister of Transport what is the present position with regard to his proposed establishment of a clearway on the Cromwell Road exit from London; and whether, when the necessary restrictions are decided on, they will be submitted to Parliament in the form of regulations.

After consultation with the local authorities and other local interests, I announced on 27th April the final form which this experiment will take. I hope to introduce it this August, by means of Regulations which will be laid before Parliament.

While, obviously, in principle clearways are very desirable for through traffic, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that not only taxis but also private hire cars, particularly those going to London Airport and the Cromwell Road Air Terminal, must set down at the hotels along the Cromwell Road from time to time and, therefore, the Regulations must be reasonable in that respect?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that the Regulations are reasonable. I think that I managed to persuade the Kensington Chamber of Commerce, following its approach, that they were quite reasonable.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will revise and reissue Circular 718 of 1955 to highway authorities on the upkeep of roadside verges.

Amending Circular, No. 726, was issued in 1956. We have no evidence that there is need for further revision or for a reissue of these circulars, but if my hon. Friend has information showing that the advice given has been ignored, and will let me have details, I will look into the matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increasing evidence that a number of road engineers are unaware of the existence of this circular and are not abiding by it at all? Furthermore, is it not a good idea to have it brought up to date in view of the recent information which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has obtained in this connection?

I have no doubt that adequate publicity will be given to the Question and Answer in this House today on this point, and perhaps that will bring the matter to the notice of highway engineers, if that is necessary. I will look into the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Transport when the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, can expect a reply to his letter of 22nd March about the supply of steel wire for the Severn Bridge.

I have written to the hon. Member on this matter.

Is the Minister aware that suspicions have been caused because one of the firms of the consortium is one of the few firms which can supply this wire? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that because it is a member of the consortium the firm will not get an unnecessary advantage over South Wales firms which equally could supply the same sort of wire and that the South Wales firms will have the same opportunity of tendering for it?

The responsibility for the design and construction must rest with the consulting engineers. They are paid for the job and it is their responsibility. However, I will certainly look at the point.

asked the Minister of Transport for what periods during the past three years portions of the road between Aldgate and Blackwall Tunnel have not been up for repair.

We do not contribute to the cost of these works and have no records which give this information. The highway authorities tell me that no repairs were undertaken in Poplar during this period. In Stepney repairs were in progress for 21½ months, but except for two months the area under excavation was normally restricted to one quarter of the carriageway width.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that on the last occasion when the road was up, the method employed was that of having one man and a wheelbarrow and two men on their hands and knees with a trowel scraping it out? Is he sure that this is the quickest possible way to deal with it? Will he give consideration to having a twenty-four hour service where there is a bottleneck of this kind which impedes a very large amount of traffic coming into London?

I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put all these points to the Stepney Borough Council which is entirely responsible in this matter. It is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to schoolchildren crossing the north-eastern end of Cathedral Road, Cardiff, where, despite a continuous stream of fast-moving traffic, there are no traffic lights, no zebra crossing and no school traffic warden to see children across the road; and what steps he proposes to take to protect children who have to cross this main road.

Responsibility in this matter lies with the Cardiff County Borough Council as the highway authority. There are already three central islands in the road and traffic signals at its southern end. Traffic signals are to be installed at the Cardiff Road junction and I am advised that the council proposes that two more central islands should be provided. Provision of a school crossing patrol is a matter for the local education authority.

Is the Minister aware that this shuffling off of responsibility is not good enough? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It certainly is not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since this Question has been on the Order Paper there has been another accident at the spot, that people in the area are thoroughly frightened about the safety of their children and that the traffic lights to which he refers are three-quarters of a mile to a mile away from the spot to which the Question refers? Will he stir up the Cardiff authority on this question to ensure that children are given the protection of a traffic controller, as is so urgently necessary?

It is hard enough to be attacked for things for which we are responsible. It is a little harder to be attacked for things for which we have no responsibility at all. All I can say is that I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to the attention of the Cardiff County Borough Council.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the House being put in a rather difficult position? If the Minister has no responsibility he ought not to answer, and if he has a responsibility he ought not to disclaim it. What is the position? Is it not right that the House should know whether the Minister is accepting responsibility or not?

I have heard what the Minister said. I cannot correct him if he is wrongly declining responsibility. I shall have to ascertain whether the Question is rightly on the Order Paper.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that it has been the custom of the House to ask Ministers Questions of this kind? Often the answer is that county councils and so on will have their attention called to the matter; but it has become the custom of the House for hon. Members to put Questions of this kind directly to Ministers.

It is not the custom to put down a Question when no Ministerial responsibility is involved.

Is not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary misleading the House? Can a local authority establish a zebra crossing or anything else without the Minister's permission? Is it not a fact that before a local authority can establish a zebra crossing or anything that gives a right of way for pedestrians it must receive the consent of the Minister? Is not the Minister rather misleading the House when he says that he has no responsibility? In Newcastle we have made several requests to the Minister for this type of crossing, and the Minister simply refuses to allow us to do anything in Northumberland Street or anywhere else.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Minister's Department has to be consulted on the question of road safety? If it has to be consulted, surely it must bear some responsibility for the advice which is given? Answer!

The hon. Gentleman must not command me to answer. He rose to a point of order.

Might I ask the Minister why the House of Commons every year agrees to a Vote on road safety if he disclaims responsibility for answering the Question?

With your permission and that of the House, Mr. Speaker; the position simply' is that that answer to the hon. Member was phrased in accordance with the question which was asked. He was trying to blame my right hon. Friend and his Department for inaction in this matter, and it was my purpose to point out that we have no direct responsibility, since Cardiff is its own highway authority. Our advice is often asked for, of course, and freely given.

On a point of order. I put a question to the Minister suggesting that he had responsibility. He has to give permission to local authorities before they can do anything.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) made an assertion, a fraction of which was in interrogatory form, but I am afraid that I lost it in the midst of the discussion.

On a point of order. Is there not all the difference in the world between no responsibility and responsibility although indirect? If the Minister accepts indirect responsibility, he ought not to say that he is not responsible, for that is leaving the House in an impossible position.

I never rule about Ministerial responsibility. What we do at the Table is take the declaration of the Minister about it. Hon. Members can take up the matter with the Minister at some time if they want to do so.

I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker. It was not you I was seeking to put under pressure.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish the report of his inspector on his recent investigation into the danger to pedestrians and especially to school chlidren, who wish to cross the road at the junction of Lower Cathedral Road, Ninian Park Road and Clare Road, Cardiff; and whether he will make a statement on this report.

Both our divisional road engineer and the local safety officer have now made careful observations of the conditions at these junctions. They are agreed that the junctions do not present any special danger for school children or other pedestrians.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we shall remind him of those words in days to come?

I will remember.

asked the Minister of Transport to whom the contract has been let for the first part of the new Langley Road.

Tenders for this contract are still under consideration.

The Minister will be aware that one firm, which complained about the construction of the Chiswick Flyover, claims that it has been victimised since by the Minister. Will he not agree that at a time when his name is prominently displayed as part of the title of the firm undertaking a very big contract in this area—which is perhaps not altogether satisfactory—it is extremely important that it should be made abundantly clear that there is no truth whatever in these allegations—if there is no truth—and will he take steps to make certain that that is so when the contract is let?

Although my name is on the title of certain contractors doing the flyover, I have no interest in that firm. I am bound to say that on this viaduct we confined the tendering list to a selected list of firms considered to have the necessary experience. Therefore, every firm not on the list could say that it had been victimised. The firm to which the hon. Member referred has tendered for some jobs, the last as recently as this year. The contract for the Severn Bridge side structure was let at £1¾ million, while the firm tendered at just over £2¾ million, which is 65 per cent. higher. Its tenders have been far too high. There have been £100 million worth of tenders by public advertisement for which the firm has not considered it necessary to tender.

On a point of order. I think that you will agree that this is rather important, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman said that although his name appeared on some sign or other associated with this firm of contractors, he had nothing to do with it. Is it not somewhat improper that the right hon. Gentleman should still allow his name to remain there?

I do not think that that is a point of order. All kinds of considerations might arise, and I would not think of pronouncing about it.

asked the Minister of Transport why he consented to a garage being erected on Hayle Causeway, with entry from, and exit to, the A.30 trunk road, against the advice of the Cornwall Highways Committee

My right hon. Friend has power to direct refusal or restriction of planning permission for developments affecting trunk roads. Our divisional road engineer directed on behalf of my right hon. Friend that it should be a condition of any permission granted for a garage on Hayle Causeway that a garage in the same ownership causing obstruction and danger to traffic on A.30 in Hayle itself should be closed, because there was a balance of advantage in this course. I am unaware that the Cornwall Highways Committee gave any contrary advice.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this matter again, because permission has been given for the garage to be erected in a bird sanctuary, against the advice of the county planning committee as well as the highway authority? Is he aware that there is a good deal of distress about the fact that his Department should have given that authority before consulting the others?

I have looked into this case very carefully, in view of the local interest which it has caused. The precise position is that my right hon. Friend's responsibility in this matter extends not to questions of amenity or bird sanctuaries or anything of that kind, but simply to whether a proposed development will have an adverse effect on trunk road traffic. It is only within the context of that situation that our divisional road engineer took this decision.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date he gave approval to the Coventry Inner Ring Road scheme; what is the estimated cost thereof; and whether he will make a statement on the progress to-date.

Approval in principle was given in 1957. The cost is estimated at £4·2 million. The first section was opened to traffic in December 1959. The second section will probably be opened later this year. Land acquisition is proceeding on the third section, and preliminary discussions are taking place about the fourth section.

Will my hon. Friend bring some pressure to bear on the local authority to try to persuade it to get on with this job a little more expeditiously, especially in view of the fact that the road is only 2¼ miles long in total?

That is a little hard on the Coventry City Council, which has done extremely well with this scheme and is pressing on with it as quickly as it can. We are also doing all we can to help. It is true that this is a comparatively short length of road, but it runs through a very large built-up area, and problems of land acquisition and accommodation works are acute.

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the Marlow Urban District Council about the future of Marlow bridge; and if he will make a statement.

The Marlow Urban District Council has asked us to receive a deputation on this matter. While, of course, we would be willing to do this, we feel that we should have an up-to-date assessment of the traffic in the area. We are, therefore, asking the Buckinghamshire and Berkshire County Councils to carry out a traffic survey at Marlow this summer, and it would seem preferable to defer the visit of a deputation until this has been completed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is nearly three years since a limit of two tons was placed on the bridge, and it is even longer since it became known that the bridge is either to be reconstructed or replaced? Is it not extraordinary that only now have instructions been given for a traffic survey to be carried out? This is causing great inconvenience and difficulty to the residents of Marlow.

There are a great many views about this. My right hon. Friend is faced with the problem of whether to rebuild the existing bridge at a cost of £190,000 or whether it would be better to provide a completely new bridge at £215,000. There are a number of views about that. We must get the facts right first.

This has been before my hon. Friend's Department for a very time. Surely it should not take much longer before a decision is reached one way or another?

During that long time there has been a surprising lack of unanimity amongst local interests concerned about what ought to be done.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce a speed limit on motorways.

Experience so far does not point to the need for a speed limit on motorways.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that motor cars capable of the highest speeds are virtually uninsurable for young drivers? Is not this a practical indication that exceptionally high speeds, although lawful, are regarded as serious insurance risks?

That may well be non sequitur. On this particular motorway we have a traffic engineering committee which has examined the behaviour of traffic very carefully, and so far the committee does not think that a speed limit would be justifiable. It would be illogical to impose one on a road specially built for high speeds whereas there is no speed limit on other trunk roads.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who frequently use the M1 are worried about the relatively few occasions when we see police patrols? Will he enter into urgent discussions with the police authorities on this matter? Is he also aware that in the two road-houses on this road, especially on Saturday nights, there is a certain amount of hooliganism, which some people believe to originate in undue indulgence in alcohol taken before coming on the road?

Order. Speed limits have nothing to do with hooliganism.

Since when we approach the boundaries of local authorities they inform us that speed kills, why should not the right hon. Gentleman limit speed, even on motorways?

I think that if speed kills it depends on the circumstances in which it is applied.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how impressed I am by the superiority of manners on the M1 compared with those on any other highway? It is the highway on which I feel safest.

It is a long time since I have been able to say that I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I disagree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has just said, I think that you stopped my supplementary question because I referred to indulgence in alcohol, and you pointed out that this Question was about speed. My supplementary question, however, pointed out that speed was often engendered because of indulgence in alcohol.

I am sorry. I think that the hon. Gentleman was unjustly frustrated by myself, and I apologise to him and to the House.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the light of the Press comment issued by his Department on 6th June indicating that the proposals of the British Road Federation for the doubling of capital spending on the road programme would have to be considered against the similar large sums required for other national developments, he will now state whether it will be possible for him to announce before the Summer Recess any further plans for large scale road developments in this country over the next five years.

I have already this year announced motorway starts costing over £46½ million in all. I have also informed highway authorities that I am prepared to consider classified road schemes over the next three years costing more than £100 million in grant. I have at present no further announcement to make.

Has my right hon. Friend studied the implications of the statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplating a curtailment of public expenditure? In view of the important productive contribution made by motorways, will he represent to the Chancellor that the new road programme should not in any way be curtailed, and, if possible, should be expanded in the interests of production and of our export industries?

I will see that my right hon. and learned Friend has a note of that supplementary question so that he can take it into account.

While accepting that there is to be an increase in the number of new roads started, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the present programme is adequate for the needs of the country?

The right hon. Gentleman must remember that it is not only a question of cash allocation but also of the resources available. Recently, in certain parts of the country where there is full employment, it has proved difficult to get suitable tenders.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that there is now abundant evidence that the Birmingham Motorway will not serve its full purpose without the Worcester Northern Link Road, he will now give a definite notification as to when the necessary order will be made, together with a timetable indicating when construction will commence and be completed.

An Order establishing the line of this road will be made within a week or two. I hope that construction will start in 1963 and be completed in two years.

Does not that reply mean that the completion of the Worcester Northern Link Road will not be effective until about 1965—more than four years ahead—whereas the Birmingham-South Wales motorway will be completed within a year? As the Worcester Northern Link Road is an essential ingredient in the flow of traffic from Birmingham to South Wales, cannot this Northern Link Road be greatly expedited?

It cannot, for the reasons which I gave in answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in connection with the M.1 extension. We must work within the confines of the statutory processes laid on us by Parliament. There is no way of short-circuiting these without running the risk of causing great damage to the interests of individuals.

The Minister has given that reply on two or three occasions. Is he aware that many of us are as concerned about this as is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Will the Minister consider looking at the statutory provisions to see whether they ought to be brought up to date?

The statutory provisions have recently been examined by my right hon. Friend's Department. We have been obliged to come to the conclusion that unless we are prepared to ride roughshod over the interests of individuals there is virtually no way in which these processes can be curtailed.

Mr. Rankin, to ask Question No. 36.

Does the Minister not realise that this means that we should start earlier?

Order. I am having to be tyrannous because our progress with Questions has been so bad of late.

asked the Minister of Transport if he now expects to re-allocate funds at his disposal in order to increase the amount of grant available to the Devon County Authority for the years 1961–62 and 1962–63 above the figure of £203,000 for the financial year 1960–61.

No, Sir. The three year programme which I have announced reflects the priority for urban schemes which I consider essential.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is an extremely unsatisfactory reply? Does he appreciate that those of us in the West Country consider that we have been having far too small an allocation of the funds available for the improvement of west country roads? Will my right hon. Friend please do something about it?

The Question refers to the Devon County Council. There have been substantial and expensive classified road schemes approved for grant in Plymouth and Exeter, and more are included in the rolling programme. Those are two of the most important towns in Devon.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement about the award of a contract for the prototype nuclear-propelled merchant vessel.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a further statement about the construction of a nuclear propelled merchant ship.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state a date when he will announce his findings on the building of an experimental nuclear-powered ship for commercial purposes.

I regret that I am still not in a position to make a statement.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the design study of this nuclear-powered tanker has been in hand since 1958, three years ago, and that he has now had tenders for at least eleven months? In view of this delay and the importance of this project, can my right hon. Friend undertake to make a statement before the long Recess?

No, I should not like to do that. We have got only limited resources, and it is my duty to use them to the best advantages. It may well be better to use the available money to try to find out what is a really economic reactor.

Has my right hon. Friend now decided that none of the reactors for which tenders were submitted is satisfactory? Is he now waiting for a new reactor either from the Atomic Energy Authority or from some of the private developers? Will he undertake to make a statement so that we shall all know where we are? We certainly do not at the moment.

I am surprised to learn that my hon. Friend does not know where she is. I am bound to say that at the moment there is little to be gained from any such ship, as The Times leader said. It may well be so. Experts have agreed that the reactors proposed would not be economic and show little sign of being so. What I am concerned with is doing the best we can with the limited financial resources at our disposal.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made a policy decision not to go ahead with this, or is he dissatisfied with the design he has in hand?

No. No decision has yet been made. The whole of the factors are being studied.

asked the Minister of Transport what information he has about the transfer of shipping from London Port to the ports of the Common Market countries; and whether he will give the reasons for this.

No figures are available, but I understand that a certain amount of trade may have been diverted from the Port of London to some of the major ports in Common Market countries. There are a number of reasons for this, one of which appears to be their relative freedom from unofficial labour troubles. No doubt the general question is one which the Rochdale Committee will consider in the course of its inquiry.

No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen the statement that nearly one-third of the traffic has already disappeared and that there is great danger to the Port of London. Is he aware that a similar situation is occurring in other ports in the United Kingdom? Is it not said that there is also the question of the inability of those ports to handle big ships of above a certain size, which then go to Continental ports to have their cargoes reloaded into smaller ships to be brought to this country? Has he any information and can anything be done?

The freight rates are a measure of the relative attractiveness of various ports. The Ministry's freight market representative has confirmed that a lower ocean freight rate is usually obtainable for bulk cargoes by ocean ships at Continental ports, such as Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Hamburg, than in respect of discharge in United Kingdom ports, and that the coaster freight rates payable for the movement from the Continental ports to the small United Kingdom East Coast ports do not nullify that advantage in ocean rates.

Is it not also true that we have lost an enormous amount of exports this year through the strikes in the London Docks and that the Continental ports are taking business away from us because they have more modern machinery and because labour on the Continent allows that modern machinery to be used, whereas labour in the London Docks has a more restrictive attitude towards the use of machinery?

Yes, Sir, but it is only fair to say that, apart from labour troubles, the rate of discharge as a whole is somewhat better in the Continental ports, although the United Kingdom ports are not too bad when it comes to the discharge of cargo in bulk. There is another factor, namely, that the Continental ports are sometimes used because only part of the cargo is for the United Kingdom and it pays to send the ship direct to the Continental port and to discharge the main cargo at places such at Rotterdam, where it then goes up the Rhine in barges

Should not the Parliamentary Secretary make this quite clear and, as a representative of the Government, say that the turn-round in the London docks, in spite of any labour troubles which there may or may not be, is among the fastest in the world? Is not the Rochdale Committee, which was set up by the Minister of Transport, empowered to look into not just this question but the whole problem of the management of the docks? Would it not be right to say that we have nothing of which to be ashamed in the London Docks and that their turn-round of shipping is very fast?

It is certainly within the power of the Rochdale Committee to report on this, and it will undoubtedly do so. My information about the rate of turn-round compared with foreign ports is that the results on some of the docks are excellent, but that, unfortunately, they are variable.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of British ships are being built abroad because shipowners can obtain credit facilities there that cannot be obtained in Great Britain; and if he will set up a credit organisation for shipbuilding development in the United Kingdom, such as exists in other countries, in order to enable British shipowners to have their ships constructed in United Kingdom shipyards.

No case has so far been brought to my notice of a British shipowner placing an order abroad simply because of credit terms. We are, however, discussing with the General Council of British Shipping the question of what assistance, if any, is required in the light, among other things, of the comments in the report of the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is no desire among shipowners for a Government subvention but for credit facilities? Is he also aware that, because of the lack of these facilities, I am told that ships are going to the Continent? Could he not consider some method similar to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act which would enable shipowners to get credit for a certain number of years?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very open-minded about giving help where needed. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any example of an order going abroad exclusively for credit reasons, I should be grateful if he would give me the information.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of us are beginning to wonder for which country he is Minister of Shipping? Does not he know that there are many ports along the West Coast, especially in South Wales, which are absolutely trouble-free and give the fastest turn-rounds anywhere?

That seems to be quite a different topic.

I am sorry if I did not convey the point, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask the Minister—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman asks a question which is out of order he must bear the consequences.

My hon. Friend mentioned a discussion with the Chamber of Shipping. When does he expect to come to any conclusions and announce a constructive Government policy on this matter?

I am afraid that I can only say—as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in his consideration of the restrictions about to be imposed on British shipping by the Canadian Government he will ascertain whether they will apply to United States of America and other foreign shipping; and if he will make a statement.

Section 671 of the Canada Shipping Act already provides that ships other than British ships shall not transport goods between one Canadian port and another except in special circumstances for which provision is made in Section 673.

As these restrictions are likely to have a very detrimental effect on a certain class of British shipping, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman reply to my Question and say whether United States shipping is under similar restrictions to other foreign shipping in these waters?

Yes. My reply meant that under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act ships other than British ships are, as a general rule, already debarred from participation in the Canadian coastal trade. There is provision for special exceptions. I understand that foreign ships carry very little coastal traffic in the area in question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement on what will be the financial and other repercussions on the United Kingdom as a result of the modifications proposed by Canada to the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement.

The direct financial consequences of the Canadian proposals are not in themselves very serious for United Kingdom shipping companies. But, of course, any restrictions on the freedom of shipping are to be deplored because such examples are readily followed.

The financial effect may not be of great consequence, but can the Minister say exactly what will be the value of the port to port trade within the Great Lakes area which will be affected? Can he also tell us what will be the position of South Africa in this variation of the Agreement, as she was a member of the Commonwealth when her signature was appended to the Agreement in 1931? Now that she is outside the Commonwealth, can she prevent the Agreement being modified?

In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I cannot at present give an exact figure of the estimated cost. It is now being examined by the General Council of British Shipping. I can only repeat that, fortunately, it is not itself a very serious figure. As regards the second part of the question, Article 15 of the Common wealth Merchant Shipping Agreement requires that the Canadian modification should be circulated by the United Kingdom to the other signatories, and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, South Africa was one of them, as also was the Irish Free State. The legal position of those two countries is now being examined.

asked the Minister of Transport if consultations with the Canadian Government in advance of a modification of the Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement have been completed; and if he will make a statement.

We are examining the Canadian Government's recent proposal and hope to send them our comments quite soon.

Is it not the case that these proposals have been discussed for some considerable time, and that there has been a perfectly reasonable time in which the Government could have made recommendations? Has this been done? If not, why not?

No, Sir. We had no previous consultation, and naturally we would have preferred to have discussed the proposals with the Canadian Government before that public announcement was made.

Are these comments which are to be addressed to the Canadian Government based on consultations with the General Council of British Shipping?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Transport when he will be in a position to introduce the regulations he is contemplating concerning long, wide and projecting loads and mobile cranes.

asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents involving travelling cranes in transit in collision with other vehicles have occurred within the past 12 months; and when he proposes to lay regulations on this subject before Parliament.

I regret that the precise information asked for is not available, but I know of 13 accidents involving mobile cranes and double-deck buses since April, 1960. Our proposals for regulating the movement of long and projecting loads met with considerable opposition, but as a result of meetings with the interests concerned it seems probable that they can be so modified as to reduce the burden on industry without impairing their effectiveness. Some complex technical points are involved and the drafting of the regulations will inevitably take time.

Whilst appreciating that the framing of these regulations is a complex business, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recalls that we in Nottingham raised this matter over three years ago and that when his hon. Friend was replying to a Question similar to this five months ago he said that his right hon. Friend needed no urging in the matter and was on the point of announcing his decision? Does my right hon. Friend also know that at almost exactly the time as that Answer was being given to me the jib of one of these mobile cranes was tearing out the top deck of a passenger bus in my constituency? Would my right hon. Friend therefore view the matter with rather greater urgency?

We hoped to arrive at an early decision, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the road hauliers and the industry generally raised most violent objections to the regulations which we proposed and I was in honour bound to consult them to see whether we could achieve our objective without imposing intolerable burdens on industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a list of eight accidents which have occurred in the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne since the middle of 1959 from this cause? Is he aware that in July, 1957, the M.P.T.A. raised this matter with him and that in February of this year he said that regulations would be laid at a very early date? When will the right hon. Gentleman do something? There has been one fatal accident and scores of other accidents, eight of them in my constituency.

I was not here in 1957 to receive the petition. I shall be glad to have the hon. Member's list. This is a very complex matter and if we are not very careful in framing our regulations we shall impose a great burden on industry which will raise costs. If I can achieve both efficiency in industry and at the same time get the smoothness in the flow of traffic that I am after, surely that is the best thing to do.

asked the Minister of Transport if in the interests of promoting road safety, he will provide a grant to motor-cycle clubs to enable them to extend tuition to drivers of motor-cycles and scooters.

We are already making a grant to the Royal Automobile Club of up to £3,000 a year towards the cost of administering the R.A.C./A.C.U. Scheme for training learner motor cyclists and scooter riders. We are at the moment considering proposals for the expansion of this scheme.

While welcoming that reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that these motor-cycle clubs, which in a quite voluntary way are doing this training, are finding it very difficult to meet their financial costs? In view of the recent statement by the Minister that twice as many motor-cycle accidents take place in the first six months of driving as in later years, may I ask whether, from the point of view of safety, the hon. Gentleman would consider a very generous contribution to those clubs which are training motorcyclists?

If the hon. Member is suggesting that we should make a direct grant to individual clubs, apart from the R.A.C./A.C.U. Scheme to which I referred in my Answer, this would entail many difficulties. In any event, it is more convenient for us to make a grant, as we do now, to the central body which conducts this kind of training.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider introducing a system of graduated driving tests which would make some allowance for the speed and power of the vehicle concerned.

The load of work at present being carried by the driving test organisation makes any form of further test impracticable for the time being. But some form of further test might well contribute to road safety, and I am keeping my hon. Friend's proposal under review.

Will my right hon. Friend forgive me if I say that I regard that Answer as being rather stone-walling? Does he not think that the present system of tests is quite inadequate and that it fails wholly even to touch upon the ability of a young driver to drive a motor car at speeds up to 60, 70 or 80 miles an hour and that, as such, it is becoming a complete farce, out of date and silly? Is he aware that there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that this is the cause of many accidents? May I hope that he takes the matter more seriously?

My hon. Friend is a little too indignant. A better idea than a system of graduated driving tests might be a system of graduated driving licences, which is a different proposition altogether.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the motor industry about the desirability of fitting a duplicate braking system on motor cars.

All cars are at present required to have two independent means of brake operation; if one fails there must still be sufficient braking power to bring the vehicle to rest. My technical officers started discussions with the motor industry same time ago about the possible revision of current requirements. In these discussions the merits of divided service brake systems will be given full weight.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of accidents have occurred through a failure of the hydraulic braking system, and that perhaps he is mistaken in supposing that I am referring also to the hand brake. Is the Minister aware that in the new Type "E" Jaguar cars, for example, a duplicate hydraulic system is provided at very little extra cost? Would not such a system make an important contribution to road safety?

Those considerations are being discussed between my Department and the trade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that his reply is correct? Is he not aware that the hand brake is inadequate to stop heavy commercial vehicles going down a steep decline if there is a faulty hydraulic braking system?

No, Sir. I think that my reply was absolutely correct.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will have discussions with the motor industry regarding the fitting of green lights at the rear of heavy goods vehicles to indicate to the driver of a car following them that it is safe to pass.

The decision to overtake must always be that of the following driver, and I think a device of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend might well increase rather than decrease any risk which might be involved.

I agree that it is the decision of the following driver, but the provision of a light such as I have suggested would at least indicate to him that it was safe to pull out from behind a heavy lorry to see whether he could pass without immediately meeting another vehicle. Would not a system of that kind make a contribution to preventing congestion behind these very tall and heavy goods vehicles?

I agree that that is a consideration to be borne in mind, but I think that there would be greater safety by always placing the obligation to pass on the driver who wants to pass so that he does not have to rely on some signal given by another driver in front of him. It was for that reason that we dropped from the Highway Code the signal which meant, "I am willing to be overtaken"

Is the Minister aware that the first step is to paint the back of these big vehicles white so that drivers will go round them instead of trying to go through them?

asked the Minister of Transport if he has now given further consideration to the adequacy of the regulations governing the rear lighting of commercial vehicles.

We are satisfied that the statutory twin rear lights and twin reflectors required by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1957, for commercial vehicles are adequate, provided, of course, that they are satisfactorily maintained. The whole question of the lighting of vehicles generally is now under close review, and we are at present studying the comments we have received on proposals for the carriage of additional side lights by vehicles over 40 ft. in length, and additional lights and other markings for vehicles carrying projecting loads.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is common experience to come up on slow traffic, lorries and so on, with dim, inadequate, and badly sited lighting? Following his right hon. Friend's reply to my last Question, is he not aware that a lorry travelling at 40 miles an hour can be lawfully overtaken at a relative overtaking speed of about 100 miles an hour? Does he not see great danger in this, and agree that some urgent action is necessary to improve rear lighting on heavy vehicles?

This is not a simple matter. As I said in my original Answer, the requirement of the law if fully observed should cause none of the difficulties to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred. This is an enforcement problem, but we are going into the whole question of the lighting of vehicles, and we shall make a statement about it as soon as we can.

asked the Minister of Transport how long it is estimated that the completion of the Victoria Line would take from the date on which its construction is authorised.

About six years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of his predecessors told the House on 5th June, 1957, that he had been approached by the British Transport Commission regarding the construction of this line and was considering the financial problems which it posed? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, bear in mind that about four years have already been lost while decisions have not yet been reached?

Yes, Sir; I will bear that in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the re-assessment of the requirements of the railways as a whole by the new Chairman of the British Transport Commission now enables him to make a statement about the future of the Victoria Line.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position, consequent upon the reassessment of railway requirements undertaken by the new Chairman of the British Transport Commission, to make a statement as to his intentions in respect of the Victoria Line.

The requirements of the railways as a whole are still being examined, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the proposed Victoria Line.

Following the reference which I have already made to the assurance given by one of his predecessors that he was looking at the financial problem in June, 1957, does my right hon. Friend realise that another of his predecessors said in February, 1959, that he had referred the matter to the London Travel Committee? Does my right hon. Friend realise that in July, 1959, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told the House that his right hon. Friend would make a decision as soon as possible after receiving the report of the London Travel Committee? Does he realise that in March, 1960, having received the report, he himself told us that the whole of the railway system underground and above ground was being re-examined, and that recently he told us that the matter must await Dr. Beeching's review? Does he further realise that an awful lot of people throughout the north-east London area are being exasperated by this constant procrastination?

I shall study most carefully what my hon. Friend has said.

We really shall never make progress with Questions if hon. Members make what are virtually speeches instead of asking questions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, when he has received Dr. Beeching's report and considered it—which I suppose may take a year—the next excuse will be for delay over a decision on this project?

Not until I receive the report.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Although, Sir Gordon, in your wisdom, you have not selected them, my hon. Friends tabled new Clauses the effect of which would be to give, in the one case, an Income Tax incentive, and, in the other, a Profits Tax incentive, to exporters from this country. I have not found myself able to support those new Clauses, but here is an entirely different Clause with a different intent. The intention is to remove an export tax deterrent, and that is a completely different thing.

As I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will know, these light hydrocarbon oils are used industrially for the manufacture of paints and thinners, in the making of linoleum and for rubber manufactures of all kinds. The duty, which is a revenue duty, was first introduced in 1928 at the low rate of 4d. a gallon. Over the years it has risen until it is now 2s. 6d. a gallon.

That revenue duty charged in this country is in contradistinction to the treatment of the same oils in countries all over the world. In countries competing with ours in the markets of the world in the manufacture of these items there is either no revenue tax at all, or a very small one. In the E.F.T.A. countries, for example, relief in respect of a duty of this kind varies from 65 per cent. to 100 per cent. in the Common Market countries the relief extends from 40 per cent. to 100 per cent. In the other countries of the Commonwealth the relief is 95 per cent. to 100 per cent., and in America it is 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.

We alone as industrial users of these light oils put these heavy duties upon them. The duty amounts to 2s. 6d. a gallon. They are an important component part in the manufacture of many of these articles. The 2s. 6d. a gallon duty is equivalent to Is. 3d. a gallon on paint. In the case of thinners, the element in from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon.

This case is not new. It will not be new to hon. Members who have been Members of Parliament for a number of years. They will be familiar with the arguments against the introduction of this duty. The main argument is that the United Kingdom can get a full rebate in respect of exports and that in the home trade there is a protective duty. I do not think that either of those arguments is a complete answer.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be familiar with paint used on motor cars which are exported and on plant and machinery which is exported. It is almost impossible to decide what part of the cost of the motor car consists of the light hydrocarbon oils used in the manufacture of the paint which covers the cars. Another example is the rubber manufacturer who supplies to a boot manufacturer rubber-proofed linings. The solvent used to make the rubber solution stick to the linings contains a proportion of these light hydrocarbon oils. That provides a very great difficulty for the export trade.

In the home trade, there is a protective tariff which varies from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent. I am speaking here of imports to this country of goods using these oils. Of that 10 per cent. or 12½ per cent., 5 per cent. ad valorem is deemed to be the revenue duty equivalent to the United Kingdom producers' 2s. 6d. per gallon. Obviously, that is insufficient. It is not a full protection. By our agreements with the E.F.T.A. countries the protective duties will be progressively reduced, which means that those countries' competitive ability will be steadily increased.

It seems quite clear, therefore, that our export trade is not sufficiently protected by the drawback provisions. It seems that the home trade is not sufficiently protected against the import of these goods because the protective tariff is not sufficiently high. I think that the question of the size of the burden of this duty is relevant. In the latest year for which I have figures available, 1959–60, this revenue tax brought in about £11 million. I do not want to disturb the balance of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Therefore, this new Clause does not ask that he should give up the whole £11 million, which would be too big a sum for him to afford on this occasion. The new Clause is not mandatory, but is permissive to the Treasury to make orders in certain circumstances.

It is worth pointing out that the concession—if that is the right term—the relief, for which the Clause asks is not in any way unique. Industrial users of alcohol pay no spirit duty, in contradistinction to those of us who use alcohol for a different purpose. If accepted, this Clause would simply put the light hydrocarbon oils used for industrial purposes on exactly the same footing as alcohol used for similar purposes.

I said that I did not feel able to support my hon. Friends in asking for an Income Tax-Profits Tax export subsidy. There are two very good reasons for that. One is that such a method would simply he asking for retaliatory measures by other countries. Secondly, as since the war we have done our best to persuade countries overseas to reduce the subsidies they have been giving to their export trades—and our action has met with considerable success—if, in 1961, we gave such an Income Tax export rebate or subsidy, surely we would again earn the name which used to apply to us, "Perfidious Albion".

For that reason, I did not feel able to support my hon. Friends in their very laudable desire, but here we have exactly the opposite position. We are not asking for an export subsidy that some other countries do not give to their exporters. We have deliberately handicapped our exporters in a way which no other competing country has done. This new Clause asks for a removal of that handicap.

Some may say: why should the industrial users of light hydrocarbon oils be singled out for relief in this way—what about the road haulage industry? There are two very big differences in principle between road haulage users of spirit and the use of light hydrocarbon oils in manufactures. The first is that the road spirit tax is a general tax on distribution spread over the whole field of manufacture at all stages. In contrast, the revenue duty on industrial light oils is a tax on a specific range of products. On the raw material side, it is a direct addition to production costs. There are big differences there. Secondly, the users of light hydrocarbon oils who pay the 2s. 6d. revenue duty also pay the road spirit duty when they distribute their goods. I do not think that there is a parallel there.

For these reasons I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to accept this new Clause. We are not asking for any special treatment for users of light industrial oils, but only that our taxation policy on these light oils should be put on a par with the taxation policies of our competitors the world over. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to grasp this chance of helping the export trade, not by a subsidy which might invite retaliation, but by removing a tax penalty. In view of decreasing profit margins, which, we know, are coming in greater measure today, and increasing competition from the E.F.T.A. countries now in sight, and perhaps round the corner from Common Market countries, it is very difficult for the users of these oils to maintain their existing trade, and there are diminishing chances for them to build it up in future.

I rise not to comment on the merits or otherwise of the new Clause, although I have always felt that there is a strong case for the kind of argument which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has put forward. I think that it is pertinent to draw the Committee's attention to some of the background to the pressure put on hon. Members to support the Clause, because I think that all of us are growing more concerned about the activities of extra-Parliamentary pressure groups, of which more and more evidence is being produced in the Press as time goes on. I think that we all feel, as Members of the House, that there ought to be very careful scrutiny of some extra-Parliamentary activities.

In saying that, I imply no reflection whatever on any of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have signed the now Clause. Every one of them is known individually to all of us. We all know them to be hon. Members who would make no response to outside pressures other than perhaps to be likely to react in the direction opposite to that which was intended by the pressuring groups. Indeed, I have discussed this matter privately, and I gave notice to as many of the signatories as I could, and I found that they were not only completely free of these pressures and in no way involved in them, but, also, that they have a long record, over many years, of tabling this or a similar Clause before these pressures began. I hope that that will be clearly understood.

My attention has been drawn to a letter to one of my right hon. Friends referring to the new Clause on the Notice Paper last year, saying that that Clause had not been called and continuing:

"Representations along similar lines have again been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my Committee"—

this is a committee which apparently has been set up in the trade to further this Clause—

"hope that you will once more be willing to support a Clause which, it is hoped, will in due course appear on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the pending Finance Bill."

There is nothing wrong with that. We all receive letters almost every day throughout the hunting season of the Chancellor suggesting that we should support Clauses or Amendments to the Finance Bill. It is probable that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are currently in receipt of circulars from the Sand and Gravel Association which is always, quite properly, active at this time of the year. There can be no complaint about that. The cinema industry used to do it, and I can think of many other examples.

This letter continues:

"The Committee also feel that it would greatly assist their case if they had the advantage of a parliamentary panel on light industrial oils, the members of which they could consult from time to time and to whom they would be glad to furnish all relevant information for use in any parliamentary debate in the event of the new Clause being called. It is hoped that the nucleus of the panel will consist of the Members of Parliament who supported the new Clause a year ago and a few additional Members who have shown particular interest in the use of light hydrocarbon oils by manufacturers in various parts of the country. I am accordingly asked by the Committee to say that they would appreciate it if you could find time to attend a small buffet luncheon party at the House of Commons"

on a particular day at a particular time and in a particular room.

I do not suggest, nor would anyone else, that there is a single hon. Member who can be influenced in his Parliamentary attitude by the price of a lunch. I am sure that we are all agreed about that. On the other hand, I feel that when there is hospitality of this kind hon. Members are all filled with a certain degree of bonhomie. Even the Chancellor has it on his day. Naturally, when we meet people and spend time in their company for an hour or two there is perhaps a subconscious desire to help them with whatever proposal they are putting forward. The Chancellor has to learn to say "No". He has said almost nothing else throughout the Bill. One imagines that in the months before the Budget and since he has had to receive many deputations and has had to say that fairly constantly all along the line, as have his two colleagues in the Treasury.

But I felt that it was worth while raising this point because of the letter from this industrial group. [HON MEMBERS: "Who is it?"] It is the Industrial Light Oils Committee. I felt that it was not satisfactory for industrial groups outside to approach hon. Members and to say, "We want to form a Parliamentary panel with a view to the tabling of a new Clause and to getting support for this Clause", and then to say, "It will be lubricated with a lunch". In this case it appears to have been a very austere lunch.

The right hon. Gentleman is very generous in indicating that his shafts are not directed at any of those hon. Members who put their names to the Motion. It is, therefore, obvious that he is not directing any of his remarks at me. I am sure that he knows me well enough to know that I am not in the least interested in pressures of any kind, whether they come from just in front of me in the House or from outside. I received a copy of that letter, and I do not see why there should be any secret about it: my name appears on it, although the right hon. Gentleman was good enough not to mention the fact. My name appears at the bottom of the letter as the sponsor of the lunch which this committee wished to hold.

I read that letter in a completely different manner from that in which the right hon. Gentleman read it. He spoke as though this Parliamentary panel were designed to put a new Clause on the Notice Paper. I think that if he goes back to the letter he will see that the word "information" is used. I read that letter as suggesting that this body, which consists of users or manufacturers of oils which are used in very technical processes, about which many hon. Members are not well informed, had the object of making sure that some of us who took part in the debate in the House on this very important subject would have some idea of what the subject was about. Occasionally, I feel that our debates serve a more useful purpose if some hon. Members who take part in them know something about the subject on which they are talking.

Particularly after the two or three hours which we spent last night, I agree very much with what the hon. Member said. If it needs saying, I make it plain that I have been a colleague of the hon. Member for long enough on a very important Select Committee of the House for me not to need to say that I intended no reflection whatever on him. It is a very good thing that we receive information from outside, but when it is a question of a new Clause to the Finance Bill, the Chancellor will agree that hon. Members are usually well briefed with the case for reductions in taxation but are not usually briefed in the opposite direction. That is usually left to be handled by the Chancellor and his colleagues.

My right hon. Friend who received that letter was very distressed by it. He felt that it was almost a question of Privilege. I did not take that view, and I did not seek to raise it in that connection. But we are seeing more and more Motions on the Order Paper which are bound to benefit particular groups, most, if not all, I am certain, put on the Order Paper in a spirit of complete innocence and helpfulness, usually because of constituency interests. We are all involved in them.

I think that it has been worth raising the point. The reference to a Parliamentary panel being serviced in this way from outside, to my mind at any rate, contains the seeds of danger. I am convinced that there are no dangers in this Clause, as I have said, and I am certain that the pressure did not decide who signed the Clause. All the hon. Members who have signed it have signed a similar Clause in past years, before these forms of pressure, if that is the right word, were developed.

My right hon. Friend received a second letter which read:

"We were sorry that you were unable to attend our small luncheon party in the House of Commons on Tuesday. You may be interested to know that arrangements have now been completed for the tabling of a Clause on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the lines recommended by my Committee. They would appreciate it it you would be so good as to add your name to the new Clause."

I do not think that this is quite what we want to see in our proceedings on the Finance Bill. I do not want to put it higher than that. I do not think this compares with some of the highly improper pressures which I think are being put on hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons by some public relations firms. We are seeing far too much evidence of it, in relation to both domestic and international and colonial affairs. I do not think that this compares with that, but there has undoubtedly been, over the past two years, a development of this new profession, if we can call it that. It is an extremely degrading profession. I think that "corruption" is too strong a word. It is a rather squalid procedure which is developing. This is not of the same order as some of the things about which complaints have been made in the House of Commons.

Since this was the first case to be brought to my attention which might, however indirectly or remotely—perhaps with a new Member of Parliament—influence the signatures or the speeches or even the votes, I thought that it ought to be raised so that hon. Members could let it be known that we are perfectly capable of conducting our debates on the Finance Bill. We are not ungrateful for the considerable assistance we receive from industrial organisations—firms, trade associations, development councils, and the rest—which are never backward in seeing that we have the necessary information. The wastepaper baskets in this building would bear full testimony to the truth of what I am saying.

While we are grateful to them, I thought it was worth while raising this so that, if any public relations firms whose methods are a good deal less scrupulous than the industrialists forming this body are thinking of operating in this way, or if anyone is thinking of signing up a public relations firm for the purpose of influencing the conduct of Finance Bills in the future, they will be warned off. We should give a clear indication that we will not tolerate it.

One thing is clear. There is no professional help in this case. This is not a case of an organisation signing up one of the public relations advisory bodies to act on behalf of this industry. These are genuine industrialists who feel that they have a strong case. I must say that I agree with them in this, just as the hon. Member for Langstone agrees with them. They probably felt that this was the most convenient way of briefing hon. Members who might be concerned. Anyone receiving letters of this kind, first asking him to a lunch and then saying, "We have put down a Motion. Will you add your name to it?" is bound to be a little concerned.

What I am concerned about is not so much this particular case, in which I am certain that no harm has been done, because of the individuals involved. I am concerned about the possible developments if industrialists feel that they have to hire public relations outfits as their only way of approaching Members of Parliament in order to get appropriate new Clauses tabled on the Finance Bill.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has tabled a number of Amendments, and the hon. Member for Langstone, who has, perhaps, sponsored more Amendments in the past few years than any other hon. Member—he used to be with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot); they are a partnership in these respects—have never required the assistance of any public relations firms to know what needed to be tabled.